Comments on: What does Beauregard have against open government?

By: walt moffett

walt moffett — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:04:56 +0000

Del, regarding your last sentence, we’ll see it in 2009.

By: Del

Del — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:14:27 +0000

The Mobile Register covered this in their “Political Skinny” column this morning. Sessions:

“I think presidents and former presidents have some right to have personal communications that are not disclosed and we’ve always recognized that,” the Mobile Republican said Thursday when asked why he stopped a quick vote on the bill earlier in the week. Asked whether the White House asked him to do so, he replied, ‘Basically, yes.”

So, there you have it.

Yes, Walt, I read a little Google and apparently they can overturn a hold with a cloture vote, but it’s never done because it would be rude or something. And yes, I’m sure Dem presidents have a lot to lose too—although none of them seem to have been willing to go quite so far to make sure that tick tock, the game is locked.

By: walt moffett

walt moffett — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:37:52 +0000

From the fine article, it appears not. Reid brought it up for a vote under the “unanimous consent rule”, Sessions objected, thus no unanimous consent. Next step would be for Reid to take the bull by the horns under different rules. My guess, he will not, since the other side takes the rap for the bills failure, he and his get points for bringing up and oh BTW the bill’s demise would benefit Clinton, Gore, and Carter. Could be bad if say a note from Gore to an Exxon PAC turns up thanking them for their donation.

Maybe I am too cynical and too ready to say the fight is fixed .

By: Del

Del — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:55:49 +0000

Is there any way to trump a “hold”? Or does W still get to hang onto his secrets as long as there is one senator loyal to him?

Jo Bonner voting with the Dems. Huh.

And this part just seems silly: “Under Bush’s executive order, if a former president asks the current president to object to the release of a record on the grounds of executive privilege, the current president must back that claim.” I mean, what’s to stop “current Presidents” of the future from signing their own executive orders to release whatever they darn well please, no matter what former Presidents might request?