Join 3,427 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Add Math to Bush Administration Failings
November 14, 2008 6:48 AM   Subscribe

Dems eye midnight regulations reversal. Congressional Democrats are eyeing a little-known, Clinton-era law as a way to reverse Bush administration midnight regulations — even ones that have already taken effect. “Fortunately, [the White House] made a mistake,” said a top Senate Democratic aide.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

It could take Obama years to undo climate rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office — the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.
posted by netbros (76 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
The White House made a mistake? I find that hard to believe!
posted by you just lost the game at 6:53 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


White House didn't make a mistake.

Last May, a senior Democrat made a call to Dick Cheney: "If McCain makes it in, you have no worries. If we make it in, well, if you "accidentally" flub the date on this, you'll disappoint some of your Party's biggest backers, but hey, you can explain it was a fuck-up. And in exchange, I'll make sure you both get 48 hours warning of your impending arrests, and that any private flights to Asuncion aren't grounded."
posted by orthogonality at 7:04 AM on November 14, 2008 [4 favorites]


This is good stuff. Now let's see if we can dig up some obscure rule that overturns last minute presidential pardons.
posted by reformedjerk at 7:04 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Bush incompetence finally paying off.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:10 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


White House didn't make a mistake.

I doubt this. If the neo-con conspiracy was a well-oiled machine of lawful and competent evil, they wouldn't have just got their asses kicked.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:17 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


reformedjerk writes "Now let's see if we can dig up some obscure rule that overturns last minute presidential pardons."

It's a plenary power, irreversible and not subject to oversight.

Which is why Nancy Pelosi shouldn't have taken impeachment off the table. On the bright side, a pardoned person can't plead the 5th for something he's been pardoned for. And lying under oath is a separate and distinct offense.
posted by orthogonality at 7:22 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


On the bright side, a pardoned person can't plead the 5th for something he's been pardoned for.

Imagine the fun - The O man says 'Ok - EVERYONE can get a pardon for whatever they have done that they have not been charged for. Ya all got 14 days to confess in full to the "truth and stay outta jail free" commission. All confessions will be made public at "realchange?.gov"' (all would seem not to need Congresses blessing too,)

Anyone who didn't confess and is fingered by a confessor would run the risk of jail time. And think of all that dirty laundry....the shaudenfrade overload would cause many a black heart to explode - even mine little cynical heart.
posted by rough ashlar at 7:35 AM on November 14, 2008 [11 favorites]


The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to review every new federal regulation issued by the government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, overrule a regulation.

Every new regulation. If you are removing regulations, does that count?
posted by DU at 7:41 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Anyone who didn't confess and is fingered by a confessor would run the risk of jail time.

I'm confused, which administration are the fascists now?
posted by b1tr0t at 7:53 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


We want pardons. A pardon means no risk of criminal punishment, which means that nobody can invoke the Fifth Amendment. Which means they have to answer questions under oath.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:07 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm confused, which administration are the fascists now?

Gosh, you are confused.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:08 AM on November 14, 2008 [5 favorites]


I doubt this. If the neo-con conspiracy was a well-oiled machine of lawful and competent evil, they wouldn't have just got their asses kicked.

I'd say that it's because it was a well-oiled machine of lawful and competent evil that they got their asses kicked.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:11 AM on November 14, 2008


I'm confused,

Good thing I'm here to clear that up for ya.

which administration are the fascists now?

1) This statement assumes that there are major differences between administrations/parties
2) Once you get clear what a 'fascist' is - then you can answer your question.

George Orwell on Fascism
"But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."

You are welcome.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:12 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


What I really want is for Obama to make drinking hard liquor in an afternoon business meeting acceptable again.
posted by oddman at 8:15 AM on November 14, 2008 [10 favorites]


We want pardons

There needs to be the follow-up and locking away of the un-pardoned co-conspiators. Then laws/oversight created to prevent such abuses in the future - like FISA was a reaction to Nixon.

Open, public confessions creates the public pressure for the changes.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:18 AM on November 14, 2008


What I really want is for Obama to make drinking hard liquor in an afternoon business meeting acceptable again.

Yes we ffffuucking cccan!
posted by ob at 8:18 AM on November 14, 2008 [11 favorites]


I don't get why punishing lawbreakers is fascist if you first provide a grace period to confess in.
posted by DU at 8:20 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


On the bright side, a pardoned person can't plead the 5th for something he's been pardoned for. And lying under oath is a separate and distinct offense.

This is true as far as I know. Once the pardons go through, they'll have to testify to what they did. And not only that, but (again, as far as I know) there's a good chance bush will overlook something and not pardon everything everyone did. And then, once people are forced to testify about the stuff they did get pardoned for, we'll find out about the stuff they didn't get pardoned for.

And if they lie, then they can go to jail for perjury.

Now, on the other hand, it bush could try a 'blanket pardon' -- pardoning everyone they can think of for anything they may have done but my guess is a pardon like that could at least be challenged, and maybe found to be unconstitutional or something.

That said, I don't much is likely to happen. The Washington establishment is rallying around their dear friends.
posted by delmoi at 8:24 AM on November 14, 2008


It seems that as "socialism" is any act spending taxes where we don't want them spent, "fascism" is any political act we personally find distasteful. Reminds me of an uncle who would angrily call a waiter a Gestapo for accidentally giving him a dirty fork.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:26 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm confused, which administration are the fascists now?

The ones who committed crimes they need to be pre-pardoned for. PUNISHING LAWBREAKERS IS NOT FASCIST unless the laws are unreasonable. Laws intended to keep the Rulers of this country from lying, cheating and hurting and/or killing people are always reasonable.

If you can't understand that, then feel free to join the Fascists.
posted by wendell at 8:26 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


You want these regs to go away quickly without this Congressional review deal, here's how it works:

January 20, 2009: President Obama issues Presidential Directive #1 - Regulatory Non-compliance Enforcement Policy

January 21, 2009 (because Fed offices are closed for on the 20th): Each regulatory body that issued these crappy regs submits new interim final regs for OMB review and publication in the Federal Register. Interim final rules go into effect as soon as they are published. In the mean time you have a general non-enforcement policy in place by Presidential Directive #1. Badda-bing, badda-boom.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:32 AM on November 14, 2008


Interesting that the act is referred to as a Clinton era law as though Clinton was the mover and shaker behind it. If you look at the last link it says it is part of "Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996." This was passed by a Republican Congress to rein in Clinton. It was like the Republican desire to eliminate the filibuster - because the Democrats will never be in charge of Congress again.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:34 AM on November 14, 2008


Once the pardons go through, they'll have to testify to what they did.

My memory is not what it used to be - but the list of 'the president pardoned X' - 'X then testified on the pardon subject' seems short.

Like 0 listed items.

But again, my memory is not what it used to be.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:34 AM on November 14, 2008


bush could try a 'blanket pardon'

What if Bush offers no pardons on the way out the door?

http://pardonpower.com/ looks to be a good source for watching who's gonna be who in the Jan 2009 news cycle.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:41 AM on November 14, 2008


Anyone who didn't confess and is fingered by a confessor would run the risk of jail time.

"I saw Goody Osburn with the devil!"
posted by roystgnr at 8:58 AM on November 14, 2008 [10 favorites]


You want these regs to go away quickly without this Congressional review deal, here's how it works:

Signing statement. We know the Republicans won't stand in the way of The Commander in Chief during wartime, right?
posted by DU at 9:03 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Anyone who didn't confess and is fingered by a confessor would run the risk of jail time.

Yes, trying to find out who committed actual wrongdoing through testimony is exactly analogous to witch hunts, just as regular policework is exactly analogous to the Spanish Inquisition. This is why justice is inherently evil and must be mocked with lazy thinking and inapt parallels at every turn.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:04 AM on November 14, 2008 [10 favorites]


Whoops. That comment was in response to: "I saw Goody Osburn with the devil!"
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:04 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


What I really want is for Obama to make drinking hard liquor in an afternoon business meeting acceptable again.

I think Don Draper and the other fine folks at Sterling Cooper have already done that.
posted by Dr. Zira at 9:06 AM on November 14, 2008


I have trouble believing that anyone above a certain income/influence level is ever punished for anything.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 9:17 AM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: a well-oiled machine of lawful and competent evil.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:18 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Man, that pardonpower guy is one angry sonofabitch.

"This much is clear as Benjamin describes the "Obama Plan." It would "emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution" (Translation: it would revel in slander, innuendo and partisan demonization. You know, the politics of change)."
posted by contessa at 9:34 AM on November 14, 2008


You're a fascist! Get them to print you a t-shirt with "fascist" on it!
posted by EarBucket at 9:46 AM on November 14, 2008


"I have trouble believing that anyone above a certain income/influence level is ever punished for anything."

Good, you are finally beginning to understand how it works. Everything else is simply window dressing...
posted by jim in austin at 10:05 AM on November 14, 2008


The December issue of Harpers has an article about prosecuting the Bush administration, by Scott Horton. (Justice After Bush) I haven't got to read it yet, but it's looking HYPE. Scott Horton is fucking awesome.
posted by chunking express at 10:41 AM on November 14, 2008


If the neo-con conspiracy was a well-oiled machine of lawful and competent evil, they wouldn't have just got their asses kicked.

You don't need a well-oiled machine to get your loot on, you just need time, opportunity and a complete lack of morals.
posted by ryoshu at 10:41 AM on November 14, 2008


You don't need a well-oiled machine to get your loot on, you just need time, opportunity and a complete lack of morals.

You give me hope yet.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:49 AM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ok, so, I'm trying to follow this but I'm really lost. Mostly because I am just as bad at math as the Bush administration. (Honestly, we ought to be making these pies higher.)

So, they thought they needed to get things in by Nov. 1, but that really means that it's within the window to be overturned? So they should have done it sooner? But some Democrat called Cheney and told him that he was going to take his lunch money?

I get that the bottom line is that Prez. Obama can repeal a lot of the crap that Bush is trying to shove in at the last minute, which is awesome, but the details are TOTALLY over my head.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:50 AM on November 14, 2008


Then laws/oversight created to prevent such abuses in the future - like FISA was a reaction to Nixon.

Yeah, and that did a fat lot of good.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:51 AM on November 14, 2008


chunking express: Do you maybe have actual scans of the article? Harpers insists that it's for subscribers only. Jerks.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:51 AM on November 14, 2008


A pardoned person can't plead the 5th for something he's been pardoned for.

I thought that it was possible to issue pardons without specifying crimes. Crazy, I know, but did I really imagine that?
posted by rokusan at 11:17 AM on November 14, 2008


I appreciate the desire to see people tried for their quite evident criminal activities, and really hope this happens. what I cannot really see -- I'll be happy to be proven wrong -- how newly sworn in President Obama and the new Democratic Congress would actually start a long process (say, a year or more) of investigations, hearings and trials while the economy tanks even more than it did up to now and two wars are raging.

The Republicans had the luxury of peace and prosperity while they crucified Clinton for getting his cock sucked by a very willing woman of legal age, remember. also, the "liberal" US media -- unlike what happened in other countries -- never called it a political witch hunt back then, and was happily led by Matt Drudge where the GOP wanted them to go.

I don't see President Obama starting a "arrest Cheney" campaign, sorry. as much as this disappoints me. remember that Lieberman called Obama a Marxist and anti-American and doubted Obama's Christianity and campaigned not only for McCain but also for Republican Senate candidates, and Obama wants Lieberman to stay in the party, with his considerable power intact. Lieberman sunk every investigation into Katrina and everything else these last two years. I doubt he'd start fucking up the Republicans just now.

but maybe I'm wrong and Obama and the Democratic Congress will create a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to figure out what happened during the Bush years. I hope so, I just don't see it happen.
posted by matteo at 11:19 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


@grapefruitmoon, sorry no luck. They might make it public after in December? I subscribe so it ends up mailed to me early.
posted by chunking express at 11:29 AM on November 14, 2008


Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
--Benito Mussolini

posted by Afroblanco at 11:48 AM on November 14, 2008


I appreciate the desire to see people tried for their quite evident criminal activities, and really hope this happens. what I cannot really see -- I'll be happy to be proven wrong -- how newly sworn in President Obama and the new Democratic Congress would actually start a long process (say, a year or more) of investigations, hearings and trials while the economy tanks even more than it did up to now and two wars are raging.

All Obama would have to do would be to appoint some people to the DOJ who actually cared and let some prosecutor deal with it. Obama and anyone not involved with the investigation could answer any question about with some broilerplate like "Obviously the legal process needs to play out, I'm concentrating on healthcare/the economy/energy/bla/bla/bla/whatever".

I think people would be upset if congress was wasting its time with showtrials.
posted by delmoi at 11:56 AM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


rokusan writes "I thought that it was possible to issue pardons without specifying crimes. Crazy, I know, but did I really imagine that?"

Yeah, but if it's a mass pardon, Bush almost has to qualify it with "for any acts committed pursuant to directives issues by lawful authority", or else he's also pardoning any wife-beater or drunk driver or embezzler who worked for the government. And even the Republican base would find that a bridge too far.

So then, it's, "tell us everything you did that you did pursuant to the directives...."
posted by orthogonality at 12:06 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


rokusan writes "I thought that it was possible to issue pardons without specifying crimes. Crazy, I know, but did I really imagine that?"

Yeah, but if it's a mass pardon, Bush almost has to qualify it with "for any acts committed pursuant to directives issues by lawful authority", or else he's also pardoning any wife-beater or drunk driver or embezzler who worked for the government. And even the Republican base would find that a bridge too far.


Well Ford a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he may have committed against the United States while President. That's about as blanket a statement as you can make.

From the speech by Ford:

Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

I still hate Nixon.

Anyway, if W doesn't use this line from the Ford playbook on January 19 for Cheney, I'll be deeply shocked.
posted by lordrunningclam at 12:42 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


"Well Ford gave Nixon......
posted by lordrunningclam at 12:44 PM on November 14, 2008


President Bush could use Cardinal Richelieu's excellent pardon from The Four Musketeers:
By my hand and for the good of the state; the bearer has done what has been done.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:51 PM on November 14, 2008


Anyone who didn't confess and is fingered by a confessor

Confessors get automatically get to third base? Kinky.
posted by quin at 12:54 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I don't really understand how you can get a pardon for something you haven't been charged with, let alone convicted of. Until your convicted, you are innocent, and if you are innocent, then a pardon doesn't really apply, does it?
posted by Bovine Love at 1:16 PM on November 14, 2008


quin, obviously you are not Catholic.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:23 PM on November 14, 2008


GOD DAMMED NIXON!
posted by cowbellemoo at 1:23 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]


Now this is really something:
The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Absolutely beautiful. Does this finally bury the meme that Republicans are perpetual winners, and any fumble, mistake, or screw-up is really just a ruse for a shadowy rush towards victory?

Also, seconding the frustration with the misuse of "fascism". Fascism isn't a label you slap on people you don't like just because you don't like them. Fascism is a nationalist, corporatist and militaristic system that utilizes "us against the rest of the world" hate and fear, scapegoating ethnic and/or political minorities, military expansionism, anti-unionism, captains of industry working in conjunction with state officials to direct the economy, and national security placed above all else, while individual rights and liberties are virtually non-existent. That's a tall order to fill and big charge to level at somebody, so it should never be made lightly. Calling someone a "fascist" because you don't like them or find them too authoritarian for your tastes demeans the memories of every person who has fought and died to destroy fascism.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:29 PM on November 14, 2008 [3 favorites]


Obama's plans for probing Bush torture: President Bush could pardon officials involved in brutal interrogations -- but he may also face a sweeping investigation under the new president
posted by homunculus at 1:38 PM on November 14, 2008


I think the "fascism" comparison was a bit off; what the commenter was going for was probably more "inquisition" or "McCarthy-style witchhunt." If you don't understand why the suggested scenario of public shaming and forced ratting on colleagues is distasteful, wrong, and benefits no one, I really don't know how to help you.

The Bush era is over. What "we" (and it feels less like "we" all the time, when I read some of the ideas put forth by the Obama Kool-aid drinkers) need to do is focus on making sure Obama does the right thing on the major issues of our time, which is by no means guaranteed. You only have to look at his vote on FISA to see that.
posted by drjimmy11 at 1:45 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think the "fascism" comparison was a bit off; what the commenter was going for was probably more "inquisition" or "McCarthy-style witchhunt." If you don't understand why the suggested scenario of public shaming and forced ratting on colleagues is distasteful, wrong, and benefits no one, I really don't know how to help you.

Gosh, I'm sorry, I believe in saying what you mean. If that's too much to ask, then I really don't know how to help you.

Also, "Kool-Aid drinkers" is one tired, played-out turn of phrase. Come up with something that doesn't evoke imagery from the Jonestown massacre.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:48 PM on November 14, 2008


They drank Flavor Aid at Jonestown. That's the thing that bothers me most about that particular piece of political humbug. It's hard to take someone seriously when they make the case that you have capitulated to pretty sounding but poisonously wrong viewpoint when they do so by parroting a pretty sounding but historically wrong phrase from history.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:54 PM on November 14, 2008 [1 favorite]


Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries
posted by homunculus at 1:55 PM on November 14, 2008


Yeah, and that did a fat lot of good.

It did good (or at least we think it did good) till someone decided to take an attitude of 'I shall do what I wish, and if it is illegal - then I dare ya to do something about it'.

The 'fat lotta good' is how the lawmakers feel they are above the laws. For yucks - try to have a cop arrest a DA, cop or judge.

"The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance. He of all men should behave as though the law compelled him. But it is the universal weakness of mankind that what we are given to administer we presently imagine we own." H.G. Wells


I think people would be upset if congress was wasting its time with showtrials.

Is not trials the function of the judicial branch? If state/fed laws were violated - let the court system handle things. You might not even need the DOJ. Imagine a corrupt politition in front of the citizens.


Fascism isn't a label you slap on people you don't like just because you don't like them.

Really? Cuz that seems to be a common use. (signed the Definition Nazi)
posted by rough ashlar at 2:59 PM on November 14, 2008


It's hard to take someone seriously when they make the case that you have capitulated to pretty sounding but poisonously wrong viewpoint when they do so by parroting a pretty sounding but historically wrong phrase from history.

Amen. I'll start listening when y'all straighten out your soft drink metaphors.
posted by rokusan at 2:59 PM on November 14, 2008


So the lesson of that link, homunculus, seems to be that Obama should get his justices first, then go after Bush. That may take till second term.....

I can kind of see not prosecuting ex-Presidents re partisan witchunts (would we want a new Lewinsky trial either?) but then where is the mechanism for redress? If you don't impeach them in office, tough cheese, even if you find 10 corpses buried in the WH lawn with Bush's fingerprints on them? Provided he says it was a matter of national security?
posted by emjaybee at 3:04 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


Amen. I'll start listening when y'all straighten out your soft drink metaphors.

You're drinking the "It was Flavor Aid" Kool-aid!
posted by Artw at 3:34 PM on November 14, 2008 [2 favorites]


It's misattributalicious.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:47 PM on November 14, 2008


Not to get all "on-topicky" (with apologies to everyone who is frothing about pardons, etc.), but I think that the legislation described in the FPP is probably unconstitutional.

Congress and the President can enact a statute that overturns a regulation. I do not think that Congress alone can enact a resolution that overturns a regulation, though. That would violate the constitutional requirement of presentment.

Of course, President Obama could very well sign into law any legislation that Congress enacts with respect to Bush-era regulations, but if President Obama is willing to sign any such legislation, then the Congress doesn't really need the CRA in the first place.

Basically, this will be a lawsuit.
posted by Slap Factory at 4:08 PM on November 14, 2008


Fascism is a nationalist, corporatist and militaristic system that utilizes "us against the rest of the world" hate and fear, scapegoating ethnic and/or political minorities, military expansionism, anti-unionism, captains of industry working in conjunction with state officials to direct the economy, and national security placed above all else

::pause::
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 5:27 PM on November 14, 2008


lso, "Kool-Aid drinkers" is one tired, played-out turn of phrase. Come up with something that doesn't evoke imagery from the Jonestown massacre.

All I can say is..... OOOOOOOOOH YEAAAAAAAH.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:07 AM on November 15, 2008


::pause::

Well I hope you're not expecting me to say it!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:08 AM on November 15, 2008


Oh all right. I'll say it: Bush = Hitler.
posted by ryanrs at 2:08 AM on November 15, 2008


slap factory - as I read it, congress would not be "overturning" any regulation. rather, since the regulation is deemed to not have even come into effect yet ("considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress"), they're just further considering it and deciding not to keep it on the books.
posted by russm at 6:00 AM on November 15, 2008


Dick Cheney’s Last-Gasp Fight Against Clean Air
posted by homunculus at 10:19 AM on November 16, 2008


Dick Cheney’s Last-Gasp Fight Against Clean Air

The first time I saw Louis Black was him doing stand-up on Conan O'Brien, talking about Cheney's bizarre environmental positions. "When Dick Cheney was a Senator, he voted against the Clean Water Act. How?! How do you vote against clean water? What do you say? 'I don't want clean water. I want my water to smell like urine, and I want turds floating in it'?"
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:08 PM on November 16, 2008


Will Bush’s midnight rules be reversible?
posted by homunculus at 4:36 PM on November 19, 2008


Top Scientist Rails Against Hirings: Bush Appointees Land Career Jobs Without Technical Backgrounds
posted by homunculus at 3:04 PM on November 22, 2008


The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.
posted by homunculus at 7:37 PM on November 29, 2008


Bush's Final F.U.: The administration is rushing to enact a host of last-minute regulations that will screw America for years to come
posted by homunculus at 7:06 PM on December 13, 2008


« Older There are many good swooshing opportunities here....  |  Eclipse Aviation yesterday tol... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments