Can't say your sarcasm is as artful as Amity's but I agree with you and this is one of the few times I can recall disagreeing with GG's overall characterization of the dynamics of a particular political battle--and I'm absolutely no fan of cap-and-trade and think Doggett did right in standing against it. That he got pounded for it by "his own guys" is also to be expected.

What GG is right about though is that this "White House hardball" approach to individual Congresscritters not "getting on board or out of the way" on something that ostensibly "matters" to the messiah will NEVER EVER amount to "chin music" aimed at the Blue Dogs on something equally important like secrecy, transparency, healthcare, . . . .

And it's that duplicity and rank hypocrisy that is at the root of GG's critique, I think.

And BTW to all who are suggesting that Congress is no longer "functioning" . . . I'd say it's "functioning" like a well oiled machine. It's just functioning for the benefit of the rich and powerful few and the MIC rather than The People as a whole.

But we're just children and we need our "elected" superiors and our Big Daddy to protect us and decide things for us. My beef at this point is they should quit lying about what America is really all about what with all those silly counterfactual false narratives like we believe in the "rule of law, and self-governance, and liberty . . . ." Unless the definition of those are: that laws only apply to the children, self-governance is only for the "elected" superiors, and liberty is only something Big Daddy is entitled to.

Where are these people coming from who say that the quoted White House staffer was emphasizing that Doggett was letting down his constituents and country more than the president? Seriously. What planet are you guys from? If there's some groundswell of public support for this cap and trade bill here in Doggett's district, that's news to me.

You guys are dreaming if you think Doggett was somehow egregiously ignoring the wishes of his constituents by opposing this bill on the merits of it's content alone.

The only political price he would have to pay for voting against this bill would be from those of his constituents who support the president more enthusiastically than they do him. And that political fact supports Glenn's point. Support the president or else.

the massive burn pits... which incinerate, in open air, everything from medical waste to plastics, dining hall trash, rubber, lithium batteries, petroleum products, and hardware, causing a noxious, jet-black plume and huge clouds over the area.

Sounds like throwing everything in a big pit would be a lot easier than sorting, recycling, bagging and bringing garbage to the curb. What's the big deal, why not just burn everything? After all...

...the Pentagon has so far maintained there are "no significant short or long-term health risks" from the massive burn pits

Well there ya go, no short or long term health risks. Burn pits for everyone! Get your neighbors together and start your own community burn pit today. Instead of community water towers dotting the landscape, we can replace them with big plumes of black toxic smoke, just like the military. Call them patriot pits, spin their usage as support for the Troops.

Great point on the burn pits. Lemme see if I can build on that point:

The idea that the government is at all serious about environmental issues is laughable in the extreme. The burn pit example should make that abundantly clear. So what is the point of the Clean Energy Act of 2009?

Well...it provides a whole new casino with exciting new games for Wall Street to play. It has all the cool trappings of the housing bubble; derivates, credit default swaps, etc., but now Wall Street banksters will be able to ramp up a whole bubble.

If I've learned one thing about Obama, it's that whatever the criminals in the treasury, the Fed and on Wall Street want, he delivers. In fact, other than protecting the previous administration from prosecution and speaking empty platitudes to the Muslim world, that's about all he ever does.

haven't agreed with you on much over time but your right on the money today. America with the help of some others are "burning it all". It's just a matter of time before we're all suffering the sorts of maladies that those close to Balad are experiencing once Obama greenlights "clean coal". That's why I smoke. I'm trying to "condition" my lungs to life in a truly polluted world.

And credit and apology where due. For all my mocking of Dr. Paul and disagreement with many of his policies, at this point, I can't disagree that he's quantum leaps ahead of this President in the integrity department. I knew we were in deep trouble the minute he selected Rahm as Chief of Staff and that it would be business as usual in America.

So this Fourth of July I will be hoping for a Paul/Kucinich or Kucinich/Paul ticket in 2012. I'm basically done "believing" that there can be any principled change affected within the Democratic Party. It is what it is--beholden to interests that are antithetical to those of We The People.

I'm still trying to figure out if "Progressives" have one a single "major" legislative victory in the last 30 years that wasn't largely illusory.

So make him. Send an e-mail to the White House demanding a recess appointment for Dawn Johnson to head the OLC.

A recess appointment isn't in the cards. I advocated such an action before the Easter recess and it was ignored, both here and in the White House. I can understand why it would be ignored here but I cannot fathom why President Omama would ignore my advice. Therefore, I am taking the following action...

An open letter to Dawn Johnsen,

Dear Ms. Johnsen,

It has come to my attention that despite the fact you were nominated for a position in the current Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, and that nomination was made several months ago, the Administration of Barack Obama has done nothing further to finalize your appointment to this position. Opposition to your appointment, thus far, has been from Republicans in Congress who would probably object to Moses being nominated to lead the Jews out of Egypt on ideological grounds.

No, this administration doesn't seem to want to deal with Dawn Johnsen as Head of the Office of Legal Counsel because in that position, there might be legal opinions issued which do not further the position of the administration. Rather than buck that office, the Obama administration apparently would rather see the position unfilled and the Office of Legal Counsel unlead and disorganized.

My advice to you, Ms. Johnson, is to immediately withdraw your name from consideration for this appointment. Do so before this administration ruins your reputation along with the reputations of many other people who initially supported it only to find that the entire administration is based upon lies and deceit.

Withdraw, Ms. Johnsen. Save thyself.

Regards,

Jebbie