The Not-Welcome Sign

Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi finally agree on something:

"The constitutional clash pitting Congress against the executive branch escalated Wednesday as the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House demanded the immediate return of materials seized by federal agents when they searched the office of a House member who is under investigation in a corruption case," says the New York Times .

Do they really want to defend a congressman caught with $90,000 in his freezer? William Jefferson is their poster boy for fighting the feds?

Captain Ed isn't pleased:

"This can't be the same Congress that issues subpoenas for all sorts of probes into the executive branch and the agencies it runs. Does Congress really want to establish a precedent that neither branch has to answer subpoenas if issued by the other, even if approved by a judge -- which this particular subpoena was?. . .

"Congress already has enough problems with corruption and scandal without adding even more arrogance to top it. If the leadership wants to argue that their status as elected officials somehow gives them the ability to disregard subpoenas and court orders, then the American people may want to trade that leadership to ensure that Congress understands that it operates under the same laws as the rest of us."

Iraq will be taking center stage again, says the Chicago Tribune :

"House Republican leaders, in a significant political gamble, are planning to hold a free-flowing debate over the Iraq war on the House floor in coming weeks, facing head-on what may be the most difficult issue to threaten pro-war incumbents in the fall election. . . .

"The decision to hold a public debate on an issue that has sent President Bush's approval ratings tumbling and put Democrats within striking distance of recapturing the House reflects the growing pressure facing Republicans from bad news about the war. GOP leaders hope the forum will give their endangered incumbents a chance to distance themselves from the war, argue that it is going better than most recognize, or both."

I don't get it. Aren't debates supposed to lead to something beyond rhetoric?

I wrote yesterday about Patrick Healy's front-page NYT piece on the Clintons' marriage , and now Arianna Huffington (whose own marriage to a Republican congressman got its share of scrutiny) cries foul:

"It's not just that they devoted nearly 2,000 words and precious front page real estate to gossip and innuendo about Bill and Hillary's sex life (or lack thereof) . . . it's that the gossip and innuendo was so . . . so, well, New York Times-y .