I see where Bobby Byrd spoke strongly against the idea of Democrats not being committed to national security in terms of the "fight" over the Homeland Security bill. You can assume that Byrd's opposition to the Bush proposal is the same as most Democrats. Namely, job security of incompetent public servants is more important than national security. However, I think Bush can swing Shaky over to his side. Just put a few "Bob Byrd Homeland Security Rest Stops" in West Virginia. After that, Byrd would have no legitimate opposition to the Bush bill. Bush could even give a promise that the federal employees at the Byrd Rest Stops had civil service protection. At that point, Byrd would probably become a co-sponsor of the Bush bill!
Actually, Democrats opposition is to oppose a dictatorship Sapling never intends to "unite" as he claims although his word is close to his true meaning. The proper word is "unilateral" which means HE ALONE gets to decide policy. And the reason he wants control over the department is so what he says goes, and once again he can power broker positions of authority in that department to coincide with political contributions and support. Same old elephant men who will take bribes anywhere they can find them. BTW, I laugh at Mr. W's assertion of incompetence. Would that be the same incompetence as exemplified by C. Rice sitting on warnings about Sept 11th and Sapling's math in computing budget deficits. Sorry, but no bureaucrat can touch the Sapling administration's "high standards" of incompetence.
