By By Brian Bohl

The Bush administration is feeling the effects of eroding support in both foreign and domestic affairs. With the devastation of Katrina and increasing public discontent with the progression of the war in Iraq, the White House was put at odds with Republicans in Congress twice in the past week. While it is still too early to judge, the mandate conservatives claimed they had after last November’s election looks increasingly tenuous and could shift the balance back to the Democrats by the 2006 midterm election.

Conservatives as well as liberals, have expressed reservations about Harriet Miers, the White House lawyer selected by Bush to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Democrats have been critical because Miers has never been a judge before. Republicans have been even more vocal; many prominent conservatives suggested the former president of the State Bar of Texas might not vote to their liking on issues like abortion.

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, an early favorite to run on the GOP Presidential ticket in 2008, hardly gave a strong endorsement of Bush’s selection.

“We don’t know the nominee, or what this person will or won’t do. And there’s a great deal of frustration with that,” he said.

The lack of support from his own party was not encouraging for Bush. However, a piece of legislation passed in the Senate on Thursday, while less publicized, was even more damaging to the administration’s second term agenda.

By a margin of 90-9, the Senate approved an amendment to a Defense Department spending bill that would bar “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of prisoners in U.S. custody. The provision was a direct shot at the White House, which has all but publicly stated torture is an acceptable medium by which to gather information.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan immediately stated Bush would likely veto the bill because of that language. The administration feels the bill “would limit the President’s ability as Commander-in-Chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism.”

Of course, Bush would have no trouble with the $440 billion bill for the Defense Department apart from that language. If they are willing to accept a near half trillion from the American taxpayers, the least the White House could do is to listen to 90 percent of the elected members of the legislative upper house.

Respected Republican John McCain, a former prisoner of war, sponsored the measure, which makes Bush’s opposition difficult to justify. When someone who has experienced being a detainee pushes hard to discourage the practice of cruel and degrading punishment, his words carry more weight than a man who couldn’t find time to honor his reserve duty obligations.

The Arizona Senator perfectly articulated why this provision is needed when he said, “The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies.”

Adding even more credibility to the Senate’s decision is the support it received from an active army officer. Captain Ian Fishback, of the 82nd Airborne Division, echoed McCain’s sentiments that torture often leads to faulty information. Also, the new laws would give clearer guidelines to soldiers who often are confused by the blurred line between legal and unacceptable behavior when it comes to the treatment of prisoners.

With the approval ratings for Bush hitting a record-low last month, the news his fellow GOP brethren are not supporting him on two important issues during a one week span will only enhance the public image of a lame duck. Usually, the party of the President loses seat in the sixth year mark, which in this case would come in 2006. Unless the White House starts getting more support from the Republicans in Congress, the balance has a viable chance to swing back left.

***

Bill O’Reilly has proved once again that facts should never again get in the way of a good story. “Mr. Looking Out for You” himself said, “Christians are fair game for media scorn, mockery and dismissal.” He also gave us this nugget claiming the media will get in their “anti-Christian” digs at Miers.

This makes a lot of sense, until you consider that currently, six of the eight justices on the Supreme Court are Christians. The only Jewish members are Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Also, a Gallup Poll reports that the United States is close to 80 percent Christian as of 2001. The only way a group this size could be discriminated against is if fellow Christians were the ones doing the oppressing, which wouldn’t be discrimination in the first place.

However, O’Reilly does have a point. Everyone knows how difficult it is for a Caucasian Christian to hold high offices or positions of power in American society. Perhaps we should take up a collection. Keep fighting for us little people, Bill.