You make it sound like he's in a military or dictatorial state. He's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
|
You make it sound like he's in a military or dictatorial state. He's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Thank your lucky stars we will have a new government soon, but built on the foundations that our democracy was designed with the assumption that all men were out for themselves. I don’t see anything that Bush has done that jeopardizes those foundations.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
My friend, then you better mention that to every candidate that's vying for the highest office in our land. Each individual: Republican, Democrat, and Independents, thinks they can either change the current war campaign with redeployment phases, gradually cede the government back to the Iraqis, or have the power to stay the course. Personally, I think our President means well, but is in a state of confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
Bobby
They talk a good game, but once they're inside the circle, it's a different picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Mighty bold claims until they know the facts that are the reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
No! There's nothing new on the horizon. Brand "A" and Brand "B" have been out for themselves and/or to tow the party line for decades now. That's why I have a problem with most politicians and why I have no problem voting Independent. Our nation refers to it as, "Politics as Usual." But even though they are aware of the fact, they are still the same sheep being led to the voting booth with the same results, although different poisens.
Bobby
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
Oh most of them know the rules. But I've often said the President runs 49 States. Nevada has our own separate red hot-line phone in the White House and when it rings the President runs to answer, "Hi Big Money, Can I help you." :)
Bobby
It has been said that there were times when the choice of the voters on Election Day was between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; however, do you believe it is always that way?Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
No. For example: if we base our votes solely on the Iraqi issue, our current international relations and home security, I do think that this election will provide the mass choices of varying views. But this is the exception to the rule since we have a war campaign continuing during an election year. Of course there are a many other issues that bring mostly failed promises. However, outside of that until we get more voices into the public fray and part of the National debates, for many people it will be "Tweedledee and Tweedledum" or the lesser of two evils again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Bobby
I think that each party is quite in agreement about the fundamental ideas set forth in the constitution and federalist papers. But it seems one big riff began with the New Deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
The foundations he has undermined are the constitutional guarantees that the government may not deprive anyone of life or liberty without due process of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Good point and interesting subject. I found this article:
"Congress, Bush and The Real Constitutional Crisis
Created by glenn_at_rockridge (Rockridge Institute staff member) on Thursday, July 26, 2007 01:09 PM
America is in the midst of an authentic constitutional crisis as the Bush Administration moves to reduce Congress to little more than an irrelevant focus group and achieve what no U.S. President has ever achieved: a true above-the-law presidency.
These are the stakes: Will the United States save what is left of its constitutional democracy by restoring checks and balances among the three branches of government?
When the U.S. Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to the White House by calling off the Florida recount in 2000, many pundits applauded the action because it allegedly headed off a constitutional crisis. That was a phony rationalization that disguised what is now apparent: the real post-Florida 2000 constitutional crisis is the Bush Administration's unprecedented, Constitution-destroying lust for power.
The fight should not be measured against partisan positioning for the 2008 elections. Democratic and Republican political consultants will view the crisis that way because that is their job. Consultants are hired to win elections, not save the Constitution. Congressional Democrats must look past the powerpoints of their consultants. So should Republicans, who are struggling to distance themselves from Bush's negatives without asking the White House for a divorce.
But, there is now no other choice. Bush's drive to place permanent barriers between the people and their government, to lift the presidency above all laws, must be stopped.
Earlier this week I wrote about the dangerous cultural narrative that frames Congress as an inept community. Our hero myths often include an inept community that must be saved by the lone hero. This cultural narrative has led to a broadly held view that Congress is just such a community.
For those Democrats and Republicans in Congress who remain captive to consultant myopia, I offer this observation. Political experts criticize Senator John Kerry for failing to adequately counter-attack the Swift Boaters. Kerry's mistake, however, was that his campaign behavior undermined his own mythic narrative, the narrative of a courageous Vietnam war hero. Voters who rejected Kerry did so not because they believed the Swift Boaters and were suspicious of his Vietnam valor, but because of the apparent lack of valor that was happening right before their eyes.
Congress is now being Swift Boated by the Bush Administration. Americans will judge the valor of Congress, not as presented in ads in 2008, but as witnessed in real time, right now. Polls are no doubt suggesting that voters want Congress to address health care reform and the deteriorating economy. A political fight with Bush over the constitutional balance of power will look like a distraction, like politics as usual, like so much partisan squabbling. Today, it seems that Congress is overcoming that fear and preparing for the fight. They are moving in the right direction with the subpoena of Karl Rove and the opening of a perjury investigation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. We should applaud these actions, and pray for more.
The Bush gambit is to permanently derail progressive policy goals by building an impenetrable wall between the people and their government and by asserting ultimate and absolute presidential authority. These ambitions are made obvious by the Administration's actions: Bush's unprecedented veto threats; the obvious "we-don't-really-care-what-you-think" attitude of Gonzales during his committee testimony; the Administration's questioning Senator Hillary Clinton's patriotism when she asked for details of Bush's Iraq plans; the refusal to disclose details of the Administration's emergency government plan.
Even a temporary eviction from the White House beginning in 2009 would not deter the neoconservatives and their anti-democratic allies. A Democratic president will have her/his hands full cleaning up the Bush garbage. While a Democratic president would probably resist further steps along the above-the-law path, it's unlikely a president will willingly give up any power that has accrued to the presidency during the Bush reign. So, the right wing reasons, we'll just pick up in 2012 where we left off in 2008.
The federal courts, packed with conservative appointments, will also do what they can to establish permanent barriers between the American people and their government.
Congress has no choice but to destroy those barriers now. The crisis cannot be reduced to a messy or selfish partisan confrontation. Truth is, many Republicans are as interested as Democrats in saving our constitutional democracy. The further truth is, the stakes matter much, much more than any potential partisan consequences for either major party.
In the end, the battle for the future of America may make necessary the impeachment of a president who is very publicly moving to destroy our constitutional form of government. It may not seem the politically prudent thing to do. But this is a president who lied us into a war, who uses his pen to make laws (constitutionally reserved for Congress) through signing statements, who commutes the sentence of a convicted criminal to protect himself from scrutiny, who believes he has the right to declare anyone he wants an enemy combatant and then "disappear" that person the way we taught our tyrannical and thuggish client-state dictators to do during the Cold War. If these are not sufficient to justify a legal and constitutional challenge to the legitimacy of the Bush presidency, exactly what would a president have to do before we would impeach him?
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can look at our predicament and decide to save their own asses; Democrats running against Bush; Republicans running from Bush. That would be politics as usual.
Or, they can act fearlessly to save the country, and, despite what today's polls might tell them, earn the gratitude of voters who today might be wishing the nightmare will just come to an end. But the best way to end a nightmare is to wake up.
Congress can interrupt the narrative of its own ineptitude and restore the dignity and power of a people who are willing to govern themselves. But to do so, we must be awake to the real constitutional crisis that is at hand."
_____________________________________________
Bobby
Well, that's a right charitable way to put it, Bobby. Personally, I think he's a party boy who got in WAY over his head, let himself be bamboozled by a bunch of swaggering "big thinkers" into doing a series of very stupid things, and is now in a state of deep denial, trying to run out the clock so he can eventually blame his successor for the messes he's made. It's always worked for him before, maybe it will again.Quote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
BobbyQuote:
I do want to step up our home front efforts though and that's an issue I want to see addressed by all political candidates; all parties.
There are few who would disagree with that. However ,the homefront is not a military matter. Returning the troops home to defend the homefront is a strawman . There was a long thread about domestic use of troops and most agreed that even when they had a role their usage should be to a limited degree.
We can defend the borders and I think the national will is there to do so . I think the elected officials for the most part have ignored or misread the national will in this regard .
DCQuote:
I think that each party is quite in agreement about the fundamental ideas set forth in the constitution and federalist papers. But it seems one big riff began with the New Deal.
This will serve as a part of a response to your follow-up posting about the political parties
Yes, the New Deal was a tipping point in the last century ,but I think the current and historically the differences in American political parties traces back to the debates of and about federalism the founders had . To correct the biggest misconception in American history ; the founders were not this monolithic group of like minded men . There was the Federalist Papers published by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay ,and there was also the lesser quoted anti-Federalist essays written by founders like Patrick Henry ,George Clinton ,and a few others like Richard Henry Lee . The Constitution was very much a compromise between the competing views of what the government should look like and even then ratification was not a sure thing . The bicameral nature of the Congress as an example was a direct result of the behind doors negotiations that went on at the Constitutional Convention. A government without political parties did not last past the 1st George Washington Administration.
Conflicts between the founders were quite nasty whether they were hitting below the belt using pseudonyms in the( then equivalent of the internet) press ;or in some cases where it came to blows and duels. The political debate today is civil by comparison.
Bobby
The article you posted starts will a big fallacy that needs correction . I will comment on the rest of it later .
The Supreme Court did not appoint President Bush . He was elected . The Florida electors gave him a majority of the electoral college vote in 2000 . That is the constitutional system we have.
I disagreed with both Al Gore getting the Fla. Supreme Court involved in the election process and in the SCOTUS ruling on the case. I have no desire to rehash the many times in previous postings I showed that Bush would've won even if the endless recounts were allowed to continue .Suffice it to say that an independent group of news outlets did recounts of their own and their conclusion was that Bush had more votes then the final tally at the time that Fla. Sec State Harris ;using her proper role in the Fla. election system ,called off the recounts.
All both courts accomplished in their improper and unconstitutional role of arbitration was guarantee that any future national election will be bogged down by endless court challenges. We have seen that damage and delay the results of a few state elections already. The 2004 election almost had a similar situation in the Ohio count . The courts have guaranteed a big pay day for lawyers hired by the political parties but they have undermined our electoral system almost beyond repair . Bottom line... the courts have NO role in the electoral process .The founders were very clear that the States controlled the process.
For anyone wondering why I have contempt for the courts the above is a classic case . Also ;in case anyone is wondering... in 2000 I cast my vote for Ralph Nader [I live in NY so my vote was not really going to make a difference. I am still registered independent ]. I did not become a big Bush supported until I saw him in action .
Edit . I will not comment on the rest .
Yes, it's good to be reminded of this. Politics has always been and always will be a rough and tumble undertaking by people who are utterly convinced that they're 100% RIGHT, but still usually manage to find a compromise that avoids bloodshed. When they fail to do so (as in, say, Iraq today) there is bloodshed, aka civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I am completely nonplussed by this.Quote:
I did not become a big Bush supported until I saw him in action .
I guess it comes as a complete surprise ,but I am not alone . There are many of us who became Bush supporters after we saw his tremendous leadership following 9-11. I can point to someone like Christopher Hitchins as an example of someone who was a convert . Comedian Dennis Miller is anther prominent example.
Wow, I am always amazed that Bush can be smart clever, tenacious and sneaky enough to steal elections, rewrite the constitution in his favor, undermine our rights and have a stranglehold on congress while at the same time being an incompetent boob that couldn't find his a$$ without Karl Rove's help.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I agree with your list of accomplishments, but of course, they weren't his alone. Presidents never seem to lack for help, however misguided their policies may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What would it have been like if Al Gore had won the Presidency? Can you imagine it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 PM. |