NationStates Jolt Archive

July 28, 2006
Bush statements a sign of our ironic times

Any day now, an obit will be appearing in the newspaper. It’ll read:

“Irony, a perfectly useful literary device, died today, having been on life support ever since being dragged behind the barn and beaten savagely by members of the Bush administration. It was really old.”

Irony has suffered a number of debilitating beatings during the past six years, such as the president’s “Clear Air Initiative,” which would have increased air pollution. Or his “Healthy Forests Initiative,” which opened millions of acres of public woodlands to commercial logging.

Or “Mission Accomplished.” That was a good one — a draft-dodging president playing a war hero and declaring “mission accomplished” in Iraq. How’d that work out?

Anyway, after six years, you’d have thought we’d about seen it all.

Forget that.

Let’s talk about signing statements.


If you recall the lessons of “Schoolhouse Rock” — specifically, the one about how a lowly bill becomes a law — you’ll remember that first, Congress passes a bill and then it goes to the president, who either signs or vetoes it.

The song is more detailed than that. It describes the bill traveling through the House — that’s the body of Congress made up of crazy people — and then through the Senate — the one composed mostly of rich white people — and then on to the president. And if the president doesn’t like the bill, he can veto it, but Congress can override the veto.

It seemed like a pretty straightforward civics lesson.

Yet, as is often the case, life is not like cartoons — something that causes me a great deal of confusion.

The song doesn’t even get into signing statements.

These things are great. What happens is Congress can pass a bill, the president can sign it into law and then issue a statement saying he plans to ignore the law. The best part is, the statement can be kept secret so that nobody knows which parts of the laws the president plans to obey or ignore. I mean, let’s say if the president is late for an important nap or something, could he issue a signing statement saying he doesn’t have to obey the speed limit?

These things are causing quite a stink for President Dubya because he frequently signs bills into law that he has no intention of following, issuing a signing statement that he claims permits him to ignore the law.

The most famous of these was the bill that outlawed torture. If you’ll recall, the president’s legal eagles — perhaps flying way up in the thin air where their brains are deprived of oxygen — ruled that torturing people was OK. It turns out not a lot of people think torturing people is OK. It turns out one of those people was Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican who had been tortured himself when he was a POW during Vietnam. So McCain spearheaded a bill to outlaw torture.

The president signed it as McCain looked on.

The president said things like, “We do not torture.” Well, he said that, exactly.

The ink hadn’t dried on the bill when the president turned around and issued a signing statement, which was kept secret, saying, in essence, he didn’t have to follow the law he had just signed and that torturing people was OK by him.

President Dubya does this kind of thing all the time. He’s issued, at last count, according to a report from the American Bar Association, about 800 signing statements. The previous 42 presidents, combined, issued fewer than 600, the ABA pointed out.

The ABA is pretty upset about this, calling it a “constitutional crisis.”

You could also call it a dictatorship.

But that’s neither here nor there.


The ABA has suggested that Congress do something. Did it propose doing away with signing statements? Of course not. It merely recommended that Congress require the president to tell it which parts of the laws he signs that he intends to ignore.

Sounds simple enough.

Except Congress did that.

In 2002, the ABA reported, Congress passed a bill requiring the attorney general to give it a report detailing signing statements and informing Congress of laws or parts of laws that the president intends to ignore.
President Dubya signed the bill into law.

You can guess what happened next.

President Dubya then issued a signing statement saying he did not have to obey the law.
It bears repeating.

Congress passed a bill requiring the president to tell it whenever he decides to ignore certain laws and the president signed it and then decided to ignore it.

You could conclude a lot things.

But the real lesson is, this is the final straw.

Irony is taking its last breaths.

Mike Argento, whose column appears Mondays and Fridays in Living and Sundays in Viewpoints, can be reached at *snip*or at mike@ydr.com. Read more Argento columns at ydr.com/mike or at www.yorkblog.com — Argento’s Front Stoop.

This isnt my work, but I thought it was worth sharing.
Seems Bush has killed a dear friend to us all...

I have to wonder, why so many people remain so steadfastedly loyal to him, when he continues to butcher everything the Constitution stands for?

I'm by far no expert in the laws surrounding US government, but how the hell is that even remotely legal?

I'm by far no expert in the laws surrounding US government, but how the hell is that even remotely legal?


Good question.

Apparently, according to Congress....it isnt.

Good question.
Your system needs reform.

*bows and leaves in dignified fashion*

That's fucked up.. Really, really fucked up.

Your system needs reform.

*bows and leaves in dignified fashion*

If it were MY system...the President and his staff would be held accountable by the same laws as everyone else.


But...if you mean "Your=America", then I have to agree.

I don't think our system need reform, I just think that people that got only D's in school should not be allowed to be President. Honsetly, I hate the fact the world groups the people of the US in the same boat as W. He had only %30 support for god's sake. Sorry, just had to vent that. Oh, and yes, HE is fucked up. Screw Bush for giving the GOP and bad rep.

But sooner or later, the hawks will come back, using the tired old arguments of "You hate America, Bush needs to be able to do whatever he wants to fight them terrorists!"

I figure that Bush could stab a bunch of babys on public tv with a dull fork and they'd say the same thing.

Not quite as threatening as FDR's attempt to stack the Supreme court, but it's pretty far outside the traditional norms of presidential authority. Naturally, it'd be a drunken coke whore that would try something so brazen. The solution is simple: Find the best selection of test cases for any of his 800 signing statements, bring it to the supreme court, and then after the smoke clears some people charged with enforcing congressional legislation might lose their federal pensions or worse. Who knows we might even end up with Bush impeached. Better reason than a BJ gone horribly wrong.

One might note that people assuming a high office swear their loyalty not to the President, but to the protection of the republic and submittion to the rule of law. Poorly thought out legal opinions, signed by the president or not, are hardly any indemnification from failing in the duties of their office, perhaps criminally so. "I don't know high school civics" isn't going to be a very persuasive excuse should the replacements in power find themselves pressed by a public thirsty for blood.

I don't think our system need reform, I just think that people that got only D's in school should not be allowed to be President. Honsetly, I hate the fact the world groups the people of the US in the same boat as W. He had only %30 support for god's sake. Sorry, just had to vent that. Oh, and yes, HE is fucked up. Screw Bush for giving the GOP a bad rep.


Hah.

Some would say that the Reps had a bad, err...rep..before Bush came around.
However, it would be truer to say that I believe Bush has handed the next election to a Democratic President.

We'll see if they do any better.

One might note that people assuming a high office swear their loyalty not to the President, but to the protection of the republic and submittion to the rule of law. Poorly thought out legal opinions, signed by the president or not, are hardly any indemnification from failing in the duties of their office, perhaps criminally so. "I don't know high school civics" isn't going to be a very persuasive excuse should the replacements in power find themselves pressed by a public thirsty for blood.

I have to wonder why more people arent howling for his blood.

Isnt this clearly against the law, if such a law was passed by Congress, to make him submit articles explaining wich laws he adds signing statements to, and then he turns right around and adds a signing statement to it, and does not follow the law, HE JUST SIGNED???

Isnt this an impeachable offense?

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060731/branch.gif

The saddest part is that almost no one really seems to care.

I have to wonder why more people arent howling for his blood.

Isnt this clearly against the law, if such a law was passed by Congress, to make him submit articles explaining wich laws he adds signing statements to, and then he turns right around and adds a signing statement to it, and does not follow the law, HE JUST SIGNED???

Isnt this an impeachable offense?
Not when the political system is galvanized between two parties where one's only defense to their actions is to support any and all actions made by any other member of the party. Not when the public knows exactly two things about government, goings on in government, and other related information - jack and squat.

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060731/branch.gif

The saddest part is that almost no one really seems to care.


Thats because the American people have become numb to such corruption, and fascism, and many of us, even support it.
Its a general malaize, really.

Most of us are so used to seeing crooked politicians making our laws, that we just dont respond anymore when the government cries "wolf!".

We just become complacent, and realize that our vote means less and less, and that elected officals have all the power, and the people....none.

I have to wonder why more people arent howling for his blood.

Isnt this clearly against the law, if such a law was passed by Congress, to make him submit articles explaining wich laws he adds signing statements to, and then he turns right around and adds a signing statement to it, and does not follow the law, HE JUST SIGNED???

Isnt this an impeachable offense?
We're mostly watching shit blow up, naked in faux leather furniture with cheese burgers on the end of our errections.

Journalists, being talently hacks, and gerenally whores, aren't clever enough to make something like these signing statements interesting on their own. Or the news in general relevant enough to people's lives that it's worth paying close attention. They don't know how to add the sizzle while keeping it from being ridiculous in 30 seconds. BJ's hey, those come pre-packaged with sizzle. People know what they are, and they want 'em, even from chunky girls. (I personally think Miss America's job should be a year of BJ's for the president, but that's me).

Given that politically, it's his own party that's responsible for holding him accountable, there's no traction on that front. They know they're caught up in his web of shit, and the unrepentent useless pieces of crap are naturally concerned about their own necks and not at all about the country, so they're not going to stick them out. Better to try to weather the election and wait for option number 3. (Notice even respected guys like McCain aren't sticking their necks out. He's personally sacrificed an unbelievable amount, endured true horrors in defense of the Republic, but at the end of the day he chooses to be a political animal content to play the game with the herd. That he lacks courage now on such important issues leads me to infer much about him as a man.)

A citizen with a case, has to collect a consensus of rich people who want to make a point. Then use that warchest to sue the government for not following the law. 10 years later it ends up before the supreme court, and the administration in power takes the blame. But by then it's not news it's a history book being closed. The assholes don't suffer. Oh, there won't be any supreme court spots for Gonzolez, will there Mr. Bork? No. Probably not.

However, if the mid-term elections swing wildly to the Democrats, who we might as well call the null hypothesis, they might be emboldened to act decisivly. Quite the concept, I know. If that happens The Fall of an American President provides the sizzle. As people learn what was stolen from them, they thirst for punative retribution, storm clouds gather all that. This of course requires real leadership, and perhaps vision enough to avoid the pitfalls in such a course. It's unbelievable that this is the party of FDR, and Kennedy.

And, thanks to Republicans, a bad haircut is an Impeachable offense.

Not when the political system is galvanized between two parties where one's only defense to their actions is to support any and all actions made by any other member of the party. Not when the public knows exactly two things about government, goings on in government, and other related information - jack and squat.


But wouldnt most of congress be OBLIGATED, to proceed with impeachment hearings, if indeed Bush's actions are in violation of that law?
Since THEY are the ones who passed that very law, in the first place?

Or, more accurately, impeach him in attempts to distance themselves from a president who is handing the next election to the opposition?

Even the Rep-controlled House and Senate make distancing remarks every day.

.

However, if the mid-term elections swing wildly to the Democrats, who we might as well call the null hypothesis, they might be emboldened to act decisivly. Quite the concept, I know. If that happens The Fall of an American President provides the sizzle. As people learn what was stolen from them, they thirst for punative retribution, storm clouds gather all that. This of course requires real leadership, and perhaps vision enough to avoid the pitfalls in such a course. It's unbelievable that this is the party of FDR, and Kennedy.

And, thanks to Republicans, a bad haircut is an Impeachable offense.


Thats an interesting point.

My question to you then, is:

Seeing as how John Kerry clearly lost the last election, due to his seeming indecisiveness, wich portrayed weakness, assuming the Democrats can summon up a candidate with a set of actual testicles...

Do you think Bush's actions may give the White House to the Dems, or cause the Reps to lose the majority control?

I have to wonder why more people arent howling for his blood.

Isnt this clearly against the law, if such a law was passed by Congress, to make him submit articles explaining wich laws he adds signing statements to, and then he turns right around and adds a signing statement to it, and does not follow the law, HE JUST SIGNED???

Isnt this an impeachable offense?

Don't you listen to the president's press confrences?

He isn't violating the law. He's just not using the law. He explained this when he was asked about tapping phones without a warrant. "We asked the lawyers if we could do this (phone tapping) under the FISA law, and they said 'no.' So we need a new law that let's us do it. Again, I don't want to say we're 'going around' the law, 'cause that implies... it says we're... we're using a different... ya gotta remember, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're discussing this in 2006."

See? Perfectly legal. All that voter fraud in Ohio? He wasn't violating the voting laws. He just wasn't enforcing them, which as executive, is his right.

Thats an interesting point.

My question to you then, is:

Seeing as how John Kerry clearly lost the last election, due to his seeming indecisiveness, wich portrayed weakness, assuming the Democrats can summon up a candidate with a set of actual testicles...


Um, no. It was voter fraud. Just take a look at all the districts that had... oh, 8,000 votes for Bush in a Democratic district with 200 registered voters, Uncertified voting machines, baisicly, a election that wasn't an election. For Christ's sake! The guy who makes the voting machines said "I believe it is my responsibility to deliver the state of Ohio for George Bush."

Don't you listen to the president's press confrences?

He isn't violating the law. He's just not using the law. He explained this when he was asked about tapping phones without a warrant. "We asked the lawyers if we could do this (phone tapping) under the FISA law, and they said 'no.' So we need a new law that let's us do it. Again, I don't want to say we're 'going around' the law, 'cause that implies... it says we're... we're using a different... ya gotta remember, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're discussing this in 2006."

See? Perfectly legal. All that voter fraud in Ohio? He wasn't violating the voting laws. He just wasn't enforcing them, which as executive, is his right.

That only reminds me of the "Chewbacca Defense".

Seriously, I cant listen to much of anything he says.
Im a very good reader of faces, and usually know when Im being lied to.
Bush isnt a good liar.
He has a "tell".

He smirks when hes being deceiving.

I have to get my news from media centers to avoid giving myself an aneuryism, listening to Bush.

Um, no. It was voter fraud. Just take a look at all the districts that had... oh, 8,000 votes for Bush in a Democratic district with 200 registered voters, Uncertified voting machines, baisicly, a election that wasn't an election. For Christ's sake! The guy who makes the voting machines said "I believe it is my responsibility to deliver the state of Ohio for George Bush."


Yeah...I know that, and you know that, but sadly, theres nothing we can do about it now.

Besides, we both know Kerry would probably have made a better President, but not taking a direct stand against all of Karl Roves slinging mud, and not directly attacking anyone who accused him of "flip-flopping", made him look weak to many americans.

I'm by far no expert in the laws surrounding US government, but how the hell is that even remotely legal?


The Law says what the Executive says it says.
And the Executive is a bit of a ventriloquist dummy for his very own Attorney General.

Simple fact of life.
There is no point in having the nicest of laws, unless you're being ruled by the nicest of men.
As I've stated before: living in the 3rd Reich under Lincoln is preferable to living in America under Hitler.
Even if you happen to be a Jew or a Gypsie - or rather, especially so in those cases.

Do you think Bush's actions may give the White House to the Dems, or cause the Reps to lose the majority control?
Was it Kerry or Gore that hired Naomi Wolf as an image consultant and got painted up like a whore? I remember thinking, "Oh god, not her, he's lost." Anyway....

It's really hard to say. His excess is clearly related to the absolute vacuume of any leadership from the Dems, and quite frankly any of the alternative parties. Particularly in this age of FEAR, TERROR, MONSTERS IN THE CLOSET WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN but first this message for PenisGrow caplets, people seem to be willing to settle for false certainty in the abscense anything else. It's the dilemma of two liars, which do you chose to align yourself with the lair that understands some base desire or the one that's completely clueless? The democrats are shockingly weak, totally spineless, divided against themselves, generally without a sense of direction and lack any vision they are able to articulate.

But on the other hand have the Republicans achieved anything which didn't end up being some measure of catastrophy? Anything at all? When you think about it, that in and of itself is pretty impressive. They inherited a system which has worked actually very well for 50 years, and good enough for more than 2 centuries, and they managed to take a large professional organization and prevent it from having success on nearly any front? Such a string of visible and costly failures, I don't think there's anything like it in American history. But it might be because I'm so close to this period relative to others. How can people vote for that party? Clearly anything they do is generally much worse than nothing. If it's Bush his administration and his cronies in the legislature or a monkey with a some cunning device of monkey decision coaxing is there any one who isn't a Jesus freak and who doesn't pick the monkey?

I'm going to vote null hypothesis this year mainly because the representatives I'm voting for did have modest and somewhat appropriate accomplishments, and a couple appropriate stances on pending issues. It's clear they don't even aspire to meaningful leadership, but their competition is "White House talking points are awesome." So it's not much of a choice.

I'll say this, if the Democrats don't *really* have their shit together in 2008, they'll lose the White House in 2012. The mess that Bush has made will take 20 years to get under control.

Was it Kerry or Gore that hired Naomi Wolf as an image consultant and got painted up like a whore? I remember thinking, "Oh god, not her, he's lost." Anyway....
SNIP
I'll say this, if the Democrats don't *really* have their shit together in 2008, they'll lose the White House in 2012. The mess that Bush has made will take 20 years to get under control.


Will you please face up to the fact that the Dems are basically inelligible because they are to the left, amongst a people that leans to the right?

Unless the DEMS do the obvious, and occupy the center, even such a detestable clod as van Buren will have 2:1 odds of winning.

I'll say this, if the Democrats don't *really* have their shit together in 2008, they'll lose the White House in 2012. The mess that Bush has made will take 20 years to get under control.
This is why I kind of don't want the Democrats to win anything for a long while.

See, I think the GOP has successfully broken the country. I think they have fucked this joint up to the point where it's going to be at least a generation before we get back to where we were in the 90s.

Now, if the Dems gain power, it will take only a generation or so (assuming they choose to even try). If the GOoPers retain power, and if there isn't a MASSIVE shake-up within their party, it will be two or three generations...if ever.

But if the Dems win, then they are going to get stuck with the bill. Right now, the best thing about politics is that everything is the fault of the Republicans. They control every branch of the government, so when they whine about how things are going you get to slap them right across their faces. I assure you, the MOMENT there is Democratic control of any branch of government, that branch will magically become the cause of all the problems. And the GOoPers will swiftly take back all power, because it's the Dem's fault that there are gay feminist abortion doctors selling our country to the Islamocommunofacists.

Was it Kerry or Gore that hired Naomi Wolf as an image consultant and got painted up like a whore? I remember thinking, "Oh god, not her, he's lost." Anyway....

It's really hard to say. His excess is clearly related to the absolute vacuume of any leadership from the Dems, and quite frankly any of the alternative parties. Particularly in this age of FEAR, TERROR, MONSTERS IN THE CLOSET WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN but first this message for PenisGrow caplets, people seem to be willing to settle for false certainty in the abscense anything else. It's the dilemma of two liars, which do you chose to align yourself with the lair that understands some base desire or the one that's completely clueless? The democrats are shockingly weak, totally spineless, divided against themselves, generally without a sense of direction and lack any vision they are able to articulate.

Agreed.
Its been said that the Dems are the Party of No Ideas, and the Reps are the Party of Bad Ideas.
I couldnt agree more.



I'll say this, if the Democrats don't *really* have their shit together in 2008, they'll lose the White House in 2012. The mess that Bush has made will take 20 years to get under control.

So, you think that our next President will be a Democrat?

I have to wonder if they can muster up a candidate, with balls, and a clear and concise plan of action.
If so...assuming hes a fairly charismatic fellow...hes a shoe-in.
If not...Its gonna be McCain, or someone like him.

Wich is sad, really.
I used to like McCain, but he insists upon being a good republican lap-dog, even after watching Bush blatantly ignore the anti-torture law he helped create.
More-over, after reading his book, I gained quite a deal of respect for McCain.
He came off as a christian, but one firmly rooted in the land of Low-Key.
Wich is why it pains me somewhat to see him make such bedfellows as Robertson, or Falwell, and thier ilk.

Wich is sad, really.
I used to like McCain, but he insists upon being a good republican lap-dog, even after watching Bush blatantly ignore the anti-torture law he helped create.
More-over, after reading his book, I gained quite a deal of respect for McCain.
He came off as a christian, but one firmly rooted in the land of Low-Key.
Wich is why it pains me somewhat to see him make such bedfellows as Robertson, or Falwell, and thier ilk.
The last straw for me was McCain's disgusting joke about Chelsea Clinton. He's got zero class. He's just another slimey fake, and we've got a government full of that crap already.

Also, I'm sick and tired of being "represented" by a childish frat boy. I couldn't stomach another four years of humiliation like this, which is what we'd get with somebody like McCain in office.

This is why I kind of don't want the Democrats to win anything for a long while.

See, I think the GOP has successfully broken the country. I think they have fucked this joint up to the point where it's going to be at least a generation before we get back to where we were in the 90s.

Now, if the Dems gain power, it will take only a generation or so (assuming they choose to even try). If the GOoPers retain power, and if there isn't a MASSIVE shake-up within their party, it will be two or three generations...if ever.

But if the Dems win, then they are going to get stuck with the bill. Right now, the best thing about politics is that everything is the fault of the Republicans. They control every branch of the government, so when they whine about how things are going you get to slap them right across their faces. I assure you, the MOMENT there is Democratic control of any branch of government, that branch will magically become the cause of all the problems. And the GOoPers will swiftly take back all power, because it's the Dem's fault that there are gay feminist abortion doctors selling our country to the Islamocommunofacists.

Good thinking, but I see this happening:

Bush has spent waaaaaay too much money on Iraq, and everything else.
SO..the next Pres will be a Democrat.
However, that President will have no choice but to raise taxes, to pay back the money that Bush has spent.

Raising taxes is NEVER popular, and support will wane, becuase every Republican will howl for his blood for raising those taxes.

This viscious cycle has continued, and will keep continuing, until we get two Democratic Presidents in a row.
Wich...given that every new Democratic President will enivitably HAVE to raise taxes to cover previous expenditures...is unlikely.

The last straw for me was McCain's disgusting joke about Chelsea Clinton. He's got zero class. He's just another slimey fake, and we've got a government full of that crap already.

Also, I'm sick and tired of being "represented" by a childish frat boy. I couldn't stomach another four years of humiliation like this, which is what we'd get with somebody like McCain in office.

I cant deny what youre saying, but let me ask you this:

Do you think McCain would have invaded Iraq, to allow himself and his supporters to grow fat from profiteering?

I doubt it.

The man comes from a long line of military minds.
That doesnt make him any more of a good, decent man than anyone else, but it may help to make him have a much better sense of when, who, and why America should go to war.

I dont see him as childish, nor a "Frat-Boy", like Bush...but Im not entirely sure hes trustworthy, either.

Good thinking, but I see this happening:

Bush has spent waaaaaay too much money on Iraq, and everything else.
SO..the next Pres will be a Democrat.
However, that President will have no choice but to raise taxes, to pay back the money that Bush has spent.

Raising taxes is NEVER popular, and support will wane, becuase every Republican will howl for his blood for raising those taxes.

This viscious cycle has continued, and will keep continuing, until we get two Democratic Presidents in a row.
Wich...given that every new Democratic President will enivitably HAVE to raise taxes to cover previous expenditures...is unlikely.
Exactly.

It's like a family where one parent is totally irresponsible, which forces the other parent to be the "bad cop." Daddy spends and spends and spends, buying himself all sorts of pretty new toys, and Mommy ends up being the one who has to tell the kids that they can't have a new bike because there's no money left. Daddy refuses to clean up after himself, so Mommy ends up being the one who is "boring" and "no fun" because she's always stuck picking up the messes. Daddy buys the kids beer and smokes, and Mommy is the "bitch" because she takes them away.

The problem is that Mommy is helping to perpetuate the system by going along with it. Yet what else can she do? She can't just abandon her children or let her home sink into a pile of filth. She can't just walk away, because she (unfortunately) happens to give a shit about what happens to her home and family.

Exactly.

It's like a family where one parent is totally irresponsible, which forces the other parent to be the "bad cop." Daddy spends and spends and spends, buying himself all sorts of pretty new toys, and Mommy ends up being the one who has to tell the kids that they can't have a new bike because there's no money left. Daddy refuses to clean up after himself, so Mommy ends up being the one who is "boring" and "no fun" because she's always stuck picking up the messes. Daddy buys the kids beer and smokes, and Mommy is the "bitch" because she takes them away.

The problem is that Mommy is helping to perpetuate the system by going along with it. Yet what else can she do? She can't just abandon her children or let her home sink into a pile of filth. She can't just walk away, because she (unfortunately) happens to give a shit about what happens to her home and family.

Right.

Since we the people, are the kids in this scene....wich parent gets our loyalty?

Republican Dad.

Worse yet...this is planned strategy by that very same Republican Dad.

Will you please face up to the fact that the Dems are basically inelligible because they are to the left, amongst a people that leans to the right?

Unless the DEMS do the obvious, and occupy the center, even such a detestable clod as van Buren will have 2:1 odds of winning.
People who want leadership will follow a leader, as Bush proves even one who seems determined to wander the desert for 40 years. (He has definate plans, they just rely heavily on magical thinking and thus never work.) The problem with the Democrats isn't that they're with the "left" it's that they don't have a position, seem like they'd be unable to articulate one in anycase, and they compound it with desperation by clinging to the crazies in the left. With Bush being so remarkably horrible, they may still win by default. Which given the ditch this nation has been dragged into would be quite the damning indictment of Republican folly.

Yeah, I think a democratic candidate would be hard to beat. All they have to do is make issue ads featuring administration failures. Their response to Democratic failures is virtually the same, since we weren't the party in control of ANY branch of government, all we could do is threaten to slow the process down enough to get concessions which would mitigate the tremendous amount of damage the Republicans were about to do.

On energy policy they have a particularly good shot at the republicans. "We were for more regulation which would have helped prevent collapses like Enron or at least greatly reduced their damage, the Republican congress had other ideas. We wanted to raise the gas tax by 50 cents a gallon to where a gallon of gas would have been 1.50 to fund crash research programs in alternative energy sources for energy independance and national security, the Republicans still think that was a horrible idea." Bush has been such a collosal disaster he manages to make even the gutless democrats look good. And the republicans don't really have any critics of the administration to run. McCain is the closest, but everyone can sense he'd suck Bush's dick on the 700 Club if it'd improve his chances of getting the Republican nomination 5%.

BackwoodsSquatches,

Speaking of McCain. I think there's two ways he goes.
1. He's really the good guy swallowing his bile and bidding his time (after the shit he's stood by an let happen I can't buy that, but that's next). In which case he's outside of the engine of the party, he's the lipstick on the pig. They trot him out when they want the illusion of integrity. They're brazenly using him, and he doesn't fit in with their goals and ideology. They'll throw him under the bus. Like they've always intended.

2. He's a political animal, motivated primarily by ideology. His inconsistant crafting of his image, inability to speak Jesus-freak, and Bush Sr's connections provided the opportunity for Bush the lessor to cut in line. Should he get the republican nomination and win, he'll be like Bush, only a better public speaker. But the same tragic decision making and cronism with the same catastrophic results. First act as president: Award Bush Medal of Freedom, 2nd act: Put Reagan on the dime. Fortunately he's got quite the track record of supporting policies he appearently knew were horrible while he was supporting them. That guy just seems to me like he'd be pretty hard to promote.

This is all normal. Just relax, just like puberty, America is going through some uncomfortable growin pains which are sometimes embarrassing, sometimes disgusting, and always unexpected. At the end of it all you will be able to look back at what was actually a beautiful period of wonder and innocence compared to your present reality of living in a facist state. Think about it, you had the burning of the reichstag (911), public scaremongering, the hijacking of christianity and conservative ideaology to garner loyalty, diminishing of freedoms, Exemption of the executive from the law, and so on. I always knew USA was destined to become the greatest enemy to liberty the world is to see. It is like superman (who is destined to destroy earth). Only the purest, most shining example of good is capable of the ultimate evil and betrayal. Think of Satan (Once second in command in heaven). I've come to accept it. However, what does worry me is that after the transformation into a facist state, 90%+ of the worlds nukes will still be under US control. That is scary.

I don't think our system need reform, I just think that people that got only D's in school should not be allowed to be President. Honsetly, I hate the fact the world groups the people of the US in the same boat as W. He had only %30 support for god's sake. Sorry, just had to vent that. Oh, and yes, HE is fucked up. Screw Bush for giving the GOP and bad rep.
I think an intelligent Bush would be scarier. This may be fate's greatest mercy on the people of the US of A. Now the question is whether they will act on this golden oppurtunity to prevent what could potentially be the most terrible facist power the world has yet seen. A lot of USAmericans won't entertain the thought of such a thing happening in USA. Opression is something that happens to foriegners, not in USA. The only reason the US has been free in the past is because the people were prepare to stand up and fight for their liberties. If you think the government is going to take care of it for you, then the USA is doomed. Get out there and protest, before it's too late.

Irony's health is not in any danger whatsoever as long as this thread lives. To state that irony has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel is incredibly ironic if the statement is accomplished within 300 words of stating that a sitting president's particular action is illegal because A) he used this particular action more than prior presidents who also used it, and B) schoolhouse rock never mentioned to the author anything which might happen to bills after they are signed into laws other than that laws live cleany and happily ever after.

Irony is still very much alive here, Irony is just so dwarfed by the bolloxed pile of mishandled sarcasm that it is difficult to spot at first.

And he said Communism doesn't work. Look whos laughing now!

More seriously, what the hell is going on in American politics? The sooner Bush's final term finishes the better.

Komyunizumu']And he said Communism doesn't work. Look whos laughing now!

More seriously, what the hell is going on in American politics? The sooner Bush's final term finishes the better.
You think Bush is behind it all? Think again. These problems will continue past Bush's departure. There is a tightly knit loose association of individuals way up in the admin who will continue to pull the puppet strings of whoever fills Bush's shoes.

Komyunizumu']And he said Communism doesn't work. Look whos laughing now!

More seriously, what the hell is going on in American politics? The sooner Bush's final term finishes the better.

Who's laughing?

*spots dearth of communist countries*

OK, Cuba... North Korea.... jeez, not even the Chinese do communism these days.

Komyunizumu']And he said Communism doesn't work. Look whos laughing now!

More seriously, what the hell is going on in American politics? The sooner Bush's final term finishes the better.


Well apparently, Bush has decided that he does not need to follow the law, and feels he can simply make signing notes to avois any part of any bill he signs into law.

I would daresay, after Congress passed a law to force him to reveal wich parts of any laws he makes signing notes to, and avoids following those laws, this just may be officially Unconstitutional.

I would daresay, after Congress passed a law to force him to reveal wich parts of any laws he makes signing notes to, and avoids following those laws, this just may be officially Unconstitutional.

No. Bush will just wish for more wishes.

No. Bush will just wish for more wishes.


DAMN.

I could have SWORN we put a "no wishing for more wishes" clause.

DAMN.

I could have SWORN we put a "no wishing for more wishes" clause.

Maybe Congress could just come up with something to the effect of "No more ignoring the law for the president"

Really, what kind of rationale is behind the idea of having the Executive being able to flout the law at any one time? The dude is supposed to be a public servant, not king.

Maybe Congress could just come up with something to the effect of "No more ignoring the law for the president"

Really, what kind of rationale is behind the idea of having the Executive being able to flout the law at any one time? The dude is supposed to be a public servant, not king.


Thats the thing...they did!

It was passed, and Bush signed it.
...then promptly turned around and added a signing note, outlining wich parts he did not intend to follow.

Thats the thing...they did!

It was passed, and Bush signed it.
...then promptly turned around and added a signing note, outlining wich parts he did not intend to follow.

According to what I saw, it didn't take it away. What it did was state that he would have to disclose it when he used that signing statement.

A direct law banning it altogether followed by a signing statement would be as illegal as Bush using executive powers to ship cocaine or traffic in slaves.

According to what I saw, it didn't take it away. What it did was state that he would have to disclose it when he used that signing statement.

A direct law banning it altogether followed by a signing statement would be as illegal as Bush using executive powers to ship cocaine or traffic in slaves.

See Below, taken from the first post:

In 2002, the ABA reported, Congress passed a bill requiring the attorney general to give it a report detailing signing statements and informing Congress of laws or parts of laws that the president intends to ignore.
President Dubya signed the bill into law.

You can guess what happened next.

President Dubya then issued a signing statement saying he did not have to obey the law.
It bears repeating.

Congress passed a bill requiring the president to tell it whenever he decides to ignore certain laws and the president signed it and then decided to ignore it.

See Below, taken from the first post:


And as I said to that:

The Law says what the Executive says the Law says.
And nuffin else.

And as I said to that:

The Law says what the Executive says the Law says.
And nuffin else.


Umm..shouldnt it be the law is what Congress says it is?
After all, they can pass a bill, even if the Pres vetos it.

So should the President be beholden to the law, or should the Law, be beholden to to the President?

Im voting for Congress to have that authority, and not one man.

Umm..shouldnt it be the law is what Congress says it is?
After all, they can pass a bill, even if the Pres vetos it.

So should the President be beholden to the law, or should the Law, be beholden to to the President?

Im voting for Congress to have that authority, and not one man.


The Law says what the Executive says it says.
And the Executive is a bit of a ventriloquist dummy for his very own Attorney General.

Simple fact of life.
There is no point in having the nicest of laws, unless you're being ruled by the nicest of men.
As I've stated before: living in the 3rd Reich under Lincoln is preferable to living in America under Hitler.
Even if you happen to be a Jew or a Gypsie - or rather, especially so in those cases.

No system in which the Law is not under the de facto control of the Executive can exist, other than temporary - for it is the Executive that actually enforces the Law.

I am more interested in the character of the Executive than in what the Law is meant to say.

( And I assume we both agree that Bush is basically a rather reprehensible character. )

No system in which the Law is not under the de facto control of the Executive can exist, other than temporary - for it is the Executive that actually enforces the Law.

I am more interested in the character of the Executive than in what the Law is meant to say.

( And I assume we both agree that Bush is basically a rather reprehensible character. )

You assume correctly.

As for enforcing the law, I dont see a difference between enforcing, and being forced to obey it.

It should never be one, and not the other.

You assume correctly.

As for enforcing the law, I dont see a difference between enforcing, and being forced to obey it.

It should never be one, and not the other.


My short reply is: The hand that holds the gun cannot be the same as the hand that is raised in surrender.'

There is a vast difference between enforcing and obeying it.
The Romans used to say 'quis custodiet upsos custodios? - who will guard the guardians themselves?
What you wish for cannot be done, I'm afraid.

So it all comes down to chosing decent blokes to rule you, in the end.
Blokes who will adhere to the Law because they chose to adhere to it -
and not because they are forced, for the forcing cannot be done.

But sooner or later, the hawks will come back, using the tired old arguments of "You hate America, Bush needs to be able to do whatever he wants to fight them terrorists!"

I figure that Bush could stab a bunch of babys on public tv with a dull fork and they'd say the same thing.

As a matter of National Security, you are obligated to tell me how you came upon the classified information for the President's next address to the Nation.

As a matter of National Security, you are obligated to tell me how you came upon the classified information for the President's next address to the Nation.

So I say to you and the rest of the spooks with you. Come get me. :D

My short reply is: The hand that holds the gun cannot be the same as the hand that is raised in surrender.'

Arriba La Raza, mi amigo.


There is a vast difference between enforcing and obeying it.
The Romans used to say 'quis custodiet upsos custodios? - who will guard the guardians themselves?
What you wish for cannot be done, I'm afraid.

I think what it means is that Im a bit of a hopeless idealist.
To me, there shouldnt be any reason why a leader cant enforce, and be fully
compliant with the law.
To me, most especially if that leader is the top of the law-making process.
He should be the one who is under the MOST pressure and adhere to the fullest measure of the law, or as close as one can humanly achieve, at any rate.




So it all comes down to chosing decent blokes to rule you, in the end.
Blokes who will adhere to the Law because they chose to adhere to it -
and not because they are forced, for the forcing cannot be done.

Thats entirely the problem with American politics.
We've been clean out of "Decent Blokes".
I personally feel the last decent bloke was Jimmy Carter.
Sadly, he was locked and bound helpless by a House and Senate controlled by a hostile opposition.
So, sadly, he wasnt able to be an effective leader.

These days, the closest thing we have to a honest, decent man is John McCain, and truthfully, hes pretty much as big of a douche as the rest of them.

snippetysnip



Thats entirely the problem with American politics.
We've been clean out of "Decent Blokes".
I personally feel the last decent bloke was Jimmy Carter.
Sadly, he was locked and bound helpless by a House and Senate controlled by a hostile opposition.
So, sadly, he wasnt able to be an effective leader.

These days, the closest thing we have to a honest, decent man is John McCain, and truthfully, hes pretty much as big of a douche as the rest of them.


We're beginning to have too much in coomon for comfort: I have the same preference for Jimmy and John as gentlemen.


We must remember that politics is becoming more Darwinian ( as always happens with democracies ) : it attracts first and foremost those who love power for its own sake.

We're beginning to have too much in coomon for comfort: I have the same preference for Jimmy and John as gentlemen.


We must remember that politics is becoming more Darwinian ( as always happens with democracies ) : it attracts first and foremost those who love power for its own sake.


It makes me wonder how many, if any at all, of our American Presidents ran for office because they actually wanted to make a difference.
However, I suppose that can be applied to any place with elected officials.
Im sure at the start, they are all full of ideas, and plans to improve the world, and eventually give way to partisan politics and money.

I consider myself an Independant, leaning fairly to the left, but I tell you now, I would vote for any man, or woman, who I TRULY believed was honest.
If there was such thing as an honest politician, even one that didnt always tell me what I wanted to hear, but presented the facts, as they truly are, I would pledge undying loyalty.

Such a man, probably doesnt exist.

So, I am left, as most Americans, to choose the Turd Sandwich, or the Giant Douche.

Making a difference in a positive way tends to be possible only in rather dictatorshippish societies. Nicer places restrict the impact any one person can have.

May I recommend look at A man in full by Tom Wolfe?
Other things being equal: the politician who's willing to sell out survives, while the politician who refuses to do so will suffer the fate of Jeremy Bryan ( who I don't like all that much. ) - or will not even be able to buy space on a billboard.

Making a difference in a positive way tends to be possible only in rather dictatorshippish societies. Nicer places restrict the impact any one person can have.

May I recommend look at A man in full by Tom Wolfe?
Other things being equal: the politician who's willing to sell out survives, while the politician who refuses to do so will suffer the fate of Jeremy Bryan ( who I don't like all that much. ) - or will not even be able to buy space on a billboard.


In that regard, politics is much like the music business.
In order to reach the top, you absolutely must compromise your principles, and your integrity, to appeal to as many people as you can.
The more of yourself you give away, the more successful you will be able to become.

In a sense, no rich musician, nor rich politician, is able to deny he/she is a whore.

In that regard, politics is much like the music business.
In order to reach the top, you absolutely must compromise your principles, and your integrity, to appeal to as many people as you can.
The more of yourself you give away, the more successful you will be able to become.

In a sense, no rich musician, nor rich politician, is able to deny he/she is a whore.

*shrug* bottlebabies.

OK - that sounded a bit more churlish than I meant to - but it is the basic idea all the same.
Need I comment that there is absolutely no modern music that is to my taste?

In politics, one must persuade 50% + 1.
Given that most folks are kinda freaky, how can you stay true to self and still make it?

Thats the thing...they did!

It was passed, and Bush signed it.
...then promptly turned around and added a signing note, outlining wich parts he did not intend to follow.

I should go research it, but hey, it's not my country. Perhaps you can just tell us:
Under what circumstances do the signing notes, if secret, become public?
Presumably if they just say "I had my fingers crossed, nyer nyer!" they're not effective?
Is the effect of the signing statement, when disputed (as it would be in your hypothetical impeachment) decided by the Supreme Court?
Ta.

I should go research it, but hey, it's not my country. Perhaps you can just tell us:
Under what circumstances do the signing notes, if secret, become public?
Presumably if they just say "I had my fingers crossed, nyer nyer!" they're not effective?
Is the effect of the signing statement, when disputed (as it would be in your hypothetical impeachment) decided by the Supreme Court?
Ta.


Well, to the best of my knowledge, Impeachment proceedings are entirely done by Congress.
They would vote to proceed with hearings and motions.
To do this, Congress would need at least a 2/3 majority vote, (I may be wong on this, but this is what I believe).

So....in this situation, a Congress that has a Republican majority, is not very likely to impeach a President of its own party.
Unless perhaps, the accused crime was blatantly obvious.

As for the signing statements, when Bush signed the bill that Congress passed forcing him to reveal wich parts of the law he added statements to, he simply added a statement, saying he did not have to follow that law.
In other words, he simply wrote "I dont have to tell you" into law.

This, the American Bar Association, feels is against the law, so they, I believe are looking into pressing charges against him, or at least, filing suit of some kind.
In this particular case, I believe it would be taken up by the Supreme Court.
They however, have the priveledge of deciding wich cases they will, and will not hear.
In a Panel of Judges, all hand-picked by Bush Sr, and Bush Jr, I would highly doubt any negative decisions against him would be rendered.