NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/ravbio.php

So is it possible that Bush's house of cards is finally collapsing?

Given that there are quite a few people who are jumping ship...I'd say King Georges days are numbered....

Shame these people fell for it for so long...despite what many other people have been saying for the last 6 years...that Bush is a anti-freedom authoritarian with little grip on reality.

So hopefully this nightmare will end with a few of the Neocon cabal having a day in court...

hopefully.

There is a difference between "conservative" and "reactionary". I'd say that the Bush jr. administration is more reactionary than conservative.

Oh, trust me, Bush betrayed virtually everyone on the right, except for the mild authoritarians, a long time ago.

Oh, trust me, Bush betrayed virtually everyone on the right, except for the mild authoritarians, a long time ago.

no doubt about that...however its taken to now for the realization to dawn on the betrayed....

http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/ravbio.php

So is it possible that Bush's house of cards is finally collapsing?

Given that there are quite a few people who are jumping ship...I'd say King Georges days are numbered....

Shame these people fell for it for so long...despite what many other people have been saying for the last 6 years...that Bush is a anti-freedom authoritarian with little grip on reality.

So hopefully this nightmare will end with a few of the Neocon cabal having a day in court...

Of course the GOP betrayed modern conservatism. It was betrayed years ago, when the GOP decided it needed the Christofacists and Christains (to use an accedental neologism I saw recently) support.

The father of modern US conservatism, Barry Goldwater, said as much on several occassions:

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'
Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
The Washington Post (28 July 1994)

I think this is more of a case of Viguerie trying to save the brand he's worked so many years to build than a revolution in the ranks. Conservatives like Viguerie worked for decades to build the brand of conservatism while simultaneously destroying the liberal brand, and now he sees that threatened by not only the incompetence of the Bush administration, but by the dearth of real ideas inside his own movement. He has to save the brand, or it'll all go up in smoke.

Of course the GOP betrayed modern conservatism. It was betrayed years ago, when the GOP decided it needed the Christofacists and Christains (to use an accedental neologism I saw recently) support.

The father of modern US conservatism, Barry Goldwater, said as much on several occassions:


Congressional Record, September 16, 1981


The Washington Post (28 July 1994)

I think this is more of a case of Viguerie trying to save the brand he's worked so many years to build than a revolution in the ranks. Conservatives like Viguerie worked for decades to build the brand of conservatism while simultaneously destroying the liberal brand, and now he sees that threatened by not only the incompetence of the Bush administration, but by the dearth of real ideas inside his own movement. He has to save the brand, or it'll all go up in smoke.

Good points both!!

It looks like the anti neocon bandwagon is growing...which is good.

Nazz - rubbishing the opposing 'brand' is a part and parcel of politics...something the Democrats seem to have forgotten...

The difference is that these guys (the neocons) want to go beyond rubbishing...and actually erase opposition...

As It Happens, a nightly radio show here in Canada, recently did a little article about how Bush is losing ground with christain (thanks, daistallia) movements because he was unable to implement the changes they would like.

The joyous irony...

As It Happens, a nightly radio show here in Canada, recently did a little article about how Bush is losing ground with christain (thanks, daistallia) movements because he was unable to implement the changes they would like.

The joyous irony...

Would that have been about David Kuo's book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, wherein he describes the Bush administration cynical abuse of Christians, Christofacists, and Christains, while laughing at them behind their backs?

Would that have been about David Kuo's book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, wherein he describes the Bush administration cynical abuse of Christians, Christofacists, and Christains, while laughing at them behind their backs?

Truly, and it's not just the Bushies, it's the whole Neoconservative movement. They took over the House and Senate twelve years ago and yet abortion is still legal in some parts of this country, gay marriage is still an issue, there still seems to be an issue about God in the Public Square. All of these things ought to have been dealt with long ago (and how sweet would it have been to do it during the Clinton Administration), and yet ... And they can't really even complain about "activist liberal judges" because on the Federal level, those judges are impeachable by Congress (if they could impeach Clinton for lying about a blow-job, I'm sure they could find something on the judges), and yet ...

And you know what's funny? Despite knowing that the whole neocon movement is using them like Wayne Brady's bitches, the flock of sheep will dutifully vote their "morals" for the "party of values" when the words "Gay Marriage" and "Abortion" are pasted on the election ballots once again.

http://www.giftsheep.com/Images/BigSheep_01.gif

Mehhhhhhhhh...

Given that there are quite a few people who are jumping ship...I'd say King Georges days are numbered....

Of course they are, since he can't run for 2008.

Of course they are, since he can't run for 2008.

Don't be so sure he'll even get those last two years;)

The thing I'm really looking forward to is John Conyers as head of the house judiciary committee. Conyers with subpoena power will be a glorious thing to behold :D

Christains

Brilliant!

Of course they are, since he can't run for 2008.

predicting the future given the present situation....?

Of course realistically you are right....but on the flip side we see a President playing lip service to 'democratic methods'...

predicting the future given the present situation....?

Of course realistically you are right....but on the flip side we see a President playing lip service to 'democratic methods'...

It will never happen.

If Bush so much as utters that he might, possibly, conceivably THINK about staying in office one day past his 8 year term there will be massive riots in the streets.

Don't be so sure he'll even get those last two years;)

The thing I'm really looking forward to is John Conyers as head of the house judiciary committee. Conyers with subpoena power will be a glorious thing to behold :DConyers? Hell, man. Waxman with subpoena power is what has Republican congresscritters shitting in their shoes.

Of course they are, since he can't run for 2008.

But, if the Dems win one or both houses of Congress, Bush will be severely neutered, to the point of him might as well just quitting. He'll be a talking head, that's about it.

It will never happen.

If Bush so much as utters that he might, possibly, conceivably THINK about staying in office one day past his 8 year term there will be massive riots in the streets.

I would certainly hope so....

hmmm this is heading down the tin foil hat route...so to get it back on track.... (http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003347326&imw=Y)

After President Meets Reporters, Sullivan -- Once a Bush Backer -- Now Suggests He May Have 'Lost His Mind'

By E&P Staff

Published: November 01, 2006 10:00 PM ET

NEW YORK In a move that no doubt sent a shiver through several candidates in his own party, President Bush, in a special interview with wire service reporters in the White House, today guaranteed a job for his Pentagon chief for two more years, adding that both Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney "are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them."

But it wasn't only endangered Republicans who have been calling for Rumsfeld's ouster who may have blanched. Andrew Sullivan, the conservative writer who was once a key media supporter for the Iraq war, denounced the latest Bush statement on CNN on Wednesday night, stating that the president is so delusional, "This is not an election anymore, it's an intervention."

Sullivan said the president was "so in denial," comparing the Rumsfeld endorsement to applauding the job FEMA's Michael Brown did on Katrina: "It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that it has been done well. It's a disaster.

"For him to say it's a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it, I'm sorry, there's no other way to say it.....These people must be held accountable." He added that today, Richard Perle, a leading neocon and Iraq war backer, had today called the administration "dysfunctional."

It will never happen.

If Bush so much as utters that he might, possibly, conceivably THINK about staying in office one day past his 8 year term there will be massive riots in the streets.

I agree. I'm sure that the Republicans regret the zeal of their predecessors in getting that "only two terms" amendment passed.

But, if the Dems win one or both houses of Congress, Bush will be severely neutered, to the point of him might as well just quitting. He'll be a talking head, that's about it.

He won't quit, much as one might enjoy the prospect. Heck, Clinton stayed with a Republican Congress that impeached him, so why would bush quit? Besides, it's an easy ride if all you have to do is blame Congress for everything for two years.

I agree. I'm sure that the Republicans regret the zeal of their predecessors in getting that "only two terms" amendment passed.

Although I'm sure they appreciated it once polls revealed that even a post impeachment Clinton could have beaten Dubya with both hands tied behind his back.

the question then is how much the Bush Presidency has damaged the Republican Party....if indeed it has...?

The republicans in congress and the President have of course betrayed true conservative and republican values. The spending they are doing is NOT true conservatism. Allowing yourself to be hijacked by the christian right and interfering with the personal lives is NOT true conservatism. Using the military for reckless adventures, such as is the case in Iraq is NOT true conservatism.

Bush has been an excellent leader for our country. Unfortunately, there were few people who were intelligent and rational enough to realize that Bush's policies were correct for the future of the world. Many were against him because of their ill-advised "values" and he needed a strategy in order to win. Thus, he appealed to a rather stupid crowd, the religious right. Finally, they are waking up to the fact that they were being led like sheep. This is unfortunate because a short-sighted majority are going to sweep into power following the 2008 elections, leading to the deterioration of not only our economy, but also our social fabric. The US will go down the path which France is on, and it doesn't lead to salvation.

LOL!!!

Great satire!

Of course the GOP betrayed modern conservatism. It was betrayed years ago, when the GOP decided it needed the Christofacists and Christains (to use an accedental neologism I saw recently) support.

The father of modern US conservatism, Barry Goldwater, said as much on several occassions:


Congressional Record, September 16, 1981


The Washington Post (28 July 1994)
Excellent quotes. May I save them for future use? With appropriate credit, of course.

It will never happen.

If Bush so much as utters that he might, possibly, conceivably THINK about staying in office one day past his 8 year term there will be massive riots in the streets.
I'm not so sure. Americans seem to have lost their will to stand up for themselves.

Excellent quotes. May I save them for future use? With appropriate credit, of course.

I like you, you're fun.

I have said many many times that if the republican party was run by folks like goldwater I'd be a republican.

The fundamental principles of the true republican party is:

1) get government the hell out of people's homes

2) get government the hell out of people's private lives

3) be frugal with the national budget

The difference is I tend to be more in favor of social welfare programs than goldwateresq republicans are.

But seriously, the issues like abortion, gay marriage, the war in Iraq? A true republican would be on opposite ends on just about every issue the current GOP administration is.

I'm not so sure. Americans seem to have lost their will to stand up for themselves.

I don't think so, not on this issue. A lot of the questionably constitutional acts that the GOP has been engaged in has caused a lot of rumbling...but a president going in clear, no two ways about it, direct violation of the constitution? He would be impeached. Not even a GOP controlled congress would stand for that.

Bush has been an excellent leader for our country. Unfortunately, there were few people who were intelligent and rational enough to realize that Bush's policies were correct for the future of the world. Many were against him because of their ill-advised "values" and he needed a strategy in order to win. Thus, he appealed to a rather stupid crowd, the religious right. Finally, they are waking up to the fact that they were being led like sheep. This is unfortunate because a short-sighted majority are going to sweep into power following the 2008 elections, leading to the deterioration of not only our economy, but also our social fabric. The US will go down the path which France is on, and it doesn't lead to salvation.
LOL
I thought it was a joke post until I saw the author. Meh, still a joke.

I don't think so, not on this issue. A lot of the questionably constitutional acts that the GOP has been engaged in has caused a lot of rumbling...but a president going in clear, no two ways about it, direct violation of the constitution? He would be impeached. Not even a GOP controlled congress would stand for that.

like the sitting Pres ignoring or writing off laws passed by Congress as not applicable to the Whitehouse?

the question then is how much the Bush Presidency has damaged the Republican Party....if indeed it has...?
The Bush Presidency has damaged the Republican Party in exactly the ways warned of by Goldwater. The damage is so bad, that if the Party does not use this upcoming election to purge neocons from their ranks, I predict that the Party will be effectively destroyed by 2008. It will be called "Republican" but it will function like a nationalist fascist party. If the neocons were honest, they would have started their own party to begin with, but they were smart and experienced enough to know that it would be better to take over an existing "brand" (referring to Nazz's point), and that is exactly what they have done. If they are not kicked out, then people who hold what used to be considered Republican political beliefs will have to start a new party to represent them.

like the sitting Pres ignoring or writing off laws passed by Congress as not applicable to the Whitehouse?

the question about signing statements is if they have any actual legal weight to them. In other words...yeah it's nice that the president says so, but is it legally true?

If not then he could be quoting dr. suess for all the legal effect of it.

The Bush Presidency has damaged the Republican Party in exactly the ways warned of by Goldwater. The damage is so bad, that if the Party does not use this upcoming election to purge neocons from their ranks, I predict that the Party will be effectively destroyed by 2008. It will be called "Republican" but it will function like a nationalist fascist party. If the neocons were honest, they would have started their own party to begin with, but they were smart and experienced enough to know that it would be better to take over an existing "brand" (referring to Nazz's point), and that is exactly what they have done. If they are not kicked out, then people who hold what used to be considered Republican political beliefs will have to start a new party to represent them.

hmmmmm fascist? Pretty strong word....I am not sure that applies....Nationalist....yes....absolutely...

The problem with Goldwater though is that it carries too much in the way of baggage from the 60's...

LOL
I thought it was a joke post until I saw the author. Meh, still a joke.

There's a reason he's on my ignore list.

the question about signing statements is if they have any actual legal weight to them. In other words...yeah it's nice that the president says so, but is it legally true?

If not then he could be quoting dr. suess for all the legal effect of it.

Who makes the Laws? Congress or the President?

I'm not so sure. Americans seem to have lost their will to stand up for themselves.

If anything, we have gained the will to stand up for ourselves. Unlike when Clinton was in office and nothing was done about the horrid specter of terrorism (thus contributing to 9/11, but I'm not going to get into that debate), we are now taking active measures to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring.

If anything, we have gained the will to stand up for ourselves. Unlike when Clinton was in office and nothing was done about the horrid specter of terrorism (thus contributing to 9/11, but I'm not going to get into that debate), we are now taking active measures to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring.

dude...terrorism is not a recent phenomenon!

I like you, you're fun.

I have said many many times that if the republican party was run by folks like goldwater I'd be a republican.

The fundamental principles of the true republican party is:

1) get government the hell out of people's homes

2) get government the hell out of people's private lives

3) be frugal with the national budget

The difference is I tend to be more in favor of social welfare programs than goldwateresq republicans are.

But seriously, the issues like abortion, gay marriage, the war in Iraq? A true republican would be on opposite ends on just about every issue the current GOP administration is.
I have always respected and admired Goldwater. I disagree with his views on many issues, but not on others, and in any event, he was an honest, honorable, intelligent man who loved the US and the principals on which its government is based.

The funny part is, I'm a left-of-center, borderline socialist, liberal, and I just cannot stand the degree of government intervention in personal life under the neocons, the degree of centralization and concentration of power in government, and the spending -- oh, the spending!!! The money!!! All the poor little dollars! PLEASE, WON'T ANYBODY THINK OF THE DOLLARS!!!

Who makes the Laws? Congress or the President?

Congress, that's the point. The president can add his little "I don't think the law does this" line to whatever he wants, but it's not his power to make the law, therefore it's highly questionable whether his little statements legally MEAN anything.

I don't think so, not on this issue. A lot of the questionably constitutional acts that the GOP has been engaged in has caused a lot of rumbling...but a president going in clear, no two ways about it, direct violation of the constitution? He would be impeached. Not even a GOP controlled congress would stand for that.
From your mouth to god's ear, as the saying goes. I'm a pacifist, but I try not to be morbid about it, and as Mel Brooks so aptly put it, "A riot is an ugly thing, and I think it is about time that we had one!"

I have always respected and admired Goldwater. I disagree with his views on many issues, but not on others, and in any event, he was an honest, honorable, intelligent man who loved the US and the principals on which its government is based.

The funny part is, I'm a left-of-center, borderline socialist, liberal, and I just cannot stand the degree of government intervention in personal life under the neocons, the degree of centralization and concentration of power in government, and the spending -- oh, the spending!!! The money!!! All the poor little dollars! PLEASE, WON'T ANYBODY THINK OF THE DOLLARS!!!

This is what gets me, the republican party is SUPPOSED to be the party of SMALL government, get OUT of people's lives...and look at what's happening? Drug wars, attempts to overturn abortion, gay marriage bans...this is not small government, this is directly the government trying to enforce its particular morality on the populace.

I'm like you, I'm a leftist classical liberal, and how the party of small government can justify its actions is mind blowing.

Although the democratic party is equally guilty in some regards, like the smoking bans going on, which I disagree with.

the question about signing statements is if they have any actual legal weight to them. In other words...yeah it's nice that the president says so, but is it legally true?

If not then he could be quoting dr. suess for all the legal effect of it.
It will carry as much or as little weight as the Congress has the will to do anything about it (i.e. fulfill its checks and balances duties), and the will of the Congress is a direct reflection of the demands of the constituentcies. And that brings us back to those riots.

From your mouth to god's ear, as the saying goes. I'm a pacifist, but I try not to be morbid about it, and as Mel Brooks so aptly put it, "A riot is an ugly thing, and I think it is about time that we had one!"

Mel Brooks quote? Oh I think I love you now :p

It will carry as much or as little weight as the Congress has the will to do anything about it (i.e. fulfill its checks and balances duties), and the will of the Congress is a direct reflection of the demands of the constituentcies. And that brings us back to those riots.

The problem with that is that...well...that's Congress' job. If it allows it...while we might disagree with that decision, that's the job of the legislature to make, so if they make it...they make it.

hmmmmm fascist? Pretty strong word....I am not sure that applies....Nationalist....yes....absolutely...
Time will tell. I think the neocons are definitely totalitarian in their views, and not to the leftist side of things (notwithstanding the rumor that many of the founders of the movement used to be Trotskyites).

The problem with Goldwater though is that it carries too much in the way of baggage from the 60's...
Isn't that a bit like complaining that the Constitution carries baggage from the 1700s, or the idea of democracy carries too much weight from ancient Greece? It doesn't matter how old an idea is or in what context it was first developed, if we can still find modern relevance within it. Then it transcends its original context.

The problem with that is that...well...that's Congress' job. If it allows it...while we might disagree with that decision, that's the job of the legislature to make, so if they make it...they make it.
WE send Senators and Representatives to Congress to do OUR business and look out for OUR interests. If WE send a strong message to Congress about what we want them to do, they had better have a damned good reason for not working to get it done. Otherwise, they are just ignoring the people they are supposed to represent. Note that's "represent," not "rule," "govern" or "lead." And to the degree that they refuse to do the bidding of the people and, worse, continue to work against our best interests, the more they become a body of tyranny just as much as an individual dictator would be. What do they call that -- dictatorship by committee -- "oligarchy"? No, that's not it. Whatever, it's un-American.

EDIT: Or maybe "oligarchy" is the word I want, considering the degree to which corporate/big business special interests have corrupted both parties.

If anything, we have gained the will to stand up for ourselves. Unlike when Clinton was in office and nothing was done about the horrid specter of terrorism (thus contributing to 9/11, but I'm not going to get into that debate), we are now taking active measures to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring.
Sorry, old fellow, but I don't speak troll, and anyway, we're up to 4 pages already. No more feeding for you.

WE send Senators and Representatives to Congress to do OUR business and look out for OUR interests. If WE send a strong message to Congress about what we want them to do, they had better have a damned good reason for not working to get it done. Otherwise, they are just ignoring the people they are supposed to represent. Note that's "represent," not "rule," "govern" or "lead." And to the degree that they refuse to do the bidding of the people and, worse, continue to work against our best interests, the more they become a body of tyranny just as much as an individual dictator would be. What do they call that -- dictatorship by committee -- "oligarchy"? No, that's not it. Whatever, it's un-American.

This is a common debate among us nerdy political theorists. Is it the job of the elected member of congress to closely emulate the opinions of his constituency and put aside his own, and truly act as a representative?

Or do the voters, through their actions, chose the individual they trust the most to manage their affairs by his own best judgement?

It's a hard question to answer, and one I don't think there is a clear answer to. Some might say that when you vote for a representative, that representative's job is to represent your beliefs, to closely as possibly mirror his votes to his constituents will.

Others would say that the representative only represents to the general assembly, not represents the will, and he is free to vote as he wishes, by the voters chosing him, the voters have placed their faith in him to vote in their best interests, and left to him to decide what that best interest is (with encouragement one side or the other, of course).

The fact is, under constitutional law, a congressman is in no way obligated to vote in ANY way representative of the will of those that elected him. It's certainly NICe that they do, but basically their job, once elected, is to help their constituency as they best see fit, from a legal obligation at least. And if we feel that they no longer have our best interests at heart, or their best judgement is lacking...we fire them next election.

Sorry, old fellow, but I don't speak troll, and anyway, we're up to 4 pages already. No more feeding for you.

What was that? Another liberal is avoiding honest debate by branding all those who disagree with his extremist views "trolls"? What a surprise...not! :)

What was that? Another liberal is avoiding honest debate

When you start an honest debate I'll be sure to join it. Til then, feck off

When you start an honest debate I'll be sure to join it. Til then, feck off

Are you implying that Clinton took equally determined actions as Bush against terrorism? All Clinton did was bomb a couple of Tylenol factories and kill some innocent civilians -- Bush did much, much more.

All Clinton did was...kill some innocent civilians -- Bush did much, much more.

Yeah, Bush killed a whole shit ton more civilians....unfortunatly we don't measure success in that fashion.

Yeah, Bush killed a whole shit ton more civilians....unfortunatly we don't measure success in that fashion.

No, Bush took much more decisive action to curb anti-American terrorism and succeeded in his objective. Thanks to him, we are fighting the enemy on desolate Iraqi deserts instead of affluent American cities.

No, Bush took much more decisive action to curb anti-American terrorism and succeeded in his objective. Thanks to him, we are fighting the enemy on desolate Iraqi deserts instead of affluent American cities.

Exactly. After all, there were several foreign terrorist attacks within the borders of the continental united states during the Clinton administration, and none at all during the Bush administration.

And you know what's funny? Despite knowing that the whole neocon movement is using them like Wayne Brady's bitches, the flock of sheep will dutifully vote their "morals" for the "party of values" when the words "Gay Marriage" and "Abortion" are pasted on the election ballots once again.

Given that this is a Gauthier post, shouldn't the term "<hr1st1@n b0rg c0ll3c7iv3" or something be used?

I have always respected and admired Goldwater. I disagree with his views on many issues, but not on others, and in any event, he was an honest, honorable, intelligent man who loved the US and the principals on which its government is based.
Goldwater was, as Domici once said, like a cake made of shit, with chocolate icing. He's just not worth it. Once could find terrible facts about taking away government programmes to give people equal opportunity, combat racism, support workers, education and healthcare.

Though if abortion is an issue that you think is very important, then by all means sadmire him.

Congress, that's the point. The president can add his little "I don't think the law does this" line to whatever he wants, but it's not his power to make the law, therefore it's highly questionable whether his little statements legally MEAN anything.

Yes but while he is in office they are executive orders and hence enacted...

Yes but while he is in office they are executive orders and hence enacted...

no, not necessarily. The president doesn't make the law. If a signing statement does something that changes the definition of the law he is signing, then it turns the law that the legislature passed into an entirely different law.

Same problem with line item vetoes. The president, as a matter of constitutional law, has only a thumbs up/thumbs down approval. Either approve as a whole, or reject as a whole.

now he as the president can certainly SAY "well, the white house interprets the law to mean this". He can say it all he wants to. And maybe a court will give weight to that opinion, and maybe not.

A signing statement only is "the whitehouse interprets this law to mean X" In other words, it's George Bush saying "in my opinion, this is how this law reads". But that's only his opinion. He neither has the power to create the law, nor interpret the law, he only has the power to enforce the law. And if his interpretation is wrong, then the courts may clarify that.

Up until now, no signing statement has actually been brought up in a legal challenge, so for now they're merely hypothetical statements with no actual legal weight to them.

Who makes the Laws? Congress or the President?

Well, it used to be the Congress, and that's what the Constitution calls for, but with the way Bush is using signing statements, it's more like he's his own legislature.

Time will tell. I think the neocons are definitely totalitarian in their views, and not to the leftist side of things (notwithstanding the rumor that many of the founders of the movement used to be Trotskyites).


Isn't that a bit like complaining that the Constitution carries baggage from the 1700s, or the idea of democracy carries too much weight from ancient Greece? It doesn't matter how old an idea is or in what context it was first developed, if we can still find modern relevance within it. Then it transcends its original context.

When I see wholesale use of incarcerated felons being used as slave labour will I entertain the idea that the current regime is totalitarian.

I can see the Trot line without a doubt. After all politics is not a linear phenomenon.

You make an interesting point regarding Goldwater and transcending context but I am not sure I see the relevancy...the Constitution can be amended via a defined process...and as for Athenian Democracy...hardly at all relevant. In fact very alien to what we call democracy.

Well, it used to be the Congress, and that's what the Constitution calls for, but with the way Bush is using signing statements, it's more like he's his own legislature.

"And Children, don't forget the fourth branch of the Government, George W. Bush."

"And Children, don't forget the fourth branch of the Government, George W. Bush."
Well, it's more like he's become the one branch of government. I mean, nearly six years ago when I called him King George the Lesser, I was joking. I didn't realize he was going to go and turn us into a monarchy.

no, not necessarily. The president doesn't make the law. If a signing statement does something that changes the definition of the law he is signing, then it turns the law that the legislature passed into an entirely different law.

Same problem with line item vetoes. The president, as a matter of constitutional law, has only a thumbs up/thumbs down approval. Either approve as a whole, or reject as a whole.

now he as the president can certainly SAY "well, the white house interprets the law to mean this". He can say it all he wants to. And maybe a court will give weight to that opinion, and maybe not.

A signing statement only is "the whitehouse interprets this law to mean X" In other words, it's George Bush saying "in my opinion, this is how this law reads". But that's only his opinion. He neither has the power to create the law, nor interpret the law, he only has the power to enforce the law. And if his interpretation is wrong, then the courts may clarify that.

Up until now, no signing statement has actually been brought up in a legal challenge, so for now they're merely hypothetical statements with no actual legal weight to them.

You are 100% correct. However they are a reality. They have been used.

You are 100% correct. However they are a reality. They have been used.
Yep, and until they're challenged and overturned, they have the force of law. That's the scary thing.

Brilliant!

No. Stupid. Idiotic. Retarded. Dumb. Unbrilliant.

Yep, and until they're challenged and overturned, they have the force of law. That's the scary thing.

I would not be surprised if many Conservatives are rather aghast at the gall of the use to which Bush places them.

Will the Republican Party go the way of the British Tories after 2006 and 2008?

I will say that I am surprised that only one self confessed conservative or neocon has posted...

With discipline on both sides we can have a discussion? After all it is not bi-partisan...all of the issues reside within the Republican Party.

The Democrats are too ineffectual to influence this situation. (if you want to debate this particular item please start a new thread:) )

Brilliant!
No. Stupid. Idiotic. Retarded. Dumb. Unbrilliant.

If you don't like it take it up with Dweladelfia prime.

No you are making fun of Christain beilfs in general. This is very offensive to me and lik I said if nothing is done I will be emailing jolt.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11884090&postcount=5

The republicans in congress and the President have of course betrayed true conservative and republican values. The spending they are doing is NOT true conservatism. Allowing yourself to be hijacked by the christian right and interfering with the personal lives is NOT true conservatism. Using the military for reckless adventures, such as is the case in Iraq is NOT true conservatism.

Exactly so.

Excellent quotes. May I save them for future use? With appropriate credit, of course.

Certainly.

The Bush Presidency has damaged the Republican Party in exactly the ways warned of by Goldwater. The damage is so bad, that if the Party does not use this upcoming election to purge neocons from their ranks, I predict that the Party will be effectively destroyed by 2008. It will be called "Republican" but it will function like a nationalist fascist party. If the neocons were honest, they would have started their own party to begin with, but they were smart and experienced enough to know that it would be better to take over an existing "brand" (referring to Nazz's point), and that is exactly what they have done. If they are not kicked out, then people who hold what used to be considered Republican political beliefs will have to start a new party to represent them.

It's not just the Bush II presidency. Congress deserves it's fair share of abuse for it's dismal, hypocritical, and corrupt performance.

What was that? Another liberal is avoiding honest debate by branding all those who disagree with his extremist views "trolls"? What a surprise...not! :)

OK, how about this true conservative of the Goldwater stripe branding you a troll. (BTW, are you the latest incarnation of the previous poster who styled himself Barrygoldwater? Your posting style is quite similar, especially the trollishness.)

I will say that I am surprised that only one self confessed conservative or neocon has posted...

With discipline on both sides we can have a discussion? After all it is not bi-partisan...all of the issues reside within the Republican Party.

The Democrats are too ineffectual to influence this situation. (if you want to debate this particular item please start a new thread:) )

I count at least 2 consevatives here, unless you're separating me out for being a libertarian conservative.

I really don’t care.

I find the entire sentiment behind even Berry Goldwater's brand of conservatism to be somewhat charming, but unrealistic and quite dangerous.

I think Conservatives are being betrayed by Bush, and I think that many Conservatives like myself are jumping ship to the Libertarian party.

This Conservative is also here! Although I'm not an American.