NationStates Jolt Archive

There for a second, I believed in the spirit of bipartisanship from the outgoing Bush administration. Dubya was so conciliatory, so anxious to provide for a smooth transition. "Innocent until proven guilty" of malice and sneakiness, thought I.

I was wrong (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15758.html).

Whether it’s relaxing pollution control standards for power plants or allowing loaded weapons into national parks, the Bush Administration is scrambling to approve or change as many federal rules as it can before it hands off power to President-elect Barack Obama. This surge of “midnight regulations” presents a thorny question for the next administration: What can it do to void rules it thinks should be undone?

While executive orders and rules that are not yet in effect can swiftly be reversed or altered by Obama’s appointees or his own executive orders, rules that go into effect before he takes office will be extremely difficult to undo. Rescinding a rule would require the new administration to re-start the rule-making process, which can take years and prompt legal challenges.


“The problem with what the Bush administration is doing is that these rules are extremely cumbersome to adopt, and they are every bit as cumbersome to undo,” said David Vladeck, an administrative law professor at Georgetown University. “It condemns the next administration to spend years fighting on the old administration’s agenda.”

ProPublica is tracking the Midnight Regulations (http://www.propublica.org/special/midnight-regulations/), many of which are finalized and ready to go into effect.

Apparently you don't need the Pardon Pen to gut environmental and health regulations. Looks like Dubya still thinks his approval ratings are too high, and wants to lower the bar so far that nobody will be able to surpass him in future.

Why, oh why, does he insist on doing things like this? :(

Because he is an evil, self-centered bastard who doesn't give a shit about anything but bending us over a chair for business (aka, people he owes for putting him where he was). He only cultivated the stupid good ol' boy facade so he could smile in people's faces as he stabbed them in the gut.

Some of these changes are hilarious, some of these are ridiculously troubling.

Oh, George W. Bush...we could have been friends, man. I bet you're a fun guy to hang out with. I bet we even could have gone jogging together (provided you watched out for errant bicycles). But then, you just have to go and ruin it with stuff like this. Why do you need to be friends with Mr. Uranium and Mr. Lead? Couldn't you just be cool with AIDS prevention?

I don't know, dude. I'm at a really critical point in my life right now, and I just don't know if we can chill together when you'd be telling me that the fishing industry is totally all right or that having shotguns in Yosemite would be awesome. Sorry George. :(

It seems they all do this. The last grip on power is to hard to let go of apparently

Some of these changes are hilarious, some of these are ridiculously troubling.

Oh, George W. Bush...we could have been friends, man. I bet you're a fun guy to hang out with. I bet we even could have gone jogging together (provided you watched out for errant bicycles). But then, you just have to go and ruin it with stuff like this. Why do you need to be friends with Mr. Uranium and Mr. Lead? Couldn't you just be cool with AIDS prevention?

I don't know, dude. I'm at a really critical point in my life right now, and I just don't know if we can chill together when you'd be telling me that the fishing industry is totally all right or that having shotguns in Yosemite would be awesome. Sorry George. :(


Dude, Bush would be great to hang out with. Heres how it would go...

*in Jon Stewart esc Bush impersonasion*
Bush: Scott, lets watch baseball and drink beer.
Scott: Ok.


It would be awesome.

That being said, hes a god fucking awful leader and a nutjob.

Dude, Bush would be great to hang out with. Heres how it would go...

*in Jon Stewart esc Bush impersonasion*
Bush: Scott, lets watch baseball and drink bear.
Scott Ok.


It would be awesome.

That being said, hes a god fucking awful leader and a nutjob.

I agree with hanging out. I always tell people that Bush could probably party like a Rockstar. Just dont let him drive home.

Even Helen Keller hates Bush's presidency, and she's blind, deaf, and dead for forty years!

Even Helen Keller hates Bush's presidency, and she's blind, deaf, and dead for forty years!

*groans*

Dude, Bush would be great to hang out with. Heres how it would go...

*in Jon Stewart esc Bush impersonasion*
Bush: Scott, lets watch baseball and drink beer.
Scott: Ok.


It would be awesome.

That being said, hes a god fucking awful leader and a nutjob.

George W. Bush is a teetotaller. I bet he'd be an awful person to have a beer with.

There for a second, I believed in the spirit of bipartisanship from the outgoing Bush administration. Dubya was so conciliatory, so anxious to provide for a smooth transition...

And then when you guard was down, he sucker punched you. That's the kind of man he is. Sure, he had a less convincing poker face when he played America for a fool with his Middle East adventures and such, but he's had time to practice for a better dissembling guise.

Dude, Bush would be great to hang out with. Heres how it would go...

*in Jon Stewart esc Bush impersonasion*
Bush: Scott, lets watch baseball and drink beer.
Scott: Ok.


It would be awesome.

That being said, hes a god fucking awful leader and a nutjob.

As Nessika asked is that your name?

Anyway, he would be a good guy to hang around with, go out to his ranch sit by while Mrs Bush makes good old southern style food.-

And then when you guard was down, he sucker punched you. That's the kind of man he is. Sure, he had a less convincing poker face when he played America for a fool with his Middle East adventures and such, but he's had time to practice for a better dissembling guise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-PDtjccT1w

:D

As Nessika asked is that your name?


Yessir.


Suprised no one knew that yet. I have a habit of refering to myself in the third person on occasion.

There for a second, I believed in the spirit of bipartisanship from the outgoing Bush administration. Dubya was so conciliatory, so anxious to provide for a smooth transition. "Innocent until proven guilty" of malice and sneakiness, thought I.

I was wrong (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15758.html).

Whether it’s relaxing pollution control standards for power plants or allowing loaded weapons into national parks, the Bush Administration is scrambling to approve or change as many federal rules as it can before it hands off power to President-elect Barack Obama. This surge of “midnight regulations” presents a thorny question for the next administration: What can it do to void rules it thinks should be undone?

While executive orders and rules that are not yet in effect can swiftly be reversed or altered by Obama’s appointees or his own executive orders, rules that go into effect before he takes office will be extremely difficult to undo. Rescinding a rule would require the new administration to re-start the rule-making process, which can take years and prompt legal challenges.


“The problem with what the Bush administration is doing is that these rules are extremely cumbersome to adopt, and they are every bit as cumbersome to undo,” said David Vladeck, an administrative law professor at Georgetown University. “It condemns the next administration to spend years fighting on the old administration’s agenda.”



This behavior, like gerrymandering, is a permanent feature of American politics. Clinton did it, so did H.W., and Obama will do it when his time is up, assuming that an ideologically opposed administration is coming in. It is a bit of partisan hackery to criticize Bush for it.

Yessir.

Suprised no one knew that yet. I have a habit of refering to myself in the third person on occasion.

I suppose no one had picked it up before. And thought you were coming up with a random name.

I suppose no one had picked it up before. And thought you were coming up with a random name.

Nope, Scott is the name.

Plus, there's this latest gem:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/18/bush-abortion-proposal-raises-ire-of-health-groups-eeoc/

Tom Dashle will have his work cut out for him.

The one glimmer of hope, though, is that at least some of this bullshit Bush is trying to rush through while he can may have missed the deadline for making them permanent before the next Congress convenes, which would make it much easier for Obama to undo Bush's directives, orders, etc.

*groans*

ANd that is the exact response she gave.


;)

ANd that is the exact response she gave.


;)

Oh how would you know church mouse? :tongue:

Now if only there was a lone Ninja armed with shuriken pretzels waiting for Dear Leader once he gets out of office...

Oh how would you know church mouse? :tongue:

Oh, don't worry, we tell lots of Helen Keller jokes here. :D

Now if only there was a lone Ninja armed with shuriken pretzels waiting for Dear Leader once he gets out of office... The ninja would become a national hero overnight. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-PDtjccT1w

:D

How do you know he isn't playing the role of the maligned evil overlord?

"They called me a lame duck did they? The worst presidency ever? They'll pay for that. I'll show them. I'll show them all!"

Anyways, back to the matter at hand here. This is a despicable act by a very desperate man. This just another notch in the belt of the most criminal president in US history. I rank him even lower than my usual number 1 most hated prez, Andrew Jackson.

Here is another thing he is doing, as reported by the WashPost:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703537_pf.html

Just weeks before leaving office, the Interior Department's top lawyer has shifted half a dozen key deputies -- including two former political appointees who have been involved in controversial environmental decisions -- into senior civil service posts.

The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.

Similar efforts are taking place at other agencies. Two political hires at the Labor Department have already secured career posts there, and one at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to make the switch.

Between March 1 and Nov. 3, according to the federal Office of Personnel Management, the Bush administration allowed 20 political appointees to become career civil servants. Six political appointees to the Senior Executive Service, the government's most prestigious and highly paid employees, have received approval to take career jobs at the same level. Fourteen other political, or "Schedule C," appointees have also been approved to take career jobs. One candidate was turned down by OPM and two were withdrawn by the submitting agency.

The personnel moves come as Bush administration officials are scrambling to cement in place policy and regulatory initiatives that touch on issues such as federal drinking-water standards, air quality at national parks, mountaintop mining and fisheries limits.

The practice of placing political appointees into permanent civil service posts before an administration ends is not new. In its last 12 months, the Clinton administration approved 47 such moves, including seven at the senior executive level. Federal employees with civil service status receive job protections that make it very difficult for managers to remove them.

Most of the personnel shifts have been done on a case-by-case basis, but Interior Solicitor David L. Bernhardt moved to place six deputies in senior agency positions with one stroke, including two who have repeatedly attracted controversy. Robert D. Comer, who was Rocky Mountain regional solicitor, was named to the civil service post of associate solicitor for mineral resources. Matthew McKeown, who served as deputy associate solicitor for mineral resources, will take Comer's place in what is also a career post. Both had been converted from political appointees to civil service status.

In a report dated Oct. 13, 2004, Interior's inspector general singled out Comer in criticizing a grazing agreement that the Bureau of Land Management had struck with a Wyoming rancher, saying Comer used "pressure and intimidation" to produce the settlement and pushed it through "with total disregard for the concerns raised by career field personnel." McKeown -- who as Idaho's deputy attorney general had sued to overturn a Clinton administration rule barring road-building in certain national forests -- has been criticized by environmentalists for promoting the cause of private property owners over the public interest on issues such as grazing and logging.

One career Interior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his position, said McKeown will "have a huge impact on a broad swath of the West" in his new position, advising the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service on "all the programs they implement." Comer, the official added, will help shape mining policy in his new assignment.

"It is an attempt by the outgoing administration to limit as much as possible [the incoming administration's] ability to put its policy imprint on the Department of Interior," the official said.

In a Nov. 13 memo obtained by The Washington Post, Bernhardt wrote that he was reorganizing his division because the associate solicitors' original status as political appointees undermined the division's effectiveness.

"This has resulted in frequent turnover in those positions, often with an attendant loss in productivity and management continuity in these Divisions, despite the best efforts of the newly-appointed Associate Solicitors," he wrote.

But environmental advocates, and some rank-and-file Interior officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of hurting their careers, said the reassignments represent the Bush administration's effort to leave a lasting imprint on environmental policy.

"What's clear is they could have done this during the eight years they were in office. Why are they doing it now?" said Robert Irvin, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife, an advocacy group. "It's pretty obvious they're trying to leave in place some of their loyal foot soldiers in their efforts to reduce environmental protection."

In an interview yesterday, Bernhardt reiterated that he thinks the move is in the government's long-term interest.

"I believe these management decisions will strengthen the professionalism of the Office of the Solicitor and result in greater service to the Department of the Interior," he said. "However, the next solicitor and the department's management team are free to walk a different path."

One senior Interior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters, said an incoming interior secretary or solicitor could create new political positions upon taking office and could shift Senior Executive Service officials to comparable jobs within a few months. As a general rule, career SES employees may be reassigned involuntarily within their current commuting area within 15 days, and beyond their commuting area within 60 days, but they retain their lucrative and permanent government posts. When a new agency head is appointed, he or she must wait 120 days before reassigning career SES officials.

Outside groups are trying to monitor these moves but are powerless to reverse them. Alex Bastani, a representative at the Labor Department for the American Federation of Government Employees, said it took months for that agency even to acknowledge that two of its Bush appointees, Carrie Snidar and Brad Mantel, had gotten civil service posts.

"They're trying to burrow into these career jobs, and we're very upset," Bastani said. "Everyone should have an opportunity to apply for these positions. And certainly career people who don't have partisan bent and have 10 or 15 years in their respective fields should have a shot at these positions."

Kerry Weems, acting chief of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said he discourages political staff from moving into career slots. "It typically doesn't work out for either party," he said. Even though Weems is a career staffer, he expects to leave the administration when the Obama team takes over.

Alphonso Jackson, who was HUD secretary under President Bush, warned his political appointees not to try to burrow in when the administration changed. But one of his regional directors objected to that flat-out prohibition, according to union leaders at HUD, and has told his colleagues that he has been promised first crack at a career position.


More on the borrowing, by our lame mole in chief:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/burrowing.php


More on the "Soviet-style Purge", as After Downing Street calls it:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/STOPTHEPURGE

Anyways, back to the matter at hand here. This is a despicable act by a very desperate man. This just another notch in the belt of the most criminal president in US history. I rank him even lower than my usual number 1 most hated prez, Andrew Jackson.

Here is another thing he is doing, as reported by the WashPost:

/snip



Again, this is nothing new. Every single administration, since the beginning of the American presidency, has done this. Bush is no more "evil" for doing this than Clinton, H.W., Regan, Carter, etc. It is one of the prerogatives you have for being president of the United States. When Obama's time as president has come to an end, he too will issue executive orders aimed at continuing his policies, and the bureaucrats he appoints will attempt to hold on to their positions as long as they can.

Again, this is nothing new. Every single administration, since the beginning of the American presidency, has done this. Bush is no more "evil" for doing this than Clinton, H.W., Regan, Carter, etc. It is one of the prerogatives you have for being president of the United States. When Obama's time as president has come to an end, he too will issue executive orders aimed at continuing his policies, and the bureaucrats he appoints will attempt to hold on to their positions as long as they can.

Ah, yes the "they did it, so it must be okay" argument. Just because -insert person here- did it, does not mean that it is OKAY. Also, take into context all the legality issues raised over the course of his eight years, that alone should raise concerns about the types of things he is trying to pass. Take a long look at the list of things he is trying to get accomplished. Do any of them seem justifiable to you?

I do support the content of the actions Bush is taking here, but that is not the point.

This thread is specifically complaining that Bush is taking these actions at all, as if he did not have the legal right to do so, and he is somehow doing so underhandedly. Neither of those assertions is true. If you don't like the things he is doing, start a thread saying "Bush is letting people be armed in parks!!!111!one! The world will end!!!!111!!!"

I didn't like when Clinton pardoned a whole bunch of ne're do wells, but I did not question the legality of him doing so. It was entirely his right.

.... Just dont let him drive home.

I think you're confusing W with Ted Kennedy. :tongue:

my favorite new rule (i am an online poker player) is the one regulating online gambling.

2 years ago at the last possible second bill frist stuck a rider onto the port security bill (in the middle of the night on the last day onto a must-pass bill) making it the BANKS' responsibility to make sure that no money goes to online gambling sites. (an actual bill had been thoroughly debated and rejected by congress). one of the provisions was that the rules that the banks would have to follow to comply with this law would have to be written up within 270 days....a deadline that has long passed because there is no way for it to be reasonably done.

NOW george bush is going to unilaterally force rules onto the banks that will require them to look at the recipient of every single transaction--every check, every electronic transfer--to make sure that its not going to an online gambling site (how else can you make sure its not happening? the gambling sites are very tricky when it comes to finding ways to get US funds into their systems.) a measure that will cost the banks billions just at the time when they cannot afford it. (not that they ever could)

i hope this is the worst thing he does in his remaining days in office but im not optimistic.

I think you're confusing W with Ted Kennedy. :tongue:

:eek:

:D

There for a second, I believed in the spirit of bipartisanship from the outgoing Bush administration. Dubya was so conciliatory, so anxious to provide for a smooth transition. "Innocent until proven guilty" of malice and sneakiness, thought I.

I was wrong (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15758.html).

Whether it’s relaxing pollution control standards for power plants or allowing loaded weapons into national parks, the Bush Administration is scrambling to approve or change as many federal rules as it can before it hands off power to President-elect Barack Obama. This surge of “midnight regulations” presents a thorny question for the next administration: What can it do to void rules it thinks should be undone?

While executive orders and rules that are not yet in effect can swiftly be reversed or altered by Obama’s appointees or his own executive orders, rules that go into effect before he takes office will be extremely difficult to undo. Rescinding a rule would require the new administration to re-start the rule-making process, which can take years and prompt legal challenges.


“The problem with what the Bush administration is doing is that these rules are extremely cumbersome to adopt, and they are every bit as cumbersome to undo,” said David Vladeck, an administrative law professor at Georgetown University. “It condemns the next administration to spend years fighting on the old administration’s agenda.”

ProPublica is tracking the Midnight Regulations (http://www.propublica.org/special/midnight-regulations/), many of which are finalized and ready to go into effect.

Apparently you don't need the Pardon Pen to gut environmental and health regulations. Looks like Dubya still thinks his approval ratings are too high, and wants to lower the bar so far that nobody will be able to surpass him in future.
Let's make sure we understand that this is a consequence of elections... All recent Presidents have made their "midnight regulations", as well as plenty of proclamations during their tenure. I can't imagine that Obama will be any different at the end of his term.

I believe it was Podesta that used the phrase, "... stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool".

As I said, let's hold up GWB as a unique case...
from the linked article...
"“Like Cinderella leaving the ball, many of Clinton’s 7,000 presidential appointees hurried to issue last-minute ‘midnight’ regulations before they turned back into ordinary citizens at noon on January 20th,” Dudley wrote in a 2001 commentary."

Ah, yes the "they did it, so it must be okay" argument. Just because -insert person here- did it, does not mean that it is OKAY. Also, take into context all the legality issues raised over the course of his eight years, that alone should raise concerns about the types of things he is trying to pass. Take a long look at the list of things he is trying to get accomplished. Do any of them seem justifiable to you?
Expected doesn't mean okay. It does mean it's legal. This is just as much a fact of politics as unkept promises. In four or eight years, we'll be able to say the same thing about the current President.

my favorite new rule (i am an online poker player) is the one regulating online gambling.

2 years ago at the last possible second bill frist stuck a rider onto the port security bill (in the middle of the night on the last day onto a must-pass bill) making it the BANKS' responsibility to make sure that no money goes to online gambling sites. (an actual bill had been thoroughly debated and rejected by congress). one of the provisions was that the rules that the banks would have to follow to comply with this law would have to be written up within 270 days....a deadline that has long passed because there is no way for it to be reasonably done.

NOW george bush is going to unilaterally force rules onto the banks that will require them to look at the recipient of every single transaction--every check, every electronic transfer--to make sure that its not going to an online gambling site (how else can you make sure its not happening? the gambling sites are very tricky when it comes to finding ways to get US funds into their systems.) a measure that will cost the banks billions just at the time when they cannot afford it. (not that they ever could)

i hope this is the worst thing he does in his remaining days in office but im not optimistic.
None of this should be surprising. Bush is attempting to push through his entire "To Do" list by executive fiat, which, as we know, is the way he prefers to do everything -- unilateral action, unitary executive power (aka dictator), no checks, no balances, just King George getting his way. However, there is a good chance that the pervasive incompetence of him and his entire team may yet come to our rescue next year, as apparently, they are doing all of this too late to "burrow" the new regulations the way he is trying to "burrow" those staffers. If the Dems can gain their 60 seats, or else make appropriate deals with actually moderate Reps for a Congress that truly will cooperate with the Obama admin, we can hope they will expedite the process of undoing all this last-minute damage Bush is doing.

We may not be able to stop Bush from shitting all over the government before he leaves, but we can hope it will not be too difficult in the first 100 days to sweep out most of his turds.

Expected doesn't mean okay. It does mean it's legal. This is just as much a fact of politics as unkept promises. In four or eight years, we'll be able to say the same thing about the current President.
You know what's funny? I haven't seen anyone say it's not legal. I've only seen Bush defenders reminding everyone that it's legal, but not anyone else claiming that it isn't.

We may not be able to stop Bush from shitting all over the government before he leaves, but we can hope it will not be too difficult in the first 100 days to sweep out most of his turds.

What are the odds that the new administration will codify some limit on executive orders? Pretty slim, probably. But that's the only way I would give any legitimacy to the complaints -- if the new guys were willing to remove the temptation permanently.

What are the odds that the new administration will codify some limit on executive orders? Pretty slim, probably. But that's the only way I would give any legitimacy to the complaints -- if the new guys were willing to remove the temptation permanently.
You're very good at missing the point. Do you do it on purpose?

You know what's funny? I haven't seen anyone say it's not legal. I've only seen Bush defenders reminding everyone that it's legal, but not anyone else claiming that it isn't.
Like I said. It's one of those consequences of having an election. The guy who wins gets to use the rules to his advantage.

I didn't like when Clinton pardoned a whole bunch of ne're do wells, but I did not question the legality of him doing so. It was entirely his right.

I can't find where anyone is suggesting that Bush doesn't have the right to do this, or questioning the legality of it. Care to point it out to me?

You're very good at missing the point. Do you do it on purpose?
Geez, I'm sorry. Bush is bad. Everything he does is bad, no matter what, or how it has ever been done before, or will be done after. We should only worry about his administration and not how any future administration should ever abuse the EO process...

Better?

None of this should be surprising. Bush is attempting to push through his entire "To Do" list by executive fiat, which, as we know, is the way he prefers to do everything -- unilateral action, unitary executive power (aka dictator), no checks, no balances, just King George getting his way. However, there is a good chance that the pervasive incompetence of him and his entire team may yet come to our rescue next year, as apparently, they are doing all of this too late to "burrow" the new regulations the way he is trying to "burrow" those staffers. If the Dems can gain their 60 seats, or else make appropriate deals with actually moderate Reps for a Congress that truly will cooperate with the Obama admin, we can hope they will expedite the process of undoing all this last-minute damage Bush is doing.

We may not be able to stop Bush from shitting all over the government before he leaves, but we can hope it will not be too difficult in the first 100 days to sweep out most of his turds.
i am impatiently waiting for the day we can scrape the shit that is george bush off the bottom of our national shoe.

i dont understand why it cant be undone immediately but these regulations will be undone.

Like I said. It's one of those consequences of having an election. The guy who wins gets to use the rules to his advantage.
I'm still not sure whether you're getting this point completely wrong on purpose or not.

Let me lay it out for you as obviously as possible:

I am NOT talking about limiting the power of the president to pass "midnight regulations" and make last minute appointments.

I AM talking about the NEXT PRESIDENT and the next Congress cooperating to rescind these last minute regulations, rescind Bush's executive orders, repeal or amend the bad laws Bush passed, and eliminate those filthy "signing orders" of his. You know, all the stuff the NEXT PRESIDENT has the power to do, and which will be more easy to do if the Congress cooperates.

Yeah, Bush does get to shit all over the place before he leaves. But he really does not get to make his shit a permanent feature.

Do you get it now?

If you ignore this a third time, I will know that you are missing the point on purpose.

Geez, I'm sorry. Bush is bad. Everything he does is bad, no matter what, or how it has ever been done before, or will be done after. We should only worry about his administration and not how any future administration should ever abuse the EO process...

Better?
Nope, you're still wrong. See my previous post and try again.

i am impatiently waiting for the day we can scrape the shit that is george bush off the bottom of our national shoe.

i dont understand why it cant be undone immediately but these regulations will be undone.
Well, it can't really be done immediately because the turnover is so huge. It's not like the whole bureaucracy is permanent, and the transition only has to change over five or ten people. It sucks this time, but haste would be bad in a lot of ways.

Bush is bad. Everything he does is bad

the last 8 years seem to support that idea. I honestly struggle to think of one good thing the man has done. Which is rather the point of this discussion I think. His actions have proven to be wildly unpopular with the american public, his agenda thoroughly despised by the vast majority.

So what does he do, with the realization that americans roundly rejected his ideology? Does he respect the will of the people and exit gracefully? Or does he try, in a last gambit, to push through more of the very same shit that has made him the singular most unpopular president in US history?

Well, if he had any sense, decency, and respect, he wouldn't be the most unpopular president in US history, I suppose.

the last 8 years seem to support that idea. I honestly struggle to think of one good thing the man has done. Which is rather the point of this discussion I think. His actions have proven to be wildly unpopular with the american public, his agenda thoroughly despised by the vast majority.

So what does he do, with the realization that americans roundly rejected his ideology? Does he respect the will of the people and exit gracefully? Or does he try, in a last gambit, to push through more of the very same shit that has made him the singular most unpopular president in US history?

Well, if he had any sense, decency, and respect, he wouldn't be the most unpopular president in US history, I suppose.

If we all "roundly reject" everything Bush did (I'm pretty sure that while some people may oppose some Bush policies, it's not certain that they oppose each and every one), then why is this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-foreign-policy20-2008nov20,0,4430107.story?track=rss

happening?

If we all "roundly reject" everything Bush did

then why is this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-foreign-policy20-2008nov20,0,4430107.story?track=rss

happening?

The first part pays absolutely no relation to the second part, unless you presume that everyone who hates bush's decisions will automatically and unilaterally support Obama's.

And you wouldn't be saying something that stupid, would you DK?

Comments from the above link:

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."

Peace Action urged in a letter for its members to speak up because "we can be sure that the Obama team is under pressure to dial back plans to withdraw from Iraq."

Pressure from whom? Eh? If Obama won by such a landslide, and we all know the Republicans are essentially powerless at this point, both in terms of seats and public support, just "WHO" is pressuring Obama?

The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission? Scientologists? Eh?

The first part pays absolutely no relation to the second part, unless you presume that everyone who hates bush's decisions will automatically and unilaterally support Obama's.

And you wouldn't be saying something that stupid, would you DK?

Explain to me why not one person who opposed the war has been appointed.

Explain why people seen as hawks within the Democratic Party ARE being appointed.

Explain who is "pressuring" him to not withdraw from Iraq.

the last 8 years seem to support that idea. I honestly struggle to think of one good thing the man has done. Which is rather the point of this discussion I think.
Upped US aid to the Tsunami victims instead of playing the "America is the victim" card when the West was called stingy.

Explain to me why not one person who opposed the war has been appointed.

This has what, exactly, to do with the topic at hand then?

Upped US aid to the Tsunami victims instead of playing the "America is the victim" card when the West was called stingy.

Bush also gave more money to Africa for AIDS than Clinton ever did.

Explain to me why not one person who opposed the war has been appointed.

Explain why people seen as hawks within the Democratic Party ARE being appointed.

Explain who is "pressuring" him to not withdraw from Iraq.
you seem to have an answer to your own question. why not just say who you think is pressuring him to stay in iraq so we can respond to it?

Nope, you're still wrong. See my previous post and try again.
Sometimes -- this is one of those times -- the point is not what you want it to be. The real point is that this cycle of Presidents complaining about last minute actions of previous Presidents has been going on since Carter in recent years and since Adams "Midnight Judges" appointments. Now, as much as the current President complains, he fails to consider his own actions four to eight years down the road...

If a President were truly concerned about this practice, he would make an effort to stop it. But we see that his own unfinished business is too important for that.

Sometimes -- this is one of those times -- the point is not what you want it to be. The real point is that this cycle of Presidents complaining about last minute actions of previous Presidents has been going on since Carter in recent years and since Adams "Midnight Judges" appointments. Now, as much as the current President complains, he fails to consider his own actions four to eight years down the road...

If a President were truly concerned about this practice, he would make an effort to stop it. But we see that his own unfinished business is too important for that.
it seems to me to be vanity on any president's part. as if he can keep his administration going past his term of office.

all it does it postpone the inevitable change that the new president will bring.

and supposedly we didnt get to bitch and moan about bill clinton's midnight changes because he did them too late so that bush could and did change the ones he disagreed with.

you seem to have an answer to your own question. why not just say who you think is pressuring him to stay in iraq so we can respond to it?

Other democrats.

It can't possibly be Republicans at this point. Why would Obama even listen to them?

Other democrats.

It can't possibly be Republicans at this point. Why would Obama even listen to them?
im willing to wait and see what actually happens when he is president.

Bush also gave more money to Africa for AIDS than Clinton ever did.Bush also ensured that his aid woud be a hell of a lot less effective by tying a good third of the funding to abstinence only projects and prohibitting funding for needle exchange programs.

Bush also ensured that his aid woud be a hell of a lot less effective by tying a good third of the funding to abstinence only projects and prohibitting funding for needle exchange programs.

Hence discouraging casual sex and drug users.
Can you really justify using our tax dollars to make it safer for people to do self-destructive things?

If they continue to engage in these behaviors and then contract a disease - they made their own decisions.

Geez, I'm sorry. Bush is bad. Everything he does is bad, no matter what, or how it has ever been done before, or will be done after. We should only worry about his administration and not how any future administration should ever abuse the EO process...

Better?

Martyr complex, much?

Bush also gave more money to Africa for AIDS than Clinton ever did.


More money at the Disposal? I am sure the Clinon gave more than Bush Sr, who gave more than Reagen, who gave more than Carter, etc.

Also, did you read how he wanted to limit funding for those that were victimized by sex trafficking. He might have done two good things in his career, but being up for that negates anything positive I can say about him.

Hence discouraging casual sex and drug users.
Can you really justify using our tax dollars to make it safer for people to do self-destructive things?

If they continue to engage in these behaviors and then contract a disease - they made their own decisions.
so in a choice between having iv drug users use clean needles or dirty needles, you support dirty needles because they are choosing to do something stupid?

thats not the choice i would make.

Bush also gave more money to Africa for AIDS than Clinton ever did.

If course he did. He'd do anything to shut Bono up; Wouldn't you?

Hence discouraging casual sex and drug users.
Can you really justify using our tax dollars to make it safer for people to do self-destructive things?

If they continue to engage in these behaviors and then contract a disease - they made their own decisions.

I'm getting so sick of these fly by night conservatrolls. Did someone post a NSG link on free republic or something?

Hence discouraging casual sex and drug users.
Can you really justify using our tax dollars to make it safer for people to do self-destructive things?

If they continue to engage in these behaviors and then contract a disease - they made their own decisions.

Yes. Because the promiscuous and drug users spread the same kind of HIV around as everybody else.

Yes. Because the promiscuous and drug users spread the same kind of HIV around as everybody else.

A lot more rapidly than everyone else.

77% of US cases of HIV are gay men. What are they doing that the rest of us aren't?

If the virus spread without regard to behavior, then we would all have an equal chance of having HIV.

Apparently that isn't the case, and it's really obvious that it's behavior.

You can be a complete atheist and a completely amoral person, and see that.

Comments from the above link:



Pressure from whom? Eh? If Obama won by such a landslide, and we all know the Republicans are essentially powerless at this point, both in terms of seats and public support, just "WHO" is pressuring Obama?

The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission? Scientologists? Eh?

All I see is an article that claims tha Obama is planning to keep us in Iraq longer and ignore the withdraw plan, without any evidence to back it up.



No one is "pressuring" Obama. He has such popular mandate right now, no one can really touch him.

Sometimes -- this is one of those times -- the point is not what you want it to be.
You're right. This is not one of those times when the point is something you have a valid argument against, no matter how much you wish it was.

The real point is that this cycle of Presidents complaining about last minute actions of previous Presidents has been going on since Carter in recent years and since Adams "Midnight Judges" appointments.
Yes, I realize that was YOUR point. It was off topic and obvious to the point of pointlessness, but I guess you felt the need to say it anyway.

MY point was what I said it was. Apparently, you have no objection to MY point. And as I have no interest in your point, I guess we're all sorted out then, aren't we?

Now, as much as the current President complains, he fails to consider his own actions four to eight years down the road...
And here is where you start talking nonsense. Kindly show us where either the current president or the current president elect is the one doing any of the complaining. Oh, that's right, they're not. So if you are trying to paint Obama as a hypocrite on this one particular issue, you fail.

If a President were truly concerned about this practice, he would make an effort to stop it. But we see that his own unfinished business is too important for that.
Again, not the point. Too bad that one and only peg you brought doesn't fit the slot of the discussion, but thanks for trying.

Other democrats.

It can't possibly be Republicans at this point. Why would Obama even listen to them?
So, in other words, nobody, as far as you know. You have no information on this; you're just making shit up.

A lot more rapidly than everyone else.

77% of US cases of HIV are gay men. What are they doing that the rest of us aren't?

If the virus spread without regard to behavior, then we would all have an equal chance of having HIV.

Apparently that isn't the case, and it's really obvious that it's behavior.

You can be a complete atheist and a completely amoral person, and see that.

True enough, but which do you think is easier to prevent: an epidemic plague, or amoral behavior?

So, in other words, nobody, as far as you know. You have no information on this; you're just making shit up.

He does have an article. But that doesnt have any evidence either.

I'm getting so sick of these fly by night conservatrolls. Did someone post a NSG link on free republic or something?
Well, really, what do they have left but these tired old talking points? I suppose it is too much to ask them to take a break until Obama does stuff that they can use to generate new talking points.

Well, really, what do they have left but these tired old talking points? I suppose it is too much to ask them to take a break until Obama does stuff that they can use to generate new talking points.

Ive already stopped shaving my beard in preperation for when he institutes Sharia.

Well, really, what do they have left but these tired old talking points? I suppose it is too much to ask them to take a break until Obama does stuff that they can use to generate new talking points.

I suppose it's too much to ask to let a President legally do what he wants while he's still President.

After all, we let Clinton pardon felonious associates. I'm sure Bush will do the same.

I suppose it's too much to ask to let a President legally do what he wants while he's still President.

After all, we let Clinton pardon felonious associates. I'm sure Bush will do the same.

Im pretty sure he already has, he did pardon Livy.


Oh, you said felonious. Sorry, Livy was treasonous.

I suppose it's too much to ask to let a President legally do what he wants while he's still President.


Oh, poor guy, can't even fuck things up for little sane reason without receiving criticism from the cruel, unwashed masses!

Let's all take a moment to harmonize in collective sympathy for Bush and all that he's had to endure.


After all, we let Clinton pardon felonious associates.

wrong + wrong = right!

Why, oh why, does he insist on doing things like this? :(

Because he and his ilk are scum. He'll probably crap in the beds before he leaves.

Oh, poor guy, can't even fuck things up for little sane reason without receiving criticism from the cruel, unwashed masses!

Let's all take a moment to harmonize in collective sympathy for Bush and all that he's had to endure.



wrong + wrong = right!

Did I say it was right? No...

Did I say we have to have sympathy? No...

Nice fantasy you have going on in your head.

I'm saying he's entitled by law to do it, and there's nothing you can do about it except undo it when Obama gets in.

Did I say it was right?

Yes. You argued that we should "let him do what he wants" and you held up "after all, we let Clinton did what he want" as the justification.


Did I say we have to have sympathy?

Oh! You got me. You did not, in fact, say, "We have to have sympathy."

But your tone was whining, even pleading for Bush.

I'm saying he's entitled by law to do it

And you're implying that it's too much to expect, to hope for, that people just refrain from commenting or criticizing. Because people are so mean.

, and there's nothing you can do about it except undo it when Obama gets in.

I can talk about it. I can criticize it. I can slam the arguments made by people who seem to want to defend Bush's every stupid action.

Yes. You argued that we should "let him do what he wants" and you held up "after all, we let Clinton did what he want" as the justification.



Oh! You got me. You did not, in fact, say, "We have to have sympathy."

But your tone was whining, even pleading for Bush.



And you're implying that it's too much to expect, to hope for, that people just refrain from commenting or criticizing. Because people are so mean.



I can talk about it. I can criticize it. I can slam the arguments made by people who seem to want to defend Bush's every stupid action.

You're pretty poor with reading English.

I said let him do it because it's legal to do so. You're the one whining.

I'm not defending his actions, other than to say it's legal for him to do so.

Let him do it - not because it's right, but because it's legal. Where do you get off on saying that the law should not permit Bush to do this, but permit whoever you personally like to do so?

Eh?

He could legally nuke Iran right now. Not that it would be the right thing, but you could do absolutely nothing about it, and it would be perfectly legal (within US law). The officers in the nuclear chain of command would have no alternative but to carry out the orders.

You might whine, it would be wrong, and yet it would be legal and it would happen if he ordered it.

You're pretty poor with reading English.

I said let him do it because it's legal to do so. You're the one whining.

I'm not defending his actions, other than to say it's legal for him to do so.

Let him do it - not because it's right, but because it's legal. Where do you get off on saying that the law should not permit Bush to do this, but permit whoever you personally like to do so?

Eh?

He could legally nuke Iran right now. Not that it would be the right thing, but you could do absolutely nothing about it, and it would be perfectly legal (within US law). The officers in the nuclear chain of command would have no alternative but to carry out the orders.

You might whine, it would be wrong, and yet it would be legal and it would happen if he ordered it.


So when Obama starts doing things that are pefectly legal that you whine about, Ill refer you back to this post.

So when Obama starts doing things that are pefectly legal that you whine about, Ill refer you back to this post.

Oh, I'll only whine about the illegal. I was fine with Clinton pardoning his felon friends (because it was legal).

BTW, that's the moral standard these days - as long as it's legal, it doesn't matter who gets fucked. Brought to you by the same person who said it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Ive already stopped shaving my beard in preperation for when he institutes Sharia.
:laugh: :D

Hey, HotKimchi, I have a question for you: Are you or are you not aware that, once Obama takes office, he will have the same executive order/directive powers that Bush and every other president had, and that the next Congress will have the same legislative powers to amend/repeal laws that every other Congress had?

If you are not aware of that, then that would explain a lot.

If you are aware of it, then what possible fucking issue can you possibly take with us expressing our displeasure at the specific measures Bush is pushing through and hoping that Obama will be able to undo them quickly?

ALSO, PLEASE TAKE NOTE: We are NOT bitching about Bush pushing last minute measures through. We are bitching about the PARTICULAR MEASURES that he is pushing through. So, just like, Myrmi, your harping about how he's not breaking any laws is irrelevant.

You're pretty poor with reading English.

I'm pretty good at reading what you say. Though that might indeed not be much of a contradiction.

I said let him do it because it's legal to do so.

No, you said let him do it, and you used Clinton's example as a justification. "After all," you said, "We let Clinton do it."

You can go on and pretend you didn't say what you really said, but it's kind of silly.

You're the one whining.

Ah, the old "rubber/glue" comeback, heralding the end of even a pretense at discussion.

I'm not defending his actions, other than to say it's legal for him to do so.

...and that "we should let him" because "after all, we let Clinton do it."

Again, the 2 wrongs make a right argument. Sorry you made it, I'm guessing you'd rather you didn't. But time travel only works in movies.

Let him do it - not because it's right, but because it's legal.

Oh, I sense a huge strawman bonfire.

Where do you get off on saying that the law should not permit Bush to do this, but permit whoever you personally like to do so?

Burn!


He could legally nuke Iran right now. Not that it would be the right thing, but you could do absolutely nothing about it

Burn!


BTW, that's the moral standard these days - as long as it's legal, it doesn't matter who gets fucked. Brought to you by the same person who said it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Burn!


You might whine, it would be wrong, and yet it would be legal and it would happen if he ordered it.

Burn!

Wow. Arson is fun.

Ive already stopped shaving my beard in preperation for when he institutes Sharia.

O[s]ama/Bi(n La)den 2008: We iz n ur Wyt Haus, Caliph8ing u.

He could legally nuke Iran right now. Not that it would be the right thing, but you could do absolutely nothing about it, and it would be perfectly legal (within US law). The officers in the nuclear chain of command would have no alternative but to carry out the orders.

Actually, no, it would not be perfectly legal within US law for Bush to nuke Iran right now. There are restrictions on the president's ability to use those weapons, plus he has not been given any authority to use force against Iran. Attacking them now would be a clear violation of US law.

However, I am not in the least bit surprised that you apparently did not know that.

Im pretty sure he already has, he did pardon Livy.


Oh, you said felonious. Sorry, Livy was treasonous.
Btw, I think you mean Libby (as in Scooter). As far as I know, Livy, the Roman historian, never worked for the Bush administration, unless there was another Bush staffer indicted for acts of treason that I didn't hear about. ;)

ALSO, PLEASE TAKE NOTE: We are NOT bitching about Bush pushing last minute measures through. We are bitching about the PARTICULAR MEASURES that he is pushing through. So, just like, Myrmi, you're harping about how he's not breaking any laws is irrelevant.
And this is the part where you have to realize ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. The winner gets to implement his vision of policy. You get to whine and complain. All that you can do is hope that some of the changes can be undone. Bush managed to undo about 1/4 of Clinton's measures. In other words, about 3/4s of those regs were too difficult to undo.

So continue to whine, but realize it's mostly futile.

And where your candidate for change can make a difference is to end the practice. Not too likely that will happen though.

And this is the part where you have to realize ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. The winner gets to implement his vision of policy. You get to whine and complain. All that you can do is hope that some of the changes can be undone. Bush managed to undo about 1/4 of Clinton's measures. In other words, about 3/4s of those regs were too difficult to undo.

So continue to whine, but realize it's mostly futile.

And where your candidate for change can make a difference is to end the practice. Not too likely that will happen though.
Bullshit. Already explained why. Bored with you now.

And this is the part where you have to realize ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

we have spent the last 8 years quite aware of that fact. I still don't see why you feel it's relevant. Yes, the consequences of electing an evil person far out of his league to high office, is that he does things that an evil person far out of his league will do. The last 8 years prove that excessively. Doesn't change the fact that we are still free to point out when evil men do evil things.

Oh, I'll only whine about the illegal. I was fine with Clinton pardoning his felon friends (because it was legal).

Just in case you were unaware, there's this ability humans possess that is known as "memory". With it, we can be aware of the content of posts you made earlier under other incarnations and spot inconsistencies within. In other words, we know when you lie, mainly because you're really bad at it.

Just in case you were unaware, there's this ability humans possess that is known as "memory". With it, we can be aware of the content of posts you made earlier under other incarnations and spot inconsistencies within. In other words, we know when you lie, mainly because you're really bad at it.

nuh uh, he's a lawyer, remember?

As far as I know, Livy, the Roman historian, never worked for the Bush administration
He did, however, write a lot of extremely repetitious and mendacious propaganda puff-pieces. But I suppose, after a couple thousand years, we can pardon him for that.

He did, however, write a lot of extremely repetitious and mendacious propaganda puff-pieces. But I suppose, after a couple thousand years, we can pardon him for that.

I heard Obama pals around with barbarians.

Btw, I think you mean Libby (as in Scooter). As far as I know, Livy, the Roman historian, never worked for the Bush administration, unless there was another Bush staffer indicted for acts of treason that I didn't hear about. ;)

Im going to cut you. And not in the kinky way you perverts like:p

And this is the part where you have to realize ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. The winner gets to implement his vision of policy. You get to whine and complain. All that you can do is hope that some of the changes can be undone. Bush managed to undo about 1/4 of Clinton's measures. In other words, about 3/4s of those regs were too difficult to undo.

So continue to whine, but realize it's mostly futile.

And where your candidate for change can make a difference is to end the practice. Not too likely that will happen though.



Really, I love the right wingers on this board posting things like "It is legal so you can whine all you want" and just being really condescending dicks over us taking objection to the policies Bush is implementing (and burning epic amounts of strawmen in the process), when we all know that the first thing Obama does as president, no matter how harmless, will be met with demonic howls from these exact same wingnuts.

Ive already stopped shaving my beard in preperation for when he institutes Sharia.

Its the replacement of Chirstmas with Kwanzaa I'm looking forward to.

The Midnight Regulation I find most troubling is the backdoor route round Roe v's Wade.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=HHS-OS-2008-0011

How is it a backdoor?

If you can't discriminate against someone in hiring because of religion or belief, and you can't force someone to do something against their conscience based on the same principles... then derailing Roe v's Wade will be as simple as getting Christian medical workers to apply for all medical positions that MIGHT entail abortion surgery... and then refusing to perform the surgery because of 'crisis of conscience'.

The Midnight Regulation I find most troubling is the backdoor route round Roe v's Wade.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=HHS-OS-2008-0011

How is it a backdoor?

If you can't discriminate against someone in hiring because of religion or belief, and you can't force someone to do something against their conscience based on the same principles... then derailing Roe v's Wade will be as simple as getting Christian medical workers to apply for all medical positions that MIGHT entail abortion surgery... and then refusing to perform the surgery because of 'crisis of conscience'.

That one will simply be easy to get around, because if a doctor refuses to preform a surgery he has to direct you to someone who will.

That one will simply be easy to get around, because if a doctor refuses to preform a surgery he has to direct you to someone who will.
What if there is no one else available, as in a lot of rural areas, or for patients on HMOs who may not get to pick their own doctors? Also, there's the fact that the regulation is redundant with other regulations, and has been denounced even by Bush's own health and justice officials both for being burdensome, confusing, and a threat to reproductive rights that will cause health care costs to rise due to increased administration costs. I don't think that one will survive long, but still, the mere fact that he did it earns him a major stomp on the nuts.