| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2670
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:51 am: | 
|
I think Feingold screwed up with his censure move. I think from now on any agitation about congressional oversight of the wiretapping program will be met with "hey, didn't we already go through this with the reject censure motion?"
I think oversight is necessary. I share with conservatives a pessimistic view of human character. I therefore believe that political exploitation of power is inevitable without transparency and some effort toward neutral standards. This is where I find Bush backers hard to understand. Why do they think oversight is not necessary? Is the idea (and I'm quite serious about this) that we are passing into a post-democratic era, where a benevolent dictatorship of one party power will safeguard the American people better than the "old" two party system?
Because here is the other thing: if republican were incredibly aggressive about consolidating power, and they swept into power and acted like puritans, cleaning up the government process, eliminating fraud and waste, making the trains run on time, investigating bribery and influence peddling, cutting spending, then I could understand what they want. But the republicans I encounter generally say that somehow in the post 9/11 environment, those thing are irrelevent, and best not looked into if they might harm the party's influence and power.
So what is it that they want?
By the way:
"A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.
A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 48% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.
Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.
More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.
The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error." |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 142
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Themp: Where was that poll taken, the John Conyers/Nancy Pelosi pre-St. Patty's day bash? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2672
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Beats me. I'm not vouching for it.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
Not much info. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:51 pm: |
|
 |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5377
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
"But the republicans I encounter generally say that somehow in the post 9/11 environment, those thing are irrelevent, and best not looked into if they might harm the party's influence and power."
They say let's not look at fraud and corruption as that might hurt the party.
Really? I can believe it if the republicans are from New Jersey. And conservatives....well, that's something different altogether. |
fmertz
Citizen
Username: Fmertz
Post Number: 101
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Politicians aside, Republicans, I suspect, genuinely only want what's best for the country. Isn't that true of Democrats too?
Unfortunately, some, (and please feel free to include yourself here), cannot legitimately understand this simple concept. Those folks would rather betray America, by serving their own chosen special interests, rather than serving the majority. Kind of like you can decide what is truly important and meaningful, like you know better. “Not!”
Elitist, politically correct, or politically timely decisions are frequently incorrect, especially when not all of the ramifications are considered. Long range views need to carry greater significance. I find it odd to listen to those who truly believe they have an open mind, as they constantly smear and label others for being straight forward and honest.
Besides, look at Democratic leadership. Ted Kennedy? Hilary? Oh, let's look closer locally, what about Corzine? Menendez? Lautenberg? Hey, How about Sharpe James? What have these people accomplished? And at what cost?
For instance, Please list the accomplishments spearheaded and brought about by David Heumer during his many years of tenure?
How big is the list? More importantly, how real is the list? I'm certain his campaign will provide one, eventually, probably only if in response to this.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2674
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 17, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
But let's seperate republicans from "conservatives". I think a lot of republican triumphalists who celebrate their party on this board really think that anything that furthers their party's power is inherently good - hence they will gloat about Delay beating the rap, or write patronizing "you-just-don't-get-it-you-lost" posts. I find it shocking, in that the republican party of right now is radical, and represents a real departure from the past, and a lot of folks are ok with that, or even like to ominously hint that, just wait, the real consolidation of power is yet to come.
I just don't get it.
The post above, for instance. What the hell is he talking about? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page