| Author |
Message |
    
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7518
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:16 am: | 
|
House Republicans Approve Line Item Veto, Time for the Senate to Follow
Bill Reaffirms Republican Commitment to Fiscal Discipline
House Republicans, including all seven members from the NJ delegation, reaffirmed their commitment to reducing spending by passing the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. This legislation gives the President increased authority to remove unnecessary or wasteful spending items from spending bills.
It is now up to the Senate to vote on this important initiative before the August recess. If the Senate acts quickly, the President could begin using the Legislative Line Item Veto on unjustified spending in appropriation bills this fall.
"House Republicans are once again reminding the American public that we are the party that stands for fiscal disciple and reform," Republican State Chairman Tom Wilson said. "I urge the Senate to take up this important matter and for Senators Menendez and Lautenberg to vote to keep Congressional spending in check and give President Bush the same authority that Governor Corzine already has."
Among other things, H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006, does the following:
Allows the president 45 days to propose rescissions on spending bills he signs into law;
Requires Congress to act on the president's proposed rescissions by requiring an up-or-down vote on the complete list;
Directs savings from congressionally approved rescissions to deficit reduction efforts; and
Helps address the problem of unnecessary entitlement spending.
Call Senator Menendez and Lautenberg and tell them the Senate needs to vote on Line Item Veto Legislation and support President Bush's and House Republican efforts to eliminate waste in the budget. When you are done, let us know who you called, and what they said.
Senator Robert Menendez (D)
Phone: 202-224-4744
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D)
Phone: 202-224-3224
|
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 421
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:09 am: |
|
ABSOLUTELY!! Congress MUST give over more of its authority to the executive branch. What this country needs is a more powerful chief executive to MAKE THINGS HAPPEN! And this legislation will put us on that road.
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND GOD BLESS GEORGE W. BUSH!!! |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3074
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
Republican Commitment to Fiscal Discipline  |
TomD
Citizen
Username: Tomd
Post Number: 543
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:45 am: |
|
I'll consider it in Jan '09. The current administration already appears to be doing whatever it wants without the line item veto. I'm not in favor of this president having any additional authority. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14942
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
I opposed it when Clinton proposed it, and I most certainly oppose it now. The president is the most powerful single person. He doesn't need more power than he has. The balance of powers, as described in the constitution, is good for me.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 3080
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Igor? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3531
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Why does this make it appear to me as if the Republicans are afraid of losing Congress in 2006, but not the White House in 2008? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Rastro,
We won't lose either. As for the line item, unlike Reingold who sees a boogey man around every corner, I have no problem with a POTUS of either party having this power. Heck, the have the power to veto the entire bill so what's wrong with a line item. I guess the party who can't grab the gold ring never wants the executive to have any power. It's all politics and I enjoy it all. Besides, the Repubs are just setting up some good old fashion campaign points. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans aren't lazy. We know when it is time to fight and when it isn't. I sure wish the Dems would engage at some point, otherwise many of you are going to be cold this winter. It is becoming even more apparent with every passing week of nothing from the Dems that they shot their load in 2005. I hope you libs enjoyed your time because you sure won't be making any in roads in Congress let alone the White House with this group. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3533
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
Actually, the problem with a line item veto is the same problem that create a need for it. People want to make it politically difficult for others.
There is a desire for a line item veto because Congresscritters put ridiculous riders on to unrelated bills for pork and pet projects.
A line item veto is wrong because it essentially hands power of the purse to the President. The Senate can hand the President a budget with every spending issue as s line item, and the President can choose which he wants and which he doesn't. If Congress didn't add these stupid additions in the first place, there would not be a need to try to hand even more power to the President.
It's not about Republicans and Democrats. if Republicans thought they could control Congress and the White House, there would be no need for this. Congressional Republicans would ride roughshod over the Democrats, pass the exact bills that Bush wants, and there would be no issue. Instead, they want to hedge their bets against a possible Democratic Congress by giving the President more power than our forefathers even intended.
Why is it the current Republicans seem to want a Supreme Leader in the Presidency, when it is perfectly clear that our founding fathers intended to everything they could to mitigate the possibility of a monarchy here? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
Rastro,
We agree then. I accept your premise. You, however, seem to have a narrow view of the abuse argument. As a long suffering Republican, I saw your beloved Democratic stick loads of pork into budgets for decades. And I saw Democratic Presidents do nothing. Finally, we got Reagan in office and he brought this issue to the public's attention. I don't look at this from a Repub or Dem standpoint. I would just rather have one person be able to cut some pork because Congress has demonstrated they are systematically incapable of doing it. Either way, I'm not going to cry.
Now for the short term (next 20 years) political view, if the Dems win back Congress then POTUS will simply veto everything including a pork filled budget which will set the Repubs up nicely for campaigning in 2008. In other words, it will be political life as usual which I don't mind. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3539
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
I have no love of Democrats. That's why all your "lib" stuff is more amusing to me than offensive. No where did I attribute pork to Republicans. I said Congress, not Republicans. I know you'd like to have them be synonymous, but we still have a multi-party system here.
I don't believe in pork. I think it is the equivalent of buying votes. I understand is it a fact of life in our system, but that does not mean I have to like it.
Which brings up a point... You constantly seem to think that people do not understand the way politics works, and that you have some special insight that they lack. They do understand. They are not happy about it, but they understand. That does not mean they should not complain. If I am a fan of a sports team, I know the rules of the game and the capabilities of the players. That doesn't mean I cannot be upset about the outcome of a game, or how someone is playing it.
I would say politics is more like the WWE than the NFL. Loose scripts are followed, outcomes are predestined, and they try to fool us into believing it's real. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Not gonna happen. |
Gregor Samsa
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 549
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Every president since before Gimmel has wanted line item veto..It's not going to happen. In theory it's a nice idea to be able to rid pork from some bill that comes across his desk, but the likeliehood of abuse is even greater. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1241
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Rastro,
I hear you. And in case you haven't noticed, I only started using the term "lib" so much because certain posters became so unglued at my use of the term. It amuses me when rational people lose all self control when they feel slighted. So, you shouldn't take my use of the term lib for anything more than just a word. I do love the reactions though.
As for your point about me believing I have some special insight into politics is interesting. I only make such remarks when posters show such ignorance that I laugh and get my cocky attitude. For instance, the "libs" belief that Bush is the worst President ever and leading us into the abyss. Well, this is the case with every President's detractors. I remember the libs said the same thing about Reagan and I know my fellow conservatives said the same thing about Clinton and Carter. As for Bush being the dumbest Pres, how soon we forget Ford and the Chevy Chase skits!
I do find it hilarious and will point it out when people believe any thing in politics is new. Nothing is new. This isn't the first "unjust" war in someone's mind. Gitmo isn't the first time charges of abuse have been brought. NSA surveillance isn't the first time big brother has been accused of spying (remember the 60's). But some of the over the top reactions absolutely lead me to believe I have a better handle on long term political ramifications as many posters.
Your last sentence of your one post - "Why is it the current Republicans seem to want a Supreme Leader in the Presidency, when it is perfectly clear that our founding fathers intended to everything they could to mitigate the possibility of a monarchy here?" shows me you have a slightly limited view. This isn't the first time a majority party has been accused of wanting a President of the same party to have more juice. Your statement is a little over the top with the "Supreme Leader" line and is laughable. I understand you probably don't like this Admin but this is just politics as usual in a two party system. With Congress being split the Repubs know they can't get over the filibuster issue so a good strategic move is to give their parties President some more power. I agree with dave that it probably won't happen even if I want it to. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14955
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
It amuses me when rational people lose all self control when they feel slighted. So, you shouldn't take my use of the term lib for anything more than just a word. I do love the reactions though.
Kinda like "I used to be courteous, but I found being insulting is more fun."
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1245
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Reingold,
I am a product of this board. You know I tried to be rational and "above board" for the first 6-8 months. Then after the elections of 2004, most of the Democrat Libs on this board lost it and instead of saying good game, they attacked us conservatives and all the residents in red states. I didn't and still don't take to kindly to that abuse. Vestiges of these attacks are seen daily on this board. I've never seen such a group of racists and bigots in one place before. So, yes, I am longer try or care to be "courteous" on this message board. I am respectful and courteous to those posters like you who did not get carried away with the idea that your side lost. Believe me, if we lose Congress, my anger will be with my own sides ineptness! |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14957
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Are you saying you think it's fitting to return rudeness with rudeness, abuse with abuse?
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 974
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Come on, Tom...it's the board's fault. Don't tell me you've never been tempted to use these tags:
\rude( ) |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Southerner,
Stop blaming others. On the one hand, you like to provoke posters to the point they become "unglued" (6:33 pm post). On the other hand, you don't take kindly to "abuse" from others (8:16 pm post).
To quote the recently deceased Syd Barrett, Are you gettin' it yet??? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Quote:I've never seen such a group of racists and bigots in one place before.
"Southerner" indicates you're from the South, but you haven't indicated the "South" of what planet. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 292
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 8:36 am: |
|
Most of the posts I read here seem to assume that the Dems and Repubs operate based on high principle, and that there is some sort of titanic Manichaean struggle taking place in Mordor on the Potomac. Depending on where you line up on the political spectrum, you root for the forces of light to crush the forces of darkness.
In fact, neither party has a shred of integrity, and it is more akin to 2 Mafia families locked in a power struggle over who gets to control the gambling and loan-sharking operations in a given neighborhood.
Am I the only person here who has ever read "The Prince"?
Cheers |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 992
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:02 am: |
|
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Supreme Court rule against a line item veto some years back? During the CLinton administration? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12112
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
Chris, that is my recollection as well. However, the Supreme Court has changed and is much more open to the idea of increasing Presidential power, atleast until their is a Dem in the White House.  |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14958
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
bobk, is that really true? Sure, they seem to be more conservative, but that doesn't translate into favoring more power for the president. And they just made a move to say that the president has overstepped.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5745
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:54 am: |
|
Chris is right - the line-item veto Republicans tried to give Clinton was turned back by The Supremes. This time they're proposing going the constitutional route rather than trying to write new legislation that likely won't assuage the court.
As for the charge that the power of the purse would be entirely in the president's hands, I believe his line-item veto -- like any veto -- could be overturned by a majority in both Houses. You'd have news coverage of congressmen justifying their bridge to nowhere and the like. I think it's a good idea. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3557
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:12 am: |
|
CJC, so there would be no need for a supermajority to overturn this Presidential line item veto? Overturning other vetos requires more than just 51%.
Also, I think Congresspeople would support each other. I feel like Congress adheres to the following "My party against everyone else, unless money is involved. Then it's us politicians against everyone else." Otherwise, they would be attacking each other's pork currently. If they were actually willing to do that, the pork would never be included in the bills in the first place. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12114
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
To overturn a veto a two thirds vote is required. Doesn't happen very often. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5746
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
It would require 2/3 of those present in the respective Houses to override the President's veto.
Congress people may well support each other's pork. The issue here is putting sunshine on what they're supporting. Most people don't know half of the nonsense that gets tucked away in a bill, and find out only after the deal is done. No doubt some pork will be upheld, but other pork won't.
This last year that included the "Bridge to Nowhere" featured an unprecedented attack on individual congressmen's pork in the Senate. Really had Congress up in arms, especially when some pork didn't make the cut. Anything that riles the appropriators is good in my book. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2224
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
it doesn't appear to do any of that. it requires Congress to consider the spending items as a group, and when Republicans talk of "up and down" votes, they usually seem to mean a simple majority (at least when they're talking about judicial nominees that is):
Quote:Requires Congress to act on the president's proposed rescissions by requiring an up-or-down vote on the complete list;
regardless, I don't approve of the concept of line-item veto anyway. the president can already veto any bill he sees fit, and tell Congress what sections of it to excise before it comes back to him for signing. if he shows he's got the cojones to veto a couple of bills due to excess pork, they should get the message and keep the spending riders out in the future. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3559
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:35 am: |
|
I thought the "bridge to nowhere" was uncovered by the news, not publicized by an irate congressman.
I feel like Congress closes ranks, particularly when it comes to pork. Unfortunately, few seem to take the job seriously as a steward of the public trust.
But I think we are in agreement hat something should be done to reduce the amount of unnecessary spending, done simply to pay for votes. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:36 pm: |
|
And the Bridge to Nowhere still got funded. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Dr.,
Not yours.
Reingold,
Yes, atleast on MOL. Remember, this is entertainment. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2225
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:30 pm: |
|
thanks for confirming that. how's the weather on Xenon? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14960
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 6:44 pm: |
|
Southerner, so are you saying the people behind the keyboards on MOL are not real and their feelings don't matter?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 8:56 pm: |
|
No I'm not. I'm simply saying this is one of a thousand politic message boards and if someone gets their feelings hurt then maybe they shouldn't come here. Sure feelings matter, but I don't take them into account. I am espousing my view of what I feel is right. If someone is offended then that is not my concern. Besides, why would anyone get offended or have their feelings hurt in the first place? This is politics not personal. If anyone takes it personal then they must be foolish to continue to log on. I sure don't take anything personal. I read it and move on. As I've often stated, I read MOL Soapbox because it offers an interesting look into the opposite political spectrum than I have locally. I like to know what my political nemesis are thinking. Remember, as a long suffering minority Republican I don't plan on going back to those days. You libs will take politics a lot more serious than you currently are when you are out of power for a few more decades. Believe me, it sucks. Many of you are finally coming to this realization, yet your party is so fractured that you will end up with either Hill or Gore and both are losing candidates. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2845
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:37 pm: |
|
3ring: To answer your question:
Am I the only person here who has ever read "The Prince"?
No. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2227
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
Quote:I didn't and still don't take to kindly to that abuse. Vestiges of these attacks are seen daily on this board.
Quote:I'm simply saying this is one of a thousand politic message boards and if someone gets their feelings hurt then maybe they shouldn't come here. Sure feelings matter, but I don't take them into account. I am espousing my view of what I feel is right. If someone is offended then that is not my concern. Besides, why would anyone get offended or have their feelings hurt in the first place?
Flip. Flop. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14961
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
|
You beat me to it, Dr. Southerner, are you saying abuse is bad when you receive it but OK otherwise?
Actually, that is what you are saying. Never mind. You don't have to answer. Thanks for clarifying.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2229
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Actually Tom, I don't think he's saying anything. I don't believe our Southern friend gives a whole lot of thought when he types out his posts.
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 996
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Southerner, you make it sound like the Republican party is a homogeneous monolith. From what I have seen, quite the contrary. There are many Republicans, like myself, who are aghast at what the Bushies have done to our party.
The uncontrolled spending, the spiralling deficits, tax cuts for the very rich at the expense of the middle class and the poor, an administration of chickenhawk warmongers who refused to serve their country when called, a war based on lies, an occupation carried out with almost willful incompetence, the wholesale assault on civil rights by the so-called patriot act, and a petty and vengeful attitude towards any criticism characterized by charater assasination and 'swift boating'.
And all af the above is okay because GWB talks to Jesus.
Personally, I have stopped writing checks to the RNC. (Not that the dems seem any better) |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
Chris,
So what are you going to do? I am in the same boat as you regardless of how I am painted. I don't agree with Bush on everything but I know the Democrats are a far worse group to hold power. Therefore, in an election year, I will support the Repubs wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately, we only have two choices. One choice I disagree with 98% of the time. The other choice I disagree with about 30% of the time. It's not a difficult decision for me. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 997
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Southerner, given the conduct of the Bush administration, I have no problem voting for democrats. I do not see how the dems 'are a far worse group to hold power'. They did not invade the wrong country, lie about it, and tax the children with deficits.
As a matter of fact, the last time we had a surplus was under a democrat. . . |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 297
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 3:31 pm: |
|
One of my favorite columnists thinks that Gore would have been no worse than Bush, and I have to agree. I also agree that the Dems are shedding crocodile tears over the expansion of executive powers under Mr. Bush. That doesn't bother them one bit, they just want it for themselves.
Cheers
What Would Gore Have Done?
June 20, 2006
Given the Bush administration’s spectacular record of across-the-board bungling in nearly everything it does, it’s tempting to think we might have been better off if Al Gore had won the presidency in 2000. Try as I may, I can hardly imagine Gore being worse than the dubious victor, if only because he would probably have been more cautious, or at least more constrained.
For one thing, President Gore would have been checked by the Republican Congress that has loyally backed Bush in his worst excesses. We can assume that Gore would have felt forced to react strongly to the 9/11 attacks, and Vice President Joe Lieberman might have been as hawkish as Dick Cheney; but Lieberman wouldn’t have dominated his boss’s thinking as Cheney has.
In his new book, The One Percent Doctrine, Ron Suskind notes that Cheney was nicknamed “Edgar” within the CIA, in allusion to the old radio-era ventriloquist Edgar Bergen, implying that Bush was the dummy. So in thrall to his neocon advisors was Bush that important information and documents were often withheld from him; he did as he was told, or “advised,” keeping his own “plausible deniability” as his War on Terror quickly became the misconceived war on Iraq.
Ironically, a Gore presidency might have been more like the first Bush administration than the son’s. Gore shared the imperial premise of every administration since World War II, that the United States must keep hegemony in the Middle East (have to control that oil, you know), but he’d probably have stopped short of trying to topple regimes and spread democracy all over the place. Gore would have bungled too, no doubt, but differently, and less disastrously.
For better or worse, Gore is a more moderate personality than Bush, less inclined to swagger and defiance. He’s a Beltway guy, not a bring-it-on Yosemite Sam. But it’s more than a difference of temperament; again, the slight Republican majority would have hedged him in, as it did Bill Clinton after 1994.
Under Bush, the Republicans have gone liberal, breaking all records for Federal spending and deficits. It’s safe to say they would have insisted on some restraint with Gore in the White House.
Still, we can only guess at what might have been. The natural tendency of government is to grow, and when one party dominates it during wartime, with the wonderful excuse of national security, there are few limits. Suskind reports that in early 2003 al-Qaeda planned, but canceled, a poison-gas attack in New York’s subways; even if this had failed, the reaction would have made the panic after 9/11 seem like a drowsy yawn.
The real story of the Bush years, as Suskind’s account tends to confirm in its way, has been the continued expansion of executive power, trenchantly described from another angle by Elizabeth Drew in The New York Review of Books. Not that you can call Bush a mastermind of this expansion, which he hardly comprehends; he hasn’t vetoed a spending bill yet, but he claims the right to decide which laws he will enforce, which pretty much makes the other branches of government superfluous.
It has taken this “conservative” president to give liberals second thoughts about their long adulation of executive power; and if they want to call the Constitution a “living document,” whose meaning depends on the whims of those interpreting it at the moment, well, he has shown them that two can play that game too. But this is a pretty costly way to give liberals elementary civics lessons.
Even now, they haven’t learned the lesson. They don’t really want to control executive power or prevent its abuse; they just want to win it back. If only Gore had won in 2000! Or Kerry in 2004! Can we have Hillary in 2008? For them, the only problem of power is a personnel problem: somehow the wrong people have gotten hold of it.
The Republicans hold a mirror image of the same view, feeling that power is in the hands of the right people. “As long as Congress stays firmly in Republican hands,” Andrew Bacevich writes, “executive responsibility will remain a theoretical proposition.” One result of this monopoly of power, he concludes, is a war “that may yet beggar the debacle of Vietnam.”
Whatever harm President Gore might have done, he could hardly have surpassed the mess made by Bush’s maladroit Machiavels.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2006/060620.shtml
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14979
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 5:12 pm: |
|
"What would Gore have done?"
That's faint praise for Bush indeed. It's entirely hypothetical. Are we supposed to compare the hypothetical actions of Gore with the real actions of Bush? I find that proposition utterly absurd.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Well Chris then pull the lever for the Democrat of your district. I have no problem with democracy. Just don't be a pansy and whine and cry later when you are not satisfied with your Democratic representation. I guess the difference between us is you are squarely on the fence and a few issues is enough to swing your vote. I am not on the fence. Like you, I am a fiscal conservative, and while I'm not happy with this Admin in this area I won't be bamboozled by the slick talking Dems. I have learned from history. These Dems will say and do anything to gain back power. If you fall for it then you are like guys like Kerry who after who place a vote will "blame" someone else for your lack of forethought. I am not a one issue voter but if you are totally aghast at the Repubs for their fiscal ineptness then vote for the Dems. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 299
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Tom Reingold,
"What would Gore have done?" It's just an opinion piece offering.....well, an opinion.You know, rumination, wool-gathering, etc. They print stuff like this in the New York Times everyday, albeit not of the same perspective.
I do think Sobran is spot on when he says:
It has taken this “conservative” president to give liberals second thoughts about their long adulation of executive power; and if they want to call the Constitution a “living document,” whose meaning depends on the whims of those interpreting it at the moment, well, he has shown them that two can play that game too. But this is a pretty costly way to give liberals elementary civics lessons.
Even now, they haven’t learned the lesson. They don’t really want to control executive power or prevent its abuse; they just want to win it back. If only Gore had won in 2000! Or Kerry in 2004! Can we have Hillary in 2008? For them, the only problem of power is a personnel problem: somehow the wrong people have gotten hold of it.
Cheers
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14981
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Well Chris then pull the lever for the Democrat of your district. I have no problem with democracy. Just don't be a pansy and whine and cry later when you are not satisfied with your Democratic representation.
I guess you're saying the only time you can complain is at election time.
I couldn't disagree more. The right time to speak out against your government's actions is 365 days a year. Sure, we should look in the mirror when we voted for the person in power, but government is always accountable to the people, not just on election day.
Why am I wasting my breath on you? You might as well be a robot, and I should write a program to respond to this same immature, uninsightful point you raise over and over.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1271
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 8:23 am: |
|
Well Tom, now you are just not being genuine. You mean to tell me that if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008 that we should start complaining about their performance about 5 minutes after they take office? Well, I'm sure you'll get your wish because I'm sure no matter which side wins the other side will be squawking from the beginning. I don't play such petty games. Whoever wins an election should be allowed to govern via their philosophy because they were chosen by the electorate. For instance, although I don't like Corzine, the guy was recently elected by the people of New Jersey so he should be allowed to properly represent the majority without worrying about the few detractors. Unlike you, I believe election results are important as they represent the true opinion poll. It is guys like you who feel like they can Monday morning quarterback 365 days a year that has created the government we have. A bunch of scared doublespeak elected officials who are worried what the Reingolds will say on a daily basis. And you wonder why our politics has become nothing more than which special interest can scream the loudest for 365. Luckily, my neo-con guys play the game well and we can whine and scream with the best of them. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1982
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:05 am: |
|
Southerner: All I have to say is that's a good thing you live in a part of the world that time forgot. It must be terribly frustrating that the modern world does not care one bit about your (red)neck of the woods. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:13 am: |
|
RL: That was really unhelpful. And his '(red)neck of the woods', as you so insultingly put it, controls the country. Patronizing, condescending attitudes like yours keep the right wing well stocked.
Southerner: If you really are a fiscal conservative, if you really believe in personal freedom, if you value truth in government, how can you possibly support that mess of lying, draft dodging, cowardly, fools?
The dems are no paragons of virtue, but they would have difficulty being worse than what we have now. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1983
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:18 am: |
|
Chris: I am aware of who controls the country. It's a shame power in America has reached the point where appealing to the racist and xenophobic instincts of the lowest forms of human life gets you elected, but, viola, here's Rove and Bush!
Clearly, a smart guy like yourself makes his decisions based on things other than what I have to say on an internet message board, however I agree in that I would not give sheep like Southerner that much credit. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page