The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Sioux nation not impressed with South Dakota:

Information if you want to mail donations to the tribe for the clinic.

Diane sad RT not say "Diane invent this."

[Gattigap]

In its accelerating path of telling the entirety of Congress to go f*** itself, President Bush has signed yet another "signing statement" in which he explains that what Congress thinks, wants, or asks for really doesn't matter worth a warm pile of donkey dung when compared to the awe-inspiring power of the Unitary Executive:

Boston Globe:

• When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
  
  The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
  
  Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
  
  In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
  
  Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
  
  The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.
  
  ***
  
  David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.
  
  But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.
  
  ''On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism," Golove said.

The precise language of the signing statement is here.

I welcome our principled conservatives on the board (and I use that term sincerely) to provide their interpretation of this Administration's penchant to use and (IMO) abuse a practice that, IIRC, has been used a handful of times at best under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, but has been embraced by both hands with our current Republican overlords. I think it is unjustifiable, and am surprised that a GOP-controlled Congress has, for close to 6 years, continued to peacefully eat s*** and take it from this Administration on issues to which they are constitutionally entitled. President Hillary, I am sure, will love this precedent.

Gattigap

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I welcome our principled conservatives on the board (and I use that term sincerely) to provide their interpretation of this Administration's penchant to use and (IMO) abuse a practice that, IIRC, has been used a handful of times at best under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, but has been embraced by both hands with our current Republican overlords. I think it is unjustifiable, and am surprised that a GOP-controlled Congress has, for close to 6 years, continued to peacefully eat s*** and take it from this Administration on issues to which they are constitutionally entitled. President Hillary, I am sure, will love this precedent.

Gattigap

You forget that Bush, being the Messiah, would only use these powers for Good. That's what makes it okay (along with torture, extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without charge or hearing, etc.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In its accelerating path of telling the entirety of Congress to go f*** itself, President Bush has signed yet another "signing statement" in which he explains that what Congress thinks, wants, or asks for really doesn't matter worth a warm pile of donkey dung when compared to the awe-inspiring power of the Unitary Executive:

Boston Globe:

• When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
  
  The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
  
  Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
  
  In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
  
  Bush wrote: ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . "
  
  The statement represented the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law.
  
  ***
  
  David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the statement may simply be ''bluster" and does not necessarily mean that the administration will conceal information about its use of the Patriot Act.
  
  But, he said, the statement illustrates the administration's ''mind-bogglingly expansive conception" of executive power, and its low regard for legislative power.
  
  ''On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism," Golove said.

The precise language of the signing statement is here.

I welcome our principled conservatives on the board (and I use that term sincerely) to provide their interpretation of this Administration's penchant to use and (IMO) abuse a practice that, IIRC, has been used a handful of times at best under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, but has been embraced by both hands with our current Republican overlords. I think it is unjustifiable, and am surprised that a GOP-controlled Congress has, for close to 6 years, continued to peacefully eat s*** and take it from this Administration on issues to which they are constitutionally entitled. President Hillary, I am sure, will love this precedent.

Gattigap

I'll take a crack...

Bush is Nixon II. Like Nixon, he is neither a real true conservative, nor entirely sane. Both men seem to think "conservative" somehow means "controlling all aspects of govt themselves." They both seem to suffer from some megalomaniacal belief that they know whats best for the country, and because they do, the country has a duty to shut the fuck up and follow whatever orders they dictate. And like Nixon, Bush is super-insulated from reality.

The difference was that Nixon was a much better foreign policy president. He knew he had to engage the international community. Bush feels that the international community is just an extension of the USA - another group of people who should shut the fuck up and follow orders.

Bush's "conservativism" is more like military leadership. Its funny a group of people so unfamiliar with serving in the military should structure their presidency in such a way.

I think Bush and Co. get away with a lot of this shit because they appeal to a very base instinct among ignorant die-hards. A large swath of conservatives (and liberals) are dim fucks who want to be lead by the nose. They view following orthodoxy as the best way to move forward because things are efficient and easy when no one questions policy. I think these throwback regressive people are troubled by the choices they're bombarded with in our society. They're confused and just want to follow something. Bush gives them that something. Certain members of Congress - those from very traditional and uninformed states and districts - don't want to fuck with lock-step voters like that, so they get in line, and play the loyal lieutenants. Those who come from more enlightened districts can differentiate themselves from Bush, to get political traction, as we're seeing many do now.

Hillary will never be elected. She's too strident, and our country has had enough strident ideological leadership for the last 8 years. I think the voters want a good manager who'll offer pragmatic leadership next time. I honestly believe that if he gets in the ring, Rudy Can't Fail. He'd be a fantastic president, IMO.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hillary will never be elected. She's too strident, and our country has had enough strident ideological leadership for the last 8 years.

I mention Hillary not because I think she'll win (I don't), but rather that she is the Beelzebub of Democratic presidents to come. Republicans have acted for 6 years like they actually BELIEVE Rove's prediction that they'll hold the WH and Congress for the next 50 years, so they can feel comfortable ass-raping whoever isn't marching in lockstep on a given day.

But eventually a Democrat will sit in that chair, and those same GOPers will be shocked -- shocked! that s/he may not have to kneel on a daily basis before Congress, thanks to what Bush hath wrought. This stunning realization will spark mass suicides in right think tanks and FNC studios. All that'll be missing are the purple outfits and black Nike shoes.

Gattigap

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I mention Hillary not because I think she'll win (I don't), but rather that she is the Beelzebub of Democratic presidents to come. Republicans have acted for 6 years like they actually BELIEVE Rove's prediction that they'll hold the WH and Congress for the next 50 years, so they can feel comfortable ass-raping whoever isn't marching in lockstep on a given day.

But eventually a Democrat will sit in that chair, and those same GOPers will be shocked -- shocked! that s/he may not have to kneel on a daily basis before Congress, thanks to what Bush hath wrought. This stunning realization will spark mass suicides in right think tanks and FNC studios. All that'll be missing are the purple outfits and black Nike shoes.

Gattigap

I seee your point, but I think that "what Bush hath wrought" might create demand for the exact opposite in future presidents. You might see the cast of idiots running for Chief Whore in 2008 jockeying to see who can be most deferential to Congress. I can see some shitbag Rovian Goebbels coaching one of these stuffed suits right now:

"You will promise to be the transparant president - Mr. Full Disclosure. You will promise to be accountable to Congress, rather than treat it like the degenerate basement casino it is."

BTW, from a quality of governance standpoint, is there any gain from having the Pres be more accountable to Congress? I mean, I understand the need to keep the checcks and balances working, but other than that, does having one buffoon answer to a room of bigger buffoons really somehow benefit the Republic? Considering the intelligence of the average voter, given access to a library of the last 10 years worth of NYTimes, Wash Posts and Journal, and a few legal pads, I could probably sketch you a really solid argument for Monarchy these days.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, from a quality of governance standpoint, is there any gain from having the Pres be more accountable to Congress?

Well, we've seen the result when there isn't much of any. Does it fill you with confidence?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, we've seen the result when there isn't much of any. Does it fill you with confidence?

I'm not so sure that the looming long term problems with our economy would have been handled any better by any combination of Pres and Congress. There is a case to be made that we had to do the Iraq thing to protect our ability to get oil from that region, and that we'll be positioned perfectly when China and India need Iraqi oil down the road (Iran, Russia and the Saudis cannot feed their needs alone). Iraq is one of those things you can't judge for another 20 years. Its a long range economic hedge being analyzed on short term bases by groups of people who are using criticims or support for it for their own political gain. I watch foolish people my own age harrumph about how bad an idea Iraq was and can't help but recall these same people a few years back talking about how blue chips were a "old man's" investment strategy. You can't evaluate a long term plan based on 36 months of violence that erupted in the wake of our attack. We horribly misjudged what would happen over there short term, but that doesn't mean we're doomed to be wrong on the long term result as well.

Iraq has a shitload of oil, very little of which is being pumped right now. We control that oil. There will come a day down the road when the world will require that the Iraqi oil spigot be turned on. We will be there to turn the knob, and ensure that we get all the benefits that come with such control.

I am not sure about the war's wisdom, or what will happen long term, but I don't share the knee jerk ChickenLittleism of so many people around me because I just don't see the factual support for it. Predicting where Iraq will be in 2020 is silly. And saying its doomed because things haven't turned as we predicted in the first 3 years is dumb. If I hear one more idiot cite the fact that "they didn't greet us as liberators" as factual proof Iraq is doomed, I'm going to throw my beer through my television. Its pathetic the level of "facts" we base things on today. The idiot wind coming from the mouths of experts, pundits and news/entertainment types is deafening, and has turned us into a nation of people debating the undebatable.

The long term is all that matters, and you'll know where Iraq will be in 2020 in 2019. No sooner. If you'd like to advertise your lack of knowledge, dillentantism and gullibility, parrot whatever crap Lewis Lapham or Bill Kristol tells you back and forth amongst yourselves.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I seee your point, but I think that "what Bush hath wrought" might create demand for the exact opposite in future presidents. You might see the cast of idiots running for Chief Whore in 2008 jockeying to see who can be most deferential to Congress. I can see some shitbag Rovian Goebbels coaching one of these stuffed suits right now:

"You will promise to be the transparant president - Mr. Full Disclosure. You will promise to be accountable to Congress, rather than treat it like the degenerate basement casino it is."

BTW, from a quality of governance standpoint, is there any gain from having the Pres be more accountable to Congress? I mean, I understand the need to keep the checcks and balances working, but other than that, does having one buffoon answer to a room of bigger buffoons really somehow benefit the Republic? Considering the intelligence of the average voter, given access to a library of the last 10 years worth of NYTimes, Wash Posts and Journal, and a few legal pads, I could probably sketch you a really solid argument for Monarchy these days.

Ahh, but who would choose the king or queen?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Ahh, but who would choose the king or queen?

Anyone whose last name is not Kennedy, Bush, or Clinton is not eligible.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Anyone whose last name is not Kennedy, Bush, or Clinton is not eligible.

Well, fuck that, then. If I can't name the king, I don't want to play.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Well, fuck that, then. If I can't name the king, I don't want to play.

Did you vote in 1984?

Or, for that matter, in any recent year?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Did you vote in 1984?

Or, for that matter, in any recent year?

Yes, but not for a monarch. And I voted against the current Pretender to the Crown.

[baltassoc]

Interesting interview with Loni Guinier in which she discusses her research into class and race, and how the two are often mistaken for each other, as well as the prediction value of measures of "merit" used for admission to colleges and laws schools.

One of her observations is that grades and test scores are not very good predictors of school performance or life performance (as measured by a definition of good alumni - my term, not hers), but class is. Blue collar admittees make better alumni.

Also, discusses briefly the Hopwood case, and points out that Hopwood was as much a victim of UT's admission policies discriminating against the poor (or at least those unable to attend elite universities, for whatever reason - which could be unrelated to wealth) as she was UT's preferential admission of other races.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archi...06guinier.html

[Replaced_Texan]

RICHMOND - U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, a gun rights supporter under indictment on charges of laundering campaign money, is fighting to regain his Texas concealed handgun license, which was suspended because he is accused of a felony.

Under a Texas law passed in 1995, a license may be suspended if the holder is charged with a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or indicted on felony charges.

The Sugar Land Republican's license was suspended by Fort Bend County Precinct 4 Justice of the Peace Jim Richard in January.

The suspension came after DeLay, a strong supporter of gun rights, was indicted last year by a Travis County grand jury on charges of conspiring to violate state election law and on money laundering charges.