posted on August 27, 2002 12:05:06 PM new
Well, REAMOND, it looks as if the Bush camp and the GOP have discovered a way to neutralize Congress and go do whatever they wish in the way of Bush's private war on Iraq for Bush Oil co. Why is it that Bush no longer fears Congress hitting the brakes on spending? And what's more, what shall we do now? Now that's its gone too far?
posted on August 27, 2002 07:22:18 PM new
I'm confused. I thought they just wanted to get rid of Saddam. Are they calling it a war against Iraq now? Besides their military buildings, what are they planning to bomb?
posted on August 28, 2002 08:12:28 PM new
Bor- The "warnings" coming out of Congress are what can stop Bush- provided Congress follows through. It could be a two pronged attack to stop Bush- first a spending halt, second threats of impeachment.
Bush is operating under the assumption that the act by Congress allowing US troops to go after terrorists or those that support them is enough to go after Saddam. Whether Bush is correct is ultimately a political question to be answered by Congress.
Congress is far from neutralized. But there is a lot on the table for both sides. If Congress lays down and Bush causes a mess in Iraq, both sides will scramble for political cover and finger pointing. If Congress exerts its power of the purse and stops Bush's Iraq initiative, and then Saddam causes any sort of problem, Congress has it neck in the political noose.
Presently, Bush hasn't neutralized anything. Both sides are rattling political sabres. Neither side has determined exactly what the US is going to do nor how it will be done.
Bush has put his political butt on the line. Congress has yet to fully do the same, although many Republican Congressmen are already on the record against any military action in Iraq.
I would say that politically, Bush has already been beat as far as any significant action towards Iraq in the near future.
posted on August 29, 2002 09:13:28 AM new
I sure hope you're right, REAMOND. If Congress just rolls over and lets Bush walk through them, it will set such a precident that would allow would-be dictators of the future to follow along down the same path to acheive their end goal of total political power for themselves. Thanks for the analysis.
posted on August 30, 2002 07:43:21 AM new
Bor- If Congress "rolls over" it is not the President's fault, nor does it imply a dictatorship. Congress is elected and bought every two years. Not doing anything to stop Bush is within the realm of actions of the democratically elected body of the Congress. It is in fact assent by silence or taking no action.
These midterm elections coming up will be a very important referendum on Bush. The elections will give Bush a political message. It may be suttle as in no real changes, or it may be strong with major changes if one party or the other loses enough seats.
posted on August 30, 2002 12:49:50 PM new
I have to strongly disagree with that last post of yours, REAMOND. If Congress lets Bush have his way without pulling in on the reigns, that sends a definite signal to the entire government as to Who's-in-Charge. The White House has responded to Congress' threats to derail the military action against the nation of Iraq by throwing down the gauntlet and stating that Congress itself can be totally bypassed. Can Congress actually be bypassed? Not legally, even on a stretched-out legal theory based upon the sketchy legal theories behind the whole War on Terrorism process. Therefore, if Congress allows the Executive Branch aka Bush & Co. to illegally bypass them and Bush pursues this proposed military action without the consent or approval of Congress, that IS sending a message that we no longer have a branch of government that represents the people - and that's a Dictatorship, not a lack of voice from the People. REAMOND, the problem is not one of silent assent, in my view. As any Supreme Court that you care to mention would gladly tell you that the power of the people to affect change in our government is largely limited to the voting process. What little our elected officials listen to us is drowned out by special interests. Our only options are to vote out the crooks and vote in the new bunch ~ hopefully not worse crooks. That, and armed rebellion.
posted on August 30, 2002 03:35:52 PM new
We do not have a dictatorship even if Bush attempts to procede without Congressional approval. The Congress is free to stop the money or impeach Bush if Congress disaproves of his actions with the military.
Even if the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue of how far the Anti-Terrorism Enabling Bill allows Bush to go, Congress can then legislate away the enabling bill and impeach if Bush continues.
There is also the aspect of the military refusing to follow Bush if he doesn't have Congressional consent. The militiary Joint Cheifs spend as much time with Congress as they do with the executive branch.
[i]As any Supreme Court that you care to mention would gladly tell you that the power of the people to affect change in our government is largely limited to the voting process[i]
The Supreme Court will tell us that the power of the people goes much further than just voting. Free speech is certainly another power of the people to change government.
Bush is in a political sling right now. He has pledged a regime change in Iraq and thus far doesn't have the political equity to do it. He knows it too. Not only is his office at steak, but the fortunes of his political party are at steak.
posted on August 30, 2002 06:59:24 PM new
REAMOND, I did not mean to say that if Congress gives in on this one matter that it will automatically translate to a Dictatorship (although it looks that way when I wrote it). However, it will be seen as one of the things that allowed Bush to take too much power; that is, if one doesn't feel that he's already gone too far at this point. Historically, dictatorships that arise out of republics tend to happen because the representatives of the people sat back and allowed the power to accumulate to the Dictator. Bush, already having made huge new power grabs is threatening to go after more. If Congress does not act to suppress this power grab, it will be seen as one of the major points which eventually leads to Bush becoming Dictator. While Congress has many resorts at its disposal as you say, if they do not use them, then it is as if those options never existed at all. We can speculate all day long on this matter, but until Bush is finally defeated and disgraced, the fear that Congress will never act looms ever present on the horizon.
We can't say one way or the other until after this hand plays out as to how the cards will lay, but it is dangerous to a Democracy to allow any one branch to accumulate too much power. If Bush succeeds in getting his way, future would-be Dictators will have a path lined out for them to follow to their own power grabs.
As far as the Voice of the People and Freedom of Speech goes, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Your email/letter/telephone call/fax/other medium that you chose to send in your personal thoughts to your elected representative is heavily outweighed by the thousands of dollars and even sometimes millions of dollars in legal bribery by the special interests on the other side of the table. Your one vote versus their million dollars. Hmmm…
posted on August 30, 2002 07:17:20 PM new
>>The Congress is free to stop the money<<
Somebody straighten me out. Didn't They manage to give a blank check contract to the company Cheney previously worked for to supply nearly everything to to the Army for ten years?
posted on August 30, 2002 09:36:32 PM new
Mrs. Clinton was in an interview tonight on Fox News. She claims the man you call dictator is following the regime set up by her husband and she is behind him all the way.
posted on August 30, 2002 09:51:31 PM new
NEW YORK -- After spending almost two years on the low-profile and frequently dull tasks that make up the working life of a junior member of the U.S. Senate, former U.S. first lady Hillary Clinton is moving back into the spotlight.
As she gears up to promote Democratic candidates in the fall midterm elections, she is attacking the administration of President George W. Bush for its compromised relationships with troubled business leaders, and for a string of tax cuts that are leading the country back into deficits.
"When it comes to fiscal responsibility and economic growth, this administration is all blame and no game plan. All response and no responsibility," she declared last month in a speech to the Democratic Leadership Council, the forum that in 1991 helped launch the presidency of her husband, Bill.
"GOP used to mean Grand Old Party," she said, referring to the Republicans' nickname. "But more and more it's standing for gloss over problems."
posted on August 30, 2002 10:05:25 PM new
There is no..not one..politician that is joined to my hip.Not Hillary,not anyone.Just because she may have said that doen't mean I have to think so too...does it? That would be very sheep like.
Would like to hear that interview though. I imagine it will be on again later tonight. Fox, Eh?
posted on August 30, 2002 10:26:03 PM new
By JOEL SIEGEL
DAILY NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Previewing an expected Democratic campaign theme in the fall elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton said yesterday that President Bush and congressional Republicans have squandered the economic gains made when her husband was President.
"It's harder to imagine a faster, more heartbreaking turnaround than the one we've seen," she said.
Addressing the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization promoting centrist policies and politicians, Clinton (D-N.Y.) cited upbeat statistics from the 1990s, ranging from the creation of 42 million jobs to 7 million people leaving poverty to the elimination of the federal budget deficit.
"Now some have recently called that record a binge," she said, referring to Bush's characterization of the go-go '90s and corporate excesses, which he said resulted in the stock-market collapse.
"I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln once said, when his commanders complained about Ulysses S. Grant's binges. 'Find out,' he said, 'what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I'm going to send a barrel to each of my generals.'"
Clinton added, "If all of the arrows that were pointing up are now pointing down, and those that were headed down are going back up, blame cannot and should not be placed at the feet of those who led our nation during one of the greatest periods of prosperity and progress in our nation."
posted on August 30, 2002 10:40:15 PM new
Oh Borillar, there's still two. They just are starting to resemble each other more and more.
Today we received the electrical unions magazine and in it were the figures for the expenditures for the federal budget since 1969 and quite clearly you can see by the graph they included that republicans spend enormous amounts of money and democrats do not.
The Regan years were bad but the Daddy Bush years were much worse. I think this Bush will be even worse than his papa. I do think if a democrat had been elected [wait.... one was!] we would not be in the financial mess we are getting into right now.
So to me there are still two parties even if at times it doesn't seem that way.
posted on August 30, 2002 10:51:44 PM new
Borillar
I accidentally got involved in your thread. When I saw the comment by pclady I thought that it was another thread. Please excuse my intrusion. I noticed earlier that you and REAMOND were having an interesting conversation and I really didn't mean to be disruptive.
posted on August 31, 2002 08:54:38 AM new
Helen, Hillary was speaking to our (U.S.A.) involvement in an attack on Saddam, not our own economic policies. Of course Republicans and Democrats have different priorities in that area but I do agree that it is getting more difficult to tell the two parties apart aside from the extremists on both sides.
I doubt that Hillary Clinton would refer to her husband's presidential term as a set up regime. Bill Clinton is opposed to a war with Iraq . Yesterday, he said that a U.S. attack on Iraq could give Saddam Hussein an excuse to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies. He pointed out that the current administration should move cautiously on Iraq and urged Bush to listen to Congress and the American public.
""Looking at it from the outside, it seems to me we have maximum incentive now for him not to use these weapons and not to give them to anybody. Because he knows all of America is ready to go after him, and would if he did that," Clinton said at the New York State Fair after speaking at a luncheon hosted by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ( news - web sites), D-N.Y."
"If he knew for sure we were coming, he might have maximum incentive to use them and to give them to other people," Clinton said.
posted on August 31, 2002 11:02:26 AM new
There is, but one political party in this country.
Yes, the one-party system is full of extremists from one side of the spectrum to the other. The Democrats have Right-wingers, the Republicans have Liberals. Remember Joe Liberman? Remember McCain? Remember others? They pretend to be two different parties, but the opporate as one big party. Look at other countries with a one-party system and you'll see that the Demopublican party doesn't squabble have as much as they cooperate with each other. When did the Democrats stop representing the People? During the 1960s after JFK was assasinated and HHH lost out to Nixon. Since then, they been just like the Republicans - self-centered, elitists trying to install an aristocracy in America, simply differing on how to get there. Notice that the Democrats do not pay any attention to their constituants anymore, except around election time. No, you can believe in the fairy tail that there are two political parties, but the reality is much worse.
posted on August 31, 2002 05:45:23 PM new
I can disagree with Bolliar very much in some things - but he is right on the money with this one. There are differences of agenda between the two - but they both about keeping the power of government away from the comman man and serving special interests. The differences amount to exactly how you want to be raped. Does the style really matter?
posted on August 31, 2002 11:35:29 PM new
The two-party system is a fiction that they - the politicos and special interests, perpetuate to distract us and to divide us, lest we catch on, band together, and kick them all out. They are one and the same party. They pass onerous, pork-filled legislation for the special interests and their corporate masters to the complete detriment of the people. The pretend to squabble and have differences, but they really don't. Tom Daschelle is just as guilty as Bush is for 9-11, having three times shot down legislation for improved security for airports and airlines. He did that because the airlines made him float on a river of cash. Democrats are every bit as corrupt and their so-called counter-parts, the Republicans. But if Americans had the guts to really look reality in the face and see that both sides of the Demopublican party are just a hoax to fool us into thinking that there is some hope, some choice at election times, we would all vote Independent at one time and throw those bastards out of power! So the myth of the "two-party system" is perpetuated and orchestrated for our benefit.
For example, company A and company B are rivals and direct competitors. Good business for us, huh? But behind our backs, they secretly and quietly do a deal with one another. They say, "it's just down to the two of us. We hold all of the cards. Let's stop this fighting and secretly join forces. But we don't want to get into trouble with the public, so lets just quietly make a deal." After that, they each buy a 50% share of the other's holdings and then pretend that there are still two companies competing against each other. In fact, they even run clever advertisements disparaging each other and touting their products, all the while slowly raising prices and cutting services to the public. This is a true story, by the way. The end product, it was finally revealed, is that they were just one, big company that was perpetrating a hoax on consumers.
Do you still believe that there are two separate, distinct political parties running our government? Can you prove it? Don't mention Charters - remember the example above. For each and ever example of where a Democrat decries a Republican bill, I can show you how Democrats quietly line up to vote with them to pass the legislation. My eyes are open - are yours?
posted on September 1, 2002 06:30:24 AM new
[i]"Do you still believe that there are two separate, distinct political parties running our government? Can you prove it? Don't mention Charters - remember the example
above. For each and ever example of where a Democrat decries a Republican bill, I can show you how Democrats quietly line up to vote with them to pass the legislation. My eyes are open - are yours?[/i]
It doesn't matter, borillar. What matters is to attempt to depose the little tyrant of today, and an independeant vote against him is a wasted vote. Only a democratic majority of such strength that no cheating in any state will overcome it will remove him.
It must be nice for you to dream of an independent surge that would remove the lot of them, but it ain't gonna' happen. Haven't you noticed that no republican objects when you talk in your current vein? That's because they know that you are an emasculated political entity. Your independent vote may feel like a fine statement of personal disdain for the bunch of them but it will be an ineffective vote - a null vote, effectively nuetralized in our national political scheme.
So register as an independent if you like. Register as the man in the moon. But Vote Democratic if you hope to have your vote felt.
posted on September 1, 2002 09:53:27 AM new
It was precisely this What Two Parties? sentiment that led me to vote for Nader. I knew Gore was a NY shoo-in anyway.
It would be really something if Americans actually did some thinking. We need a Big Sister to come in and destroy all the televisions.
Anybody know anything about intelligent intentional communities. Anybody want to start one?
posted on September 1, 2002 10:10:10 AM new
Bor- I meant free speech in the vain of public demonstration and media. Black Americans are a minority, no amount of voting could gain them equal treatment. However, free speech accomplished what voting could not do.
[ edited by reamond on Sep 1, 2002 10:57 AM ]
They just are starting to resemble each other more and more.
