Actually, it shouldn’t take the peasants storming the bastille. You proposal is another way to get those who can do something to act. It shouldn’t take that. Biden, Pelosi, Clinton and other Democrats owe their new majorities to the voters saying STOP THIS NONSENSE and for them to cower and say that they really can’t do anything is craven crap.
Just as the Constitution is not a suicide pact, neither is it a contrivance built to enable a deluded tinhorn to empower himself above the people. It is not devised to permit the establishment of a Tyranny Lite, but specificly designed to encourage the jealous preservation of power to its only legitimate source, we, the people. A president who misleads is not legitimate, his actions should not be tolerated simply because the Constitution can be parsed to forbid precisely that which is was created to ensure.
If he can’t lead and won’t follow, then he has to get out of the way.
(It has long been my opinion that the Constitution works as well as it does because it was designed by pessimists who didn’t trust each other any further than they could be tossed overhanded.)
Why’s that? The electorate’s only way to address a problem midterm is to vote for the other guys, and that’s exactly what we did.
The electorate having voted Nixon back in a landslide in 1972 didn’t prevent impeachment hearings in 1973 with strong public support, once the facts began to emerge. The authority we granted to our employee then was just as quickly removed when it needed to be. Consent of the governed, as you may recall.
When did anyone ever say there was? Expectations have seemed to be pretty realistic so far.
Certainly…but it only goes so far. The root problem is that Bush got re-elected. I’m unsure why you feel this is incorrect to be honest.
Um…ok. Did I dispute that? Whats it got to do with the price of tea in China…or what I said?
This is kind of a delicate question but…have you actually READ the thread? Short of that, did you actually read what I was replying too? Because it doesn’t appear that you did. Just saying.
-XT
The electorate that put Bush back into office is the *very same electorate * (!) as the one that put the Democrats in control of Congress. Don’t you think our more recent judgment overrides our earlier one, at least to a large extent? Would you refrain from firing an employee at your business just because you were the one who made the decision to hire him a few years earlier?
Illustrating the point above.
Guess I missed the part where somebody said the Dems have a magic wand, thereby setting you up to deny it. :dubious:
You don’t understand the point I was making. The OP was claiming that the Congress could do all this wonderful stuff about Iraq (i.e. forcing the Prez to bring the troops home in the first 100 hours, etc etc)…and its fantasy. Others were claiming that Congress should take responsibility for this and that, and that the electorate is basically off the hook because they brought in a razor think Dem majority (i.e. fix all our problems for us). MY point is that the Congress can only do so much, and that the electorate has a measure of blame for the continued presence of our troops in Iraq because they re-elected Bush…who stated pretty clearly that he WAS going to keep the troops there as long as it would take. Certainly some corrections have taken place, but its silly to throw it all on the slim majority of Dems in Congress without spreading some of the blame to the folks who put GW back in office.
You get the point now?
Maybe you should have, I don’t know, read the OP perhaps. The implication was certainly there for anyone who can actually read. If that was too much of a strain, read just about every OTHER post by the OP for a clue.
Seriously, either you skimmed this thead very loosely, or you didn’t understand a lot of the byplay going on in it. You also don’t seem to be getting the drift of what I’m saying in here. Its almost like you are a bot and simply responding to me, and not to what I’m saying.
-XT
Tonight - Durbin said, “It’s time to begin the orderly re-deployment of our troops so that they can begin coming home soon.”
Notice “soon.”
Call it a magic wand or defunding, your choice. The President will be coming to the Congress next month for a $100 - $120 billion supplemental for Iraq. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate. Passing it will send the message to the American people that Congress supports the Iraq war.
Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and Sen. Durbin all know that there will be no redeployment “soon” unless Congress makes it happen by using the will of Congress to defund the Iraq war.
It is time for the Congress to do their job for our troops in Iraq and the American people whom elected them.
It is suprising based on how many times defunding has been used by the Congress, enacted and not, and it is now labeled as a “magic wand.” Particularly since it has been discuss so often recently in the news media regarding the Iraq war.
[nitpick]It all depends upon the language of the appropriation bill. For example, if congress appropriates X amount for for the purchase of uniforms, it must be spent only on the purchase of uniforms. Within the category “uniforms” there is flexibility. The army would have its own internal budget of so much for dress uniforms, so much for fatigues, so much for caps, etc. If we run short of fatigues, money can be shifted from caps to cover the shortage because that is still in the category of “uniforms.” However, money cannot be shifted from “uniforms” to “ammunition” or “vehicle fuel” or any other category.[/nitpick]
Last night Sen. McCain said:
"According to the Constitution, they have the power to cut off funding, like they did during the Vietnam War,” McCain said. "I respect the views of my colleagues in the Senate . . . We need the debate, but I’m convinced that if we do not give this a chance to succeed, [the terrorists] will follow us home.”
A few minutes ago on CNN, Sen. McCain added that the Democrats are now considering defunding the Iraq war.
Why not? They are going to have to vote next month to fund or defund the war anyway.
We can only pray it comes to fruition and our soldiers come home soon.
The misconception that the President can spend appropriated military funds in any manner he wants over the will of Congress isn’t nearly as creative as the idea put forth in this thread that if the war in Iraq were defunded the President could just obtain funds from other money in the DoD budget, as if these are fungible funds.
I guess I was chastised for this as not reading, listening or comprehending since I didn’t respond. The reason I didn’t respond is because I attempted to find an example where this had occurred or was even contemplated.
One example somewhat analogous was the Iran Contra affair:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(198910)83%3A4<758%3AHTCCDT>2.0.CO%3B2-N&size=LARGE
It is interesting that the sources for this funding were not sought from within the US government. Why not if US government funds are fungible?
Regardless, the question is moot, Congress could add language to an appropriation bill which prohibits the use of any other funds outside of those appropriated in said bill without the authorization of Congress. Language on limitations and conditions by Congress involving appropriations is nothing new, see the above link as a quick reference.
Personally, I find it interesting that Pelosi and her conspirators seek to undermine the President at every turn. They promised a “new direction” when running for office. The “new direction” seems to be the same as the “old direction”. Shouldn’t a new direction include some new ideas? Bush Bad-Dems Good is stale…perhaps John Tesh or Moby could lend an air of “we might be on the track to being relevant someday” to that tired mantra.
Quick question; presumably the “old direction” is the one the President prefers, since that’s the one he and Republican houses put through. So if the Dems are indeed sticking to the old direction… how is it “seeking to undermine the President at every turn”?
Your argument is not logically coherent. But then, your language does hint at an ever-so-slight skew.
As they should. Bush’s approval ratings are in the toilet. The American people WANT him stopped.
The “old direction” is the one the Dems have been using for years. They promised a new direction. But, alas, they are doing what they have always done.
Promised a 5 day work week…except for this week because there was a football game. Next week? Nope…Martin Luther King Day. The following week will be a new excuse.
It never ends.
The people elected Bush because they wanted a LEADER, not a mamby-pampy figurehood who ruled according to polls.
Which is? They haven’t done much for the last few years, being out of power and all … .
The House has already passed several big pieces of legislation. They finally enacted the recommendations of the 9-11 commission that the Republicans have been sitting on for years. They’ve started having hearing into the Iraq War. And today they started debating changes to the national prescription drug plan. That’s a lot of business for their first week.
You want them to work HARDER and pass EVEN MORE liberal legislation? 
Maybe the word is now going out to get our soldiers in Iraq home now. Rep. Feingold at the hearings yesterday said:
“I have consistently called for the redeployment of our military from Iraq, but now Congress must use its main power - the power of the purse - to put an end to our involvement in this disastrous war,”
Now it is time for Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, who also asked for redeployment in 2006 themselves, to follow suit and take the lead.
They passed the National Minimum Wage law…which curiously exempted StarKist Tuna, based in San Francisco which is Nancy Pelosi’s home district. Hhhhmm…
Too bad he’s so incompetent and weak then. He hasn’t accomplished squat. He lost on Social Security. He hasn’t caught Bin Laden. He fucked up in Iraq. His temporary tax cuts are about to expire. He’s run the largest deficit in history. He didn’t stand up to North Korea. His entire administration has been one long cascade of failure after failuare. If Bush is your definition of leader then the future of the Republican Party is grim indeed.
You guys controlled the whole government. You had the whole country and the international community behind you after 9-11. If you’d had somebody even halfway competent in charge you’d have the entire world eating out of the palm of your hand right now.
Nope, you blew it. The latest Republican era is over. Try again in a decade or two.
StarKist employs 75% of the work force of American Somoa, and Nancy Pelosi thinks that it is perfectly fine to to pay these people substandard wages. Why would she think that? Would she think that way if StarKist was based in Crawford, Texas?