Huh? Since when do you have to have been around to KNOW of a major event in history? 
I’m in my late twenties, and no, I wasn’t around then. BUT, I do know what happened. And that was the first thing that came to mind-hey, didn’t Nixon do something similiar.
Republican now and for the past several years, yeah. But I think the decline of the exercise of Congressional checks on the Executive goes back farther than that. It hasn’t didn’t just happen; it’s been in a downward spiral since probably the Reagan years.
Also, using your logic, rjung, it’d be equally stupid to vote for Democratic Congresspersons when we have a Democratic president. But I 'spect you’re hypocritical on that point.
Apparently Bush and his apologists believe he can do anything not specifically prohibitied by the Constitution and that all questions of separation of powers default to the president’s position. The rest of us can only hope for 01-20-09 to come very quickly.
But Nixon never wrapped it in national security. The guy just wasn’t creative enough.
While rjung’s comment about voting Republican was stupid and needlessly antagonistic, I think his first sentence is relevant. This problem is primarily the result of party message and unity taking precedence over checks and balances, and party message and unity is something the Republican party has perfected into an art form. It is far from a given that a Democratic congress would behave the same way with a Democratic president. For one thing, that would require far more organization and media savvy than the party has displayed in recent years.
I think the Republican party can and should take credit for reshaping itself into an organization that has become highly effective at winning elections. On the flip side, I think a party that is so focused on winning elections is not necessarily a party that governs with the people’s best interests in mind.
It’s times like these that I find myself going back more often to these words of comfort:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
Thinking specific prohibitions in the Constitution are worth worrying about is so “first term”.
I agree entirely. And presciently. I said much the same thing in a previous post.
Huh. Your post didn’t read that way to me, but more like “yes, Republicans are in control now but this problem has been going on longer than that”, i.e. implying that it’s a general problem of Congress, not one of either political party. Which I disagree with. Although if you didn’t say that, then I don’t.
The opposite has, in fact, been demonstrated. Which is why we don’t have nationalized health care. Not saying we should, but Clinton was 100% behind it when he took office, and the Democratic party held a majority in both houses of congress. If Bill and the congressmen had been today’s pubbies, it would have shot thorough like gas through a funnel.
Can you imagine why us on the left who are always being told “let’s see the evidence” at the same time as “you can’t see the evidence” are maybe a little bit frustrated by that response?
So? When has it ever happened before?
You actually seem to think the decision not to grant the clearances is independent of the reason they were being requested. :rolleyes:
The *reason * for the decision is, as is obvious to just about everyone *else * here, the prevention of an otherwise-duly-authorized legal investigation into actions taken by the person refusing the clearance.
Or perhaps you *know * that, are simply as reflexively partisan as Scylla or Shodan, and you’re simply attempting to toss sand in our eyes again. Your problem either way, not ours.
If you’re referring to the New York Times, then it’s not like leaks of sensitive material should have been an issue recently or anything. The Admin has no business even being upset over what the NYT has done. Ashamed, yes; upset, no.
Actually, it merely appears to be Republican.
Then the time has come. Unprecedented != illegal. New law is made by way of court challenges all the time. As it should be.
Sheesh! Talk about hitting the nail on the head. Well done, Giraffe.
Unfortunately, you can’t single out the Pubs there, nor anyone else. It’s a basic design flaw of representative/electoral democracy. (“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”)
I prefer to think of it as a flaw of the electorate, people failing to vote in their enlightened best interest. But we do tend to rise to the occasion when absolutely necessary, somehow.
Except for the idiot Bush supporters who see nothing wrong with obfuscating, prevaricating and tossing red herrings in defense of the indefensible.
Ooops, there I go again, foaming at the mouth.