Reining in George Bush and Dick Cheney

[swordfishME]

The republican led congress has let Dubya and his teams do pretty much anything he wants for the last 6 years. Now the republicans have lost control of congress; Bush and Cheney are not running for anything in two years: the Republican Party has to be concerned with regaining control of congress and keeping the White House in ’08. Does anyone else think that the administration is not going to get its way in the next two years not only because the democrats control congress but because the republicans have an election to fight that Bush does not seem to be worried about? Both parties have to realize that the country likes to remain in the center and are uncomfortable if we shift to either extreme end. Your thoughts?

 

[Principessa]

The republican led congress has let Dubya and his teams do pretty much anything he wants for the last 6 years.

He did veto stem cell research.
Now the republicans have lost control of congress; Bush and Cheney are not running for anything in two years: the Republican Party has to be concerned with regaining control of congress and keeping the White House in ’08.

I believe Republican Governors, Mayors, Congressmen and Senators are concerned; but the White House isn't concerned with the 2008 election. It kinda doesn't concern him because he can't be re-elected. I know that sounds short-sighted but so have a lot of other things lately. If we stay the course the Democrats will take the White House in 2008. Which is remarkable because as a diehard Democrat I'm still waiting for a winning ticket combination to come up.

Does anyone else think that the administration is not going to get its way in the next two years not only because the democrats control congress but because the republicans have an election to fight that Bush does not seem to be worried about?

There's an old saying that someone needs to explain to our President, "Is that the hill you want to die on?" You can view it as being biblical and refering to Calvary, or it can refer to a battle in war. My point, he can't treat everything Congress wants like the hill he has to die on.

Both parties have to realize that the country likes to remain in the center and are uncomfortable if we shift to either extreme end. Your thoughts?

I like to think both parties realize this, the White House does not.
I have lost faith in our leaders, but I refuse to give up hope for the future of my country.

 

[D_N Flay Table]

The republican led congress has let Dubya and his teams do pretty much anything he wants for the last 6 years. Now the republicans have lost control of congress; Bush and Cheney are not running for anything in two years: the Republican Party has to be concerned with regaining control of congress and keeping the White House in ’08. Does anyone else think that the administration is not going to get its way in the next two years not only because the democrats control congress but because the republicans have an election to fight that Bush does not seem to be worried about? Both parties have to realize that the country likes to remain in the center and are uncomfortable if we shift to either extreme end. Your thoughts?

I really wish I could weigh in on this with out sounding like a paranoid conspiricy theorist..
but.. I cant.
Loose Change Website - Version 2.0

 

[mindseye]

You're inviting spectulation, so here's mine:

Bush will continue to do as he has in the past -- use signing statements to pick and choose which pieces of given laws he'll execute. This use of signing statements has already alienated Democrats, and even some Republicans (for example, Republican Senator Arlen Specter has introduced legislation which would nullify them completely [source]).

Expect a Supreme Court showdown over one of these signing statements. Signing statements have no constitutional basis whatsoever. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Clinton vs. New York, a test case for the presidential line-item veto, that the President may sign a law or veto it, but can't sign only part of it into law. Signing statements have a similar effect to the line-item veto, and the Supreme Court is likely to use CvNY as a precedent to rule against the president if there is such a showdown.

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer will form a 5-4 majority (and maaaaybe Roberts will join them) if the constitutionality of a signing statement were to be tested.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

Wish you Americans would actually vote. More Iraqis voted in their democratic elections than Americans did in theirs. Of course Mr Bush and the Republican will do what they want to do - they have the money, the lickspittals, all the force and coercian big bucks can buy.

 

[Stormyjjl]

I am normaly a hard left person (most kids my age tend to be or they don't care) But I think the hardest vote for me in 2008 would be if it was between Hilary Clinton and Rudy Gulianii, But then again its proly gonna come down too the debate that decides who gets my vote.

Also wanted to point out that I am a 19 year old democrat who lives in Nebraska and I vote everytime I get a chance, Im not like the other kids my age (Dumb asses)

 

[mindseye]

Wish you Americans would actually vote. More Iraqis voted in their democratic elections than Americans did in theirs.

That's not a fair comparison, for several reasons. One, voter registration in Iraq was linked to the distribution of food (source). Second, Iraq permitted voters to register at the polls; most U.S. states do not (source). Third, the day of the election was a national holiday in Iraq so that workers would have time to travel to the polls; it's not a national holiday in the U.S. (source).

In the U.S. elections, voter suppression (sources for VA MO), illegal voter purges (sources for OH FL), and malfunctioning voting machines (sources for NC MT CO) are all too common.

There are a lot of things wrong with U.S. politics, but they're due to undue corporate and media lobbyist influence, and a broken system that doesn't want to encourage participation in its electoral process. If the US had the mechanisms that other countries have to facilitate voting -- paid time off from work, same-day registration, early voting, (not to mention free food!) -- I bet participation would rise here as well.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
In the U.S. elections, voter suppression (sources for VA MO), illegal voter purges (sources for OH FL), and malfunctioning voting machines (sources for NC MT CO) are all too common.

Thanks for posting that, Mindseye. Damn, the one link you posted that I really REALLY wanted to see does not work.

I am not permitted to register to vote in Virginia, nor am I allowed to receive a driver's license. Officials claim that I must give them my social security number, and I claim they have no legal right to ask for it. It has been an ongoing battle over the last 6 years. I certainly have all the identification I need, but that is not acceptable. Even if I show proof of residence (since so things require it, I kept an envelope with my official USPS change of address yellow sticker on it...) and my birth certificate and my passport and my DD214, they will not allow me to get a driver's license or register to vote.

 

[HazelGod]

I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned the fact that general elections continue to be held on a Tuesday in the USA.

I don't know the historical rationale for choosing a day in the work week, but IMO it creates an artificial obstacle to a probably not insignificant portion of eligible voters. Folks like me who work from home with flexible hours aren't affected...but your 9-to-5ers and your onsite contractor types who are paid by the hour can't just knock off for a few hours to go cast a ballot.

I also imagine it'd be a lot easier to find available polling locations and volunteer staff for them on Saturdays.

 

[mindseye]

DCDeep: I fixed the link -- thanks for calling it to my attention.

DCDeep: I hate to tell you, but the Social Security Act was amended by the 80th Congress (1947) to specifically provide for use of Social Security numbes by state DMV's. Here's the text of the Social Security Act from the Cornell Law Library. The relevant paragraph says (emphasis mine):

It is the policy of the United States that any State (or political subdivision thereof) may, in the administration of any tax, general public assistance, driver's license, or motor vehicle registration law within its jurisdiction, utilize the social security account numbers issued by the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State (or political subdivision thereof) or any agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved, the social security account number (or numbers, if he has more than one such number) issued to him by the Commissioner of Social Security.

I suspect that the board of elections considers themselves to be covered under this same paragraph as providers of "general public assistance".

The original purpose of SSNs has long been abandoned. *sigh*

HazelGod: I did mention that. (But I'm long-winded; thanks for mentioning it more prominently.)

 

[HazelGod]

HazelGod: I did mention that. (But I'm long-winded; thanks for mentioning it more prominently.)

Busted! :redface:

Don't apologize...I tend to suffer from similar diarrhea of the keyboard, especially when the topics range toward the philosophical (politics, religion, etc). The least I should do is read others' comments completely before spouting my own.

 

[JustAsking]

Wish you Americans would actually vote. More Iraqis voted in their democratic elections than Americans did in theirs. Of course Mr Bush and the Republican will do what they want to do - they have the money, the lickspittals, all the force and coercian big bucks can buy.

Ironically, the structure that was set up in Iraq is a true democracy where the popular vote determines the election. Here in the US we still have the antiquated Electoral College who actually votes for our president. The relationship between how the EC votes in regard to the popular vote varies from state to state. How screwed up is that?

"Lickspittals?" What a cool word. I want to use that in a sentence at a party.

 

[Principessa]

The original purpose of SSNs has long been abandoned. *sigh*

Pardon my ignorance but what was the original purpose of social security numbers? I thought it was to aide in the distribution of the checks?

 

[kalipygian]

We've had early voting for years, at least here in alaska. About 3 months, I think.

Just heard W.'s speach, he comletely ignores the results lf the last election, and has no grasp that a problem cannot be solved by the application of more force.
His decision making ability is extremely poor, and he wants to make all decisions autocraticly.

 

[Principessa]

There are a lot of things wrong with U.S. politics, but they're due to undue corporate and media lobbyist influence, and a broken system that doesn't want to encourage participation in its electoral process. If the US had the mechanisms that other countries have to facilitate voting -- paid time off from work, same-day registration, early voting, (not to mention free food!) -- I bet participation would rise here as well.

I agree 100%! I always vote. I have to, or risk death by maternal nagging.
:tongue:

I have been fortunate to work in education and retail for the bulk of my adult life. These positions have allowed me the scheduling flexibility to get to the polls with minimal effort.

I will admit I have been a bit lax, and have missed 3 school board elections in the last 7 years.

I guess I should say I vote in the big elections: town/local, gubernatorial, primaries, and of course presidential. I was reared in a rabidly democratic household but have voted republican locally once or twice.

 

[blackbottom2]

There is a feeling that G. W Bush and his family are crooked and operating a revolving door type of nepotism

The Bush family are in many contractual deals with the Bin laden family and we all know who the head of the Bin laden family is

Secondly the votes at his initial election were counted and recounted untill he got in

Makes me feel that GW bush family is working inbetween public and private interests so that at the end of his appointment he can slip back into the private role and reap lots of money. Its been done before i.e Ronald Reagans acceptance of a million dollars speaking fee from the Japanese company, fujisanki comms, after leaving office, and large book publishing advances for the Clintons. these sorts of deals are so common place that they become acceptable.

Thankfully a lot of the American public are beginning to see through him and realising that the stakes GW is playing with are much higher and with much more greed than any of the others.

I say long live all our fellow American citizens and the sooner they get rid of this crooked monster the better for them and everybody else

I hope i havent said too much cos I dont want a knock at the door and transported to Guantanomo bay

((((((((((((.....I hope they have big dicks and like playing........)))))))))

 

[Matthew]

I hope i havent said too much cos I dont want a knock at the door and transported to Guantanomo bay

Don't worry, there's already an LPSG wing there. Some of us have cells reserved.