Palin already "above the law"

[billvon 3,008]

>It isn't an R or D thing.

I agree. However, many people are understandably chagrined at the lengths to which this administration has gone to place itself above the law, and to consolidate its power over Congress. It is understandable to see concern when a candidate seems to have experience in doing just that before she even considers running for a high office.

To use your example, it would be akin to a democratic candidate in 2000 who had a long history of lying under oath. People would, understandably, not want another 4 years of that.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>It isn't an R or D thing.

I agree. However, many people are understandably chagrined at the lengths to which this administration has gone to place itself above the law, and to consolidate its power over Congress. It is understandable to see concern when a candidate seems to have experience in doing just that before she even considers running for a high office.

To use your example, it would be akin to a democratic candidate in 2000 who had a long history of lying under oath. People would, understandably, not want another 4 years of that.

I agree. This Administration has been, in many ways, despicable.

The same could be said of ANY two-term administration. The biggest scandals happen in the second term.

And the Admin's consolidation "of power over Congress" is also not unprecedented. Bush, Sr. made the model for modern presidential warmaking (which he based, in part, on Teddy Roosevelt's shenanigans). Reagan took to the airwaves, to the point where Congress HAD to be seen as cooperative (who here remembers the "write Rosty" address by Rostenkowski?).

With this POTUS, Congress was derelict in: 1) Allowing it to star; and 2) failing to stop it. I can see why he let them run rougshod. They can take credit when things are well and blame him when it goes badly.

A new Congress was put in to take power back, and didn't do it. Congress has had 18 months to do some positive things, right? What have they done that is of any substantial effect? From the speakers at the Democratic National Convention, apparently not a damend thing. Nothing has improved. The country and econmy are shit, right?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,008]

> Congress has had 18 months to do some positive things, right?

To a degree. They have certainly not taken advantage of the opportunities they have had, but they have also been hamstrung by an executive that will veto anything he disagrees with.

Were there a veto-proof majority, or there was a same-party president, then I would agree 100% - their inaction would be indication of their incompetence. We'll see.

[lawrocket 3]

Remember long ago when I posted that the new dem majority would do nothing to end the war in Iraq? What have they done? Nothing. At the time they needed it as a campaign issue.

Now the economy is the big issue.

As you said, they have not taken advantage of the opportunities they've had. Clinton had balls against the Republican majority. Reagan had balls against the Democrat majority.

Why won't the majority show balls against the POTUS? The GOP did it to Clinton over and over again. It forced government shutdowns.

"Oh. He'll veto us. Boo hoo. So bad. That mean nasty President. Why even try???"

That last quote was Congress.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

but they have also been hamstrung by an executive that will veto anything he disagrees with.

That is the most spineless excuse I have ever heard and if it is what the democrats are using as an excuse not to do their job then they are worthless and need to go.

Bush has vetoed 12 bills and the only one that was economic in nature was the farm bill ($288 billion) in which his veto was over turned. So the fact that the democrats have had 100% success of the economic bills in what they have submitted just tells me they either don’t know what to do or won’t do their job.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Remember long ago when I posted that the new dem majority would do nothing to end the war in Iraq? What have they done? Nothing. At the time they needed it as a campaign issue.

Now the economy is the big issue.

As you said, they have not taken advantage of the opportunities they've had. Clinton had balls against the Republican majority. Reagan had balls against the Democrat majority.

Why won't the majority show balls against the POTUS? The GOP did it to Clinton over and over again. It forced government shutdowns.

"Oh. He'll veto us. Boo hoo. So bad. That mean nasty President. Why even try???"

That last quote was Congress.

The Democrats should have allowed the "nuclear" option to pass when the rescums were serious about doing it. For those that don't recall, that was the rescums plan to change the rules of debate so as to completely stop filibustering. The rescums shut up the dems at the time with this sleazy threat. Now that the dems have a slim majority, they have been completely hamstrung by the RECORD NUMBER of filibusters that the rescums have pulled. Then the rescums have the gall (and the cooperation of the corporate media) to paint this as a picture of a do nothing enterprise, instead of a DELIBERATELY SABOTAGED one.

And the stupid people who don't understand how the system really works, buy the BS from the corporate media.

And bit by bit, this once great country slides down the chute into the crapper, with the righties cheering all the way.

[billvon 3,008]

>That is the most spineless excuse I have ever heard . . .

A quick perusal of the US Constitution may reveal that it is not a spineless threat at all.

>if it is what the democrats are using as an excuse not to do their job
>then they are worthless and need to go.

We'll see if people agree with you in November.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Whens the last time you took a sexual harassment class?

I walked out of my last one 10 minutes into it. Does that count?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[lawrocket 3]

So what you are saying is that the Dems could stop the "rescums" in their tracks, but have decided not to do it?

Again, I'd like nothing more than to see the Dems go Freddy Krueger on the budget and slash it. The GOP has proven itself to be commies in sheep's clothing. The system of checks and balances doesn't work when the checks are not there.

The Dems, as I understand your argument, lack the ability to do anything affirmative because the Republicans block it. Well, change would also mean stopping the GOP from soing whatever it wants.

The Dems could be doing that. And they aren't. Which means that they aren't serious about stopping it. They've got thw majority. They have to actually make an effort to get stuff through. All it takes are "nays" to stop it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Blah blah blah evil rescumlicans it's all their fault blah blah blah poor benighted dems blah blah blah

And the stupid people who don't understand how the system really works, buy the BS from the corporate media.

SO aptly illustrated by this post.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

• Quote

[kallend 2,030]

Quote

So what you are saying is that the Dems could stop the "rescums" in their tracks, but have decided not to do it?

Again, I'd like nothing more than to see the Dems go Freddy Krueger on the budget and slash it. The GOP has proven itself to be commies in sheep's clothing. The system of checks and balances doesn't work when the checks are not there.

The Dems, as I understand your argument, lack the ability to do anything affirmative because the Republicans block it. Well, change would also mean stopping the GOP from soing whatever it wants.

The Dems could be doing that. And they aren't. Which means that they aren't serious about stopping it. They've got thw majority. They have to actually make an effort to get stuff through. All it takes are "nays" to stop it.

Just as a matter of FACT, there has been a RECORD number of filibusters in this Congress, by the GOP. It's all in the record, look it up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

"Oh. He'll veto us. Boo hoo. So bad. That mean nasty President. Why even try???"

That last quote was Congress.

The president will veto pretty much anything the dems want to accomplish. The R's have openly stated that they intend to obstruct in order to make the D's look bad. You have over 70 filibusters this year as evidence for that effort. On the other hand, the D's have been afraid of derailing what should be a big sweep for them this fall. I think that's why they're not pushing executive accountability as hard as they should. At the very least Rove should be in jail.
In short, they can't do anything because they are ruling with a very simple majority. They won't do anything because they're afraid of being attacked during the campaign season as simply being partisan.
Either way, it's frustrating.

[wmw999 2,460]

Sorry. As a woman (you've seen me, Dave -- you should be able to confirm that ), I wouldn't see the "Caribou Barbie" comment as any more derogatory than many of the "bitch" comments thrown at HC. The preponderance of people realize that those comments don't really make a difference in the person's qualifications, and they're grasping at straws. Reagan had good hair, Clinton had a bulbous nose, and Bush2 looks kind of like a chimp. None of those are low blows.

The race card is still a very daring one to throw down, and considered dirty. Frankly, the day that it's no longer as powerful is one that I look forward to. The reason it's so powerful now is that there can't really be an honest discussion about it. There are too many hidden agendas.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,460]

Quote

I dont know about the other item you post but, those who constantly use Shrub, Limjob, McSame are looking down their noses trying to insult any who support them. It is idiotic and disgusting

You haven't really been one of the main make-fun-with-the-name ones. But look back about four years for lots of comments about "libs," "demokkkrats," and plenty of other like that.

It's childish no matter who does it. And it saddens me that more of it's coming from the liberal side these days -- there was a time when it was preponderantly from the right.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

The Dems could be doing that. And they aren't. Which means that they aren't serious about stopping it. They've got thw majority. They have to actually make an effort to get stuff through. All it takes are "nays" to stop it.

Unlike the Rs, Ds don't have the iron handed control over their party members. The Blue Dog democrats have successfully managed to align with Rs to stop legislation that the D leadership wanted passed. The Ds simply don't have the party unity that the Rs assert through intense financial controls. There are also personality characterisics involved. The Rs are perfectly happy to follow their leaders. The Ds are a much more independent bunch. The lack of centralized control, compared to the Rs, has and will continue to weaken the Ds.

With the major media clearly aligned with the Rs, the deck is seriously stacked against the Ds. Thus the polls that have the race even, when it should be a cakewalk for the Ds.

[lawrocket 3]

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. You are saying that the GOP is filibustering everything so the Dems can't get through what they want to gwt through.
Meanwhile, the GOP is getting everything it wants and the dems can't stop it. The dems cannot stall stuf in committee. They cannot filibuster Republican bills. They cannot vote "nay" on offshore drilling. All they can do, controlling both chambers of Congress, is bend over and take it?

Bullshit. They CAN put all kinds of roadblocks up but won't do it. It is so much easier to whine and complain.

P.s. This thinking would actually provide a good reason not to vote for Obama. He won't be able to get anything done. The GOP will just filibuster all of it.

Obama will have no choice but to accept whatever bills the GOP rams down his throat. Because Democrats in Congress are, after all, powerless.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,008]

>Unlike the Rs, Ds don't have the iron handed control over their party members.

To be fair, the RNC's tight control over its members loosened when their majority ended. Nowadays you have a lot of loose cannons in the GOP doing things like supporting liberal causes, using Obama in their ads, voting against Bush - things that would have been unlikely under Rovian control.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I dont know about the other item you post but, those who constantly use Shrub, Limjob, McSame are looking down their noses trying to insult any who support them. It is idiotic and disgusting

You haven't really been one of the main make-fun-with-the-name ones. But look back about four years for lots of comments about "libs," "demokkkrats," and plenty of other like that.

It's childish no matter who does it. And it saddens me that more of it's coming from the liberal side these days -- there was a time when it was preponderantly from the right.

Wendy W.

well I wasnt here 4 years ago and while I understand what you are saying it is not the case today for the most part.

It is shitty tactics whom ever uses it......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,460]

Quote

well I wasnt here 4 years ago

Actually you had over 150 posts in SC before 4 years ago today. You started posting in here at the end of June.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Your post really nails it. The Dems are a party in serious, serious, SERIOUS trouble. This election should have been a cakewalk for them. It hasn't been. It isn't.

I think the primaries had a lot to do with it. You had Obama and Clinton going at each other, and others going after them, too. They attacked each other frequently. And it would be folly to suggest that the factions that developed in the general public have not also developed within the party.

The Democratic Party is a mess. I seem to recall Obama making the statement, "Republicans are great campaigners, but are not good at running the country." An extremely true statement.

Because Republicans generally have their shit together.

There are several reasons for the lack of unity in the Democratic Party. The Republican Party isn't one of them. The Democratic National Convention was the ultimate show of irony. The Dems, supposedly progressive, were reactionary in their lauding of the past under Bill Clinton. The undertone? "Look at us now and what we've become."

The Dems have got to find a way to get their shit together.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I don't think you are getting what I am saying. You are saying that the GOP is filibustering everything so the Dems can't get through what they want to gwt through.

That's very much the case in most of the D driven agenda.

Quote

Meanwhile, the GOP is getting everything it wants and the dems can't stop it.

I wouldn't say that either. I don't see much getting done at all. And oddly, I find that strangely comforting.

Quote

The dems cannot stall stuf in committee. They cannot filibuster Republican bills. They cannot vote "nay" on offshore drilling.

That's one that's a result of a (boneheaded) public response to the "drill here drill now" war cry. The public seems to think that drilling legislation will somehow help the American people. Voting against it, possibly because of the effect it may have on your state's tourism dollars, will be spun by an opponent as you wanting higher gas prices. Stupid, I know. But it works. So you agree to opening up offshore leases but with the contingency that you also withdraw big oil's welfare package (in theory). Now the R's will spin it as "we won" and the D's can spin it as "we won" right before an election. What ends up in the final draft of the bill will probably be a very weak compromise that is of little benefit to the American public but was sufficient enough to secure future lobbyist donations.

Quote

All they can do, controlling both chambers of Congress, is bend over and take it?

Bullshit. They CAN put all kinds of roadblocks up but won't do it. It is so much easier to whine and complain.

Actually I'm not hearing much complaining except from the die-hards like Wexler who are trying to drive impeachment proceedings. In stark contrast to the daily barrage of cries of "thwarting the will of the American people" that I heard repeatedly in the media when the R's had a one vote majority, I only hear about record setting obstructionism here in SC or if I google "filibuster".

Quote

P.s. This thinking would actually provide a good reason not to vote for Obama. He won't be able to get anything done. The GOP will just filibuster all of it.

Not true. The election will be over. The D's will have gained a 1/3 stake by securing the White House. And it's entirely possible that they'll gain enough seats threaten that magic number in the senate. Of course that would open a new can of worms which I think the R's deserve, yet I'm reluctant to celebrate.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Your post really nails it. The Dems are a party in serious, serious, SERIOUS trouble. This election should have been a cakewalk for them. It hasn't been. It isn't.

I agree with you. However, the fact that it SHOULD have been a cakewalk for them is evidence they are not the only major party in serious, SERIOUS trouble. Both parties have fucked the dog for most of the last few decades. With a little bit of luck, recent events could be the wake-up call that both of them desparately need (or the opportunity a third party needs to become a major player).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

well I wasnt here 4 years ago

Actually you had over 150 posts in SC before 4 years ago today. You started posting in here at the end of June.

Wendy W.

Well then it has been longer than 4 years since what you said was happening regularly.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln