Bush the doof

[wst3]

Originally posted by MaggieL

"On their own"? How do you mean that? Without the "advise and consent" of Congress? Or without comment from the citzenry? <p>
[/b]

Neither... no administration works in a vacuum, there are check and balances that were put into place way back when which include both "advice and consent" and judicial interpretation, and there is the possibility for the citzenry to be involved... heaven knows the media tries to give us information.

What I meant (poorly expressed) is that each administration, and each legistlature, has its proponents and detractors. I've not been silent in my disapproval of the last administration, and many have been just as loud in their approval.

And I know that there was a lot of noise 4 and 8 years ago, and I was part of it, to a point. I think there comes a time when you have to accept that "your guy" didn't win, so you watch what the other guy actually does. No one could have predicted that President Clinton would do some of the dumb things that he did 8 years ago... even his supporters<G>!

I think it is time to let the new administration take their places and see what they really do.

Originally posted by MaggieL
Dubya, on what he think's Ashcroft's job will be:

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."
[/b]

Wow... I missed that one! Too bad someone didn't cover the responsibilities of the three branches before that press conference.

Of course we could also be witnessing someone very cynical about the whole system... the judiciary has been saddled with making laws because the legislature discovered that if they sat there and did nothing the trial lawyers would bring the questions to light in court.

And to a lesser degreee the executive branch has been tasked with interpreting laws because jurists don't really want to do that either.

The whole system is slightly out of kilter.

I take the optomistic view that no one administration or legislature can do that much harm... hmmm... is that an optomistic view???

Originally posted by MaggieL
I think the idea of "Bush on his own" is something that keeps his handlers awake at night...
[/b]

And I for one consider that a good thing... much like gridlock in DC... there are upsides to these things!

hmmm... yup, can't help but grin at the thought of a bunch of good old boys in a smokey back room sweating out what their candidate is up to.

On a serions note though, I think that Mr. Bush has put together a pretty good team. It isn't the team I would have necesarilly spec'd out, but there are some bright, forward thinking folks on there, and a few wackos to provide some balance, and I think that this administration has a very good opportunity to do some good.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by wst3
I think there comes a time when you have to accept that "your guy" didn't win, so you watch what the other guy actually does.

I can't claim that Gore was "my guy". He just seemed less dangerous to me personally than Dubya and his pals. And I'm <em>accepting</em> that Bush won. He just still scares me. I'm still not convinced he can really read. Especially when I hear him speak. Ronnie we knew could read--if teh Teleprompter quit he'd have been as aphasic as he is today--but I don't know if any processing ever went on between input and output. <a href="http://slate.msn.com/Features/bushisms/bushisms.asp"> Bushisims </a>are clearly internally generated. <p>

Originally posted by wst3
Wow... I missed that one! Too bad someone didn't cover the responsibilities of the three branches before that press conference.

How about "before he became Governor of Texas"?<p>

Originally posted by wst3
And to a lesser degreee the executive branch has been tasked with interpreting laws because jurists don't really want to do that either.

Uh...what? I could have sworn that the right wing was up in arms becuase they thought judges were making law by interpreting it. Where do you get the idea that jurists don't want to interpret law?

[wst3]

It seems to me that the three branches, at all levels, seem to be trying to do things other than that which they are tasked for.

The legislature is content to let the judicial and executive branches interpret the laws instead of creating new ones.

It is easier for the judicial to pull this off since historically they have interpreted the law... but the executive branch can approximate this through selective enforcement.

Lately, at least in my neck of the woods selective enforcement seems to be more popular, and there hue and cry is coming from the citizens, not the judicial branch.

Fortunately for us citizens, it is somewhat difficult to go to far with selective enforcement, at least at the local level. It's always been the case... if you are the town constable and you pull out in front of someone, well, lets just say that no one wants to drag this guy into court so an amicable arrangement is arrived at.

Same thing happens at all levels!

As far as people complaining about the judicial branch taking too much latitude in interpreting the laws, that too seems to be gaining attention (rightfully so) - I just want to know why once again it is the citizens complaining and not our legislators?

[elSicomoro]

Being from Missouri, I must say that this is NOT the same Ashcroft I knew as Attorney General or Governor. He has certainly become more conservative over the past 6 years...in fact, I don't remember him becoming such a hard-ass until he ran for Senate in 1994.

And believe me, nothing made me feel better than to see him defeated by a dead man...served him right for trying to mudsling against Carnahan.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by wst3

And I for one consider that a good thing... much like gridlock in DC... there are upsides to these things!

Yep...one big turd in the toilet bowl of the United States. I don't imagine that Bush will travel beyond Capitol Hill much...it might scare him.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by MaggieL

Dubya, on what he think's Ashcroft's job will be:

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."

On how he checks out Cabinet appointees:

"I do remain confident in Linda. She'll make a fine labor secretary. From what I've read in the press accounts, she's perfectly qualified."

I think the idea of "Bush on his own" is something that keeps his handlers awake at night...

Well, to be fair to GWB, and this is on the order of saying "if you squint just right and look at it in this light...", he might have meant that it is the job of the executive branch to administer the laws by interpreting them, since no law can be written to cover every situation.

With the comments on Chavez, what he might mean is that even with the information available to the public, she still appears qualified.

Of course, this does not bode well for his press secretary. The poor guy had better hire a special "interpreter" to explain to the press "What the President really meant by that is...."

[failsafe]

I really think we should give the new administration a chance before we :

a) lay awake at night in a cold sweat

b) move to Afghanistan (unless you're Barbara Streisand or a Baldwin, in which case go immediately!)

c) dissect every statement, move, gesture etc. hoping to confirm a preconceived bias

Surely, we know Bush isn't the most articulate president ever! Highlighting every Bushism gets us nowhere.

I'm not a Republican (or Democrat for that matter). But some good can be had by changing party affiliations of our chief executive every few years. Let's remain hopeful.

[Cerebus]

Let's count the ways that the switch helps.

1) Pollution levels rise, cutting down on dangerous overpopulation.

2) Murder rate in Texas drops as serial killer is moved to Washington, DC.

3) Developmentally challenged persons everywhere can now realistically aspire to the highest office in the land.

4) Children of priviledge have fresh hope that they can overcome their birthright handicap and achieve positions of prominence.

5) Creative types have an oppressive government to rebel against, a time-honored aid to self-expression.

Any others?

DMt / Omi / Etc.

[failsafe]

See above for exactly the type of over reaction I was commenting upon. IMHO, of course!

Now, seriously, how really different are the Republicans and Democrats? Sorta like Coke and Pepsi, eh? Both desperately want you to think that they are so different and unique and each really depends on the other (largely) to define themselves and gain (very temporary) political advantage.

As a "fer example", we won't see repeal of Roe v. Wade. It'd be too politically unpopular and the Repubs know it. This despite all the noise and FUD on both sides of the issue.

[Cerebus]

Look, I've never been more disgusted with a vote than when I pulled the lever for Gore this last November. Voting for an ignominous centrist with a wife who was the voice of American censorship: mmm, yummy.

And you are correct in that there is precious little difference between the two business parties in this country. Roe v. Wade probably won't be overturned.

However, there is this little matter of turning the contraception spigot off to other countries. And appointing people to positions where they are actively against most of what the job is, well, designed to do. And the overwhelming fact that if this walking smirk of a man did not have his last name, he'd have probably done jail time for drug abuse and DUI, let alone knuckle-dragged his way to a position of influence where he gets to kill people. Lots of them, too.

If it had been Gore v. Dole, I'd have voted for Bob. If it had been Gore v. McCain, I'd have probably voted for Sen. Deer Hunter. But to think for a minute that we're going to see something good out of this, you're inhaling. Glue.

Don't blame me; I voted with the majority...

[failsafe]

Originally posted by Cerebus
Look, I've never been more disgusted with a vote than when I pulled the lever for Gore this last November. Voting for an ignominous centrist with a wife who was the voice of American censorship: mmm, yummy.

And you are correct in that there is precious little difference between the two business parties in this country. Roe v. Wade probably won't be overturned.

However, there is this little matter of turning the contraception spigot off to other countries. And appointing people to positions where they are actively against most of what the job is, well, designed to do. And the overwhelming fact that if this walking smirk of a man did not have his last name, he'd have probably done jail time for drug abuse and DUI, let alone knuckle-dragged his way to a position of influence where he gets to kill people. Lots of them, too.

I'd be hard pressed to call our small amount of aid to overseas concerns a "spigot". I'd heard it was a small amount. This move seems to be more symbolic (throwing the right a "bone") than truly meaningful.

And surely, GW wouldn't be even close to the presidency without the B. But then again, Roger C. and Marc Rich wouldn't have received pardons if they didn't know who they knew. And indeed, Bush's record in Texas as gov. isn't bad. Read these two articles for more:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,96942,00.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2001Jan26.html

If it had been Gore v. Dole, I'd have voted for Bob. If it had been Gore v. McCain, I'd have probably voted for Sen. Deer Hunter. But to think for a minute that we're going to see something good out of this, you're inhaling. Glue.

See above! And yes, I DO see some potential good...even without your libation of choice - Glue.

Don't blame me; I voted with the majority...

I'll not touch this one.

[tw]

You will not see Roe Vs Wade recinded - just made impossible by little degrees. Remember RU-486 that was banned because the extremist right wing fears any population planning by the little people. We cannot be trusted to determine how many children we will raise. RU-486 exposes the ultimate objects of these extremists as they stifle all future fetal tissue work.

We have a mindless ex-President who banned the medical research that could have avoided his mental condition. Yes - they fear anything that would involve little people controlling the quality and objectives of their families. This program will be restarted.

As for Roe vs Wade, don't be so certain. If you watch how the Supreme Court works - how Scalia effectively redirect the court with his puppy dog - what is his name - the black juror --- they only need one more Scalia type and Roe vs Wade is history.

It was a real suprise that Miranda was not overturned. Roe v Wade will not have the same protections from this court. It is endangered. I believe Scalia has more influence in the current court than even Cheif Justice Reinquest AND Scalia would quite likely be recommended by Bush Jr as the next Cheif Justice.

Keep in mind what drives extremists. They don't compromise because they believe they have to protect everyone else from immoral concepts - using their religious definitions of morality. These are dangerous people because this extremist mindset means no dissent in their ranks.

Originally posted by failsafe
See above for exactly the type of over reaction I was commenting upon. IMHO, of course!

Now, seriously, how really different are the Republicans and Democrats? Sorta like Coke and Pepsi, eh? Both desperately want you to think that they are so different and unique and each really depends on the other (largely) to define themselves and gain (very temporary) political advantage.

As a "fer example", we won't see repeal of Roe v. Wade. It'd be too politically unpopular and the Repubs know it. This despite all the noise and FUD on both sides of the issue.

[failsafe]

Originally posted by tw
You will not see Roe Vs Wade recinded - just made impossible by little degrees. Remember RU-486 that was banned because the extremist right wing fears any population planning by the little people. We cannot be trusted to determine how many children we will raise. RU-486 exposes the ultimate objects of these extremists as they stifle all future fetal tissue work.

We have a mindless ex-President who banned the medical research that could have avoided his mental condition. Yes - they fear anything that would involve little people controlling the quality and objectives of their families. This program will be restarted.

As for Roe vs Wade, don't be so certain. If you watch how the Supreme Court works - how Scalia effectively redirect the court with his puppy dog - what is his name - the black juror --- they only need one more Scalia type and Roe vs Wade is history.

It was a real suprise that Miranda was not overturned. Roe v Wade will not have the same protections from this court. It is endangered. I believe Scalia has more influence in the current court than even Cheif Justice Reinquest AND Scalia would quite likely be recommended by Bush Jr as the next Cheif Justice.

Who CAN be certain about the future, either way?

But I really feel that the Repubs won't seriously alter Roe V. Wade rights. It'd be sowing the seeds to their defeat and they'd be foolish not to heed that. We WILL definately see small, "symbolic" moves toward limiting abortion to appease the rightist factions in their party.

I'm not a fan of any moves here, but I wouldn't sell the farm.

Keep in mind what drives extremists. They don't compromise because they believe they have to protect everyone else from immoral concepts - using their religious definitions of morality. These are dangerous people because this extremist mindset means no dissent in their ranks.

We aren't dealing with many extremists, and the few here won't be in positions that they will act alone. In reality, the Dems could be characterized as extremists in part also, but where would that lead us?

Let's not propagate more FUD!!