The Madness of King George

Today, a bipartisan American Bar Association task force released its report challenging George Bush's flagrant misuse of signing statements to circumvent the constitutional separation of powers.

Bush has issued more than 800 challenges to provisions of passed laws (more than all previous presidents combined) and he has asserted "his right to ignore law." Among the areas of laws Bush has threatened through this "shortcut veto" are the ban on torture, affirmative action, whistleblower protection, and limits on use of "illegally collected intelligence."

The 10 member ABA panel includes three well-known conservatives, including Mickey Edwards – a former Republican Congressman who places protecting the Constitution above lock-step partisanship. Edwards, a former chair of the American Conservative Union and a founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation, is a true maverick whose recent article in The Nation signals his commitment to protecting our constitutional design. "The President. " Edwards wrote, [has] "chosen not to veto legislation with which he disagreed – thus giving Congress a chance to override his veto – but simply to assert his right to ignore the law, whether a domestic issue or a prohibition against torturing prisoners of war."

Task force member Bruce Fein, who served in the Reagan administration, concurs: "When the president signs a bill and says he is not going to enforce parts of a bill that he finds unconstitutional, it is in effect an absolute veto, because the Congress has no power to override him."

According to The Washington Post, panel members wrote: "The President's constitutional duty is to enforce laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal. The Constitution is not what the President says it is."

The panel is recommending legislation that would require a president to publicly disclose his intention to not enforce any law, including "the reasons and legal basis for the [signing] statement." A second piece of legislation would enable Congress or individuals to seek judicial review in the event that a president claims the authority to not enforce "a law that he has signed or interprets a law in conflict with the clear intent of Congress."

ABA President Michael Greco underscores the importance of these recommendations: "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue…is left unchecked."

As Edwards writes, "… the real issue at stake is not one of presidential policy but of the continued viability of the separation of powers, the central tenet in America's system of constrained government."

This is a critical first step toward reining in presidential power run amok. Certainly more needs to be done, especially as a complicit GOP tries to make legal what should not be – such as the warrantless wiretapping legislation the White House is now seeking.... Which brings us to November.

While one might not agree with all that the Democrats are doing (and I don't), and might wish for more leadership on core issues like the Iraq War and sanity in the Middle East (leadership such as that demonstrated recently by two dozen congressional leaders calling for a cease-fire)…. We MUST restore the checks and balances to counter the one-party state we now live in, especially at this moment when the Republican Party is arguably the most extreme of any governing majority in the nation's history.

Get involved in your Congressional and Senate races. Help stop the madness of King George.

Comments (131)

1. Well, hot damn....KVH read my post (or at least I'd like to think I started this ball rolling!) It'll be amazing to see how he shrugs this one off....

   Posted by leftofcenter at 07/24/2006 @ 11:41pm

2. now someone isn't proposin that ol gee dubya can't just do as he damn well pleases now are they?

   Ha Ha Ha Ha

   you're gonna make him cry!

   Posted by Will C. at 07/24/2006 @ 11:44pm

3. I think that a very interesting point was made in this article:

   According to The Washington Post, panel members wrote: "The President's constitutional duty is to enforce laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal. The Constitution is not what the President says it is."

   Basically, only the judicial branch has the power to declare laws unconstitutional. They interpret the law, and the law is binding unless they say otherwise. However, this has interesting interpretations elsewhere. First, intuitively, it provides support to some form of originalism insofar as it gives the Constitution a fixed meaning (something that any law has to have).

   Second, and more importantly, it means that military officers have no right to act on their belief that a law is unconstitutional. Those claims are arbitrated by the court system, not by any official who just chooses to do so. Until the courts speak, legislation is valid and binding.

   Posted by Thrawn at 07/25/2006 @ 12:48am

4. Leftists and liberal Democrats have no one but themselves to blame, if they think America has become a "one-party" country. If they want to regain some semblance of power, the left has to prove that has something substantive to offer, instead of empty, ideological slogans unsubstantiated by fact. Promulgate sensible policies that make sense in accordance with the full set of facts, instead of the usual 1/2 truths and fabrications that are spun to support an otherwise dogmatic and illogical ideology. Lastly, dump your so-called "leaders," the Howard Deans, the Dennis Kucinichs, Howard Zinns, and Noam Chomsky's, who spout this nons-sensical drivel day in and day out. By following this simple advice, you might actually win a few elections and restore that governmental "check and balance," you incessantly whine about.

   Remember, we live in a democracy, and living in a democracy means you have to persuade people you have the better idea, so that you can win elections. You're not going to persuade anyone with the empty propaganda written by Katrina Van Der Houvel or published in the Nation!

   Sincerely -

   skeetjr.

   Posted by skeetjr at 07/25/2006 @ 01:25am

5. Okay, I'll make this short: I'm tired of seeing people starting their "Leftist and Liberal", "Far-right" and/or other assorted labels. I can appreciate fancy words as much as the next guy, and I don't accept money from anyone to sway my opinion, as some obviously do. Technically we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a "Democracy". (someone watches Fauxnews/CNN too much) -We'd all do better to turn off the tv and do our own research, and maybe take a long, good look at the world around us and stop lying to everyone, including ourselves. Our government is certainly out of control, and it would practically take an act of God to fix it. -Speaking of "God"...has anyone else actually ever considered the ten commandments, and their actual meaning? It clearly states 'thou shalt NOT kill". If you profess to be a "man of God" and in the same breath say your a "war-president" then right there's problem number one...you cannot do both. The Bible states somewhere that "vengeance is mine", meaning God's vengeance, not man's. -NO man's. Kill NObody. -Keep it simple, and do the right thing...for a change.

   -Respectively yours, a REAL man of God.

   Posted by UnSabbath at 07/25/2006 @ 05:06am

6. Good point Un. Many vegetarians take the decalog's injunction further, to a more spiritually elevated plane, IMHO.

   And skeet, your obsession with "facts" and their manipulation reveals you to be a respecter of duly constituted authority. This is well and good. Currently reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History" and as an admirer of Noam Chomsky, however, I'm curious to know who is/are your nomination(s) for consideration as "worthy leaders." And speaking of facts, while acknowledging humor's importance, it's more important we assist caregivers in their time of need with accurate information, IMHO. First, let's define terms. "Negative reinforcement" has been misapplied by many. In fact, it's the REMOVAL of a negative stimuli. For examples, passing a wreck is negative reinforcement (nr) because you resume your travel by getting back up to speed; releasing a child from a no more than one minute per year of age "time out" is nr (that's why for older children, say 6 to 10, asking them to tell you why they earned the aversive stimuli (punishment) and then, when they make a sincere effort, applying the nr by, again, RELEASING them, you train/teach them to be more responsible); and most saliently, noting that "hunger is the best sauce," feeding any animal is both reinforcing generally AND nr in the sense one is extinguishing hunger (this is the most important reason to follow feeding schedules to reduce feeding/refueling capriciousness).

   This is operant conditioning, the science of Behaviorism's central tenet. Believing it, I've gone so far as to say whatever we attend to reinforces whatever behavior just preceded our attending. (Parents: your attention is second only to food in its power to reinforce and thus establish behavioral patterns/habits).

   Voters: insist your votes be verifiable in your various districts. I could use the nr of having serious suspicions about the integrity of our vote counting procedures REMOVED.

   Thank you for your attention and consideration.

   Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2006 @ 06:59am

7. I'm sorry, but....

   WORDS mean things. And "king" and "one-party state" mean things.

   And neither apply to the political situation of the United States, and a supposed intellectual like Ms vanden Heuvel should know that and stop sounding like every hyperbolic leftist blogger.

   Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 07:08am

8. MASK,

   An objection based on semantics is merely a distraction and doesn't address the content of the argument. Simply put, Presidents, whatever their party affiliation, should not be able to circumvent the intention of the legislature via signing statements. The veto process was specifically written into the Constitution as a method for Presidential appeal of the legistlative process, which can be overridden by the legislature. The actual fact is, that although we talk about a balance of power among the branches of government, far more responsibilities are given to Congress in the Constitution than to the other two branches. This makes sense, since Congressional representatives are directly elected therefore more accountable to their constituencies, and there are very many of them, so they must (theoretically) engage in debate and build consensus to accomplish anything (democracy in action.)

   Note, one of the powers of Congress is "to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into Execution . . . all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." When I read this, (and I'm no lawyer), it seems to me to say that Presidential authority is subordinate to Congressional authority (the President is an Officer of the US) and that laws passed by Congress bind the Office of the President as well.

   Posted by twocinc at 07/25/2006 @ 07:53am

9. " -Speaking of "God"...has anyone else actually ever considered the ten commandments, and their actual meaning? It clearly states 'thou shalt NOT kill". If you profess to be a "man of God" and in the same breath say your a "war-president" then right there's problem number one...you cannot do both."

   Helps to know what you are talking about uns, you do seem to know that the ten words are found in the bible but (therefore) they must have a context.

   These are rules, at one level, for the ordering of the "Children Of Israel" and any converts who joined that "nation". Don't murder or kill fellow Jews and don't covet a fellow Jew's donkey or his missus (wife) etc. But it's pretty clear that Canaanites and Philistines, particularly big Philies are, by checking out the other "instructions" in the same book, fair game for a bit official military, violence and killing. A bit like what happens these days.

   Vengeance is mine is the backdrop for an injunction to individual Christians to "turn the other cheek" Never meant to be a rule by which to order society because the writer of that injunction tells the 1st century Christians that the powers that be are ordained of God and the sword (that the Romans used for lopping heads off lawbreakers) was wielded by "proxies" of you know who.

   So you fellas have got to do better than that. Perhaps a bit of Buddhism would do the trick for you? Of course you could simply rename them unsabbath's ten rules and make them mean whatever you wish.

   Posted by lrjones4 at 07/25/2006 @ 08:00am

10. Posted by TWOCINC 07/25/2006 @ 07:53am | ignore this person

    king---a monarch, A king (see sovereignty) is a type of ruler or head of state. Monarchs almost always inherit their titles and are rulers for life, that is, they have no term limit.

    one-party system---A single-party state or one-party system or single-party system is a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election.

    Now a few questions...

    1. Does President George Bush have the power to remove from office or threaten the life of a member of Congress, especially from his own party?

    2. Is the opposition party (Democrats) denied the right to run in elections every 2 years (4 years for President) and take power away from the party-in-power (Republicans)?

    3. Did the Congress of the United States decide to issue any resolution or proclamation denouncing Bush's "signing statements"?

    4. Has the Supreme Court, a co-equal branch, ruled that Bush is in violation of the Constitution?

    5. Is the ABA elected by the people?

    Any "yes" answers to the above? Then, SEMANTICALLY, Ms vanden Heuvel's title, premise, and article are flawed.

    It's not a "one-party state" nor is Bush a "king". What he IS is a President, whose term expires in 30 months, whose party (which won the legislative branch for the 6th time in 2004) supports or atleast does not condemn his actions.

    While the facts show that Bush is acting in an "Imperial Presidential" way, as all Presidents have tried to do....Ms vanden Heuvel's hyperbolic rhetoric, reminescent of the over-the-top bloggers, makes her look foolish and merely partisan.

    It's the same silliness we see when Bush is called a "dictator" (Oddly the first in history to allow free elections with the possibility of his own defeat...normally your usual "dictator" would have arrested and/or killed John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004)...or that "we're living in a fascist regime" (oddly, the first in history that ...risks the real possibility of losing the legislature and that gives up power in 2 1/2 years due to term limits).

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 08:44am

11. MASK

    Excellent points, you beat me to the punch.

    Posted by CPT at 07/25/2006 @ 08:57am

12. Bam! Mask knocked another homer out of the park!! Excellent post!

    Posted by woodyee at 07/25/2006 @ 09:18am

13. Posted by MASK 07/25/2006 @ 08:44am

    M,

    Ms Van H is part of royalty herself as a propaganda Queen. Think she is smiling too. The unintended joke of course is that GW is much more powerful (constitutionally) than any present day Constitutional Monarch, such as the Queen of England.

    The points you make are valid but I don't think Ms V H was taking herself too seriously. It's a proposition that, as you have shown, is not sustainable. Since Magna Charta monarchs, particularly of the English variety (I think VH probably has George 3 in mind as an object of fun), have been progressively losing their power to parliament and one or two have lost their heads.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/25/2006 @ 09:35am

14. Posted by CPT 07/25/2006 @ 08:57am | ignore this person

    Posted by WOODYEE 07/25/2006 @ 09:18am | ignore this person

    Gentlemen, before you start singing my praises....let me be clear.

    I don't think what Bush is doing is right, either. I just think Ms vanden Heuvel is playing to the outrageous metaphors of the Blogosphere Left, with her "king" and "one-party rule" usages.

    Bush will likely get "smacked down", post-November, for his signing statements when, as I have predicted on another thread, the Democrats take the US House by 3-4 votes.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 09:36am

15. I agree with Mask, George Bush should be thrown out of office, Americans should rise up, vote him so overwhelmingly the hell out of office that all the Diebold voting machines and Jim Crow waiting lines and challenges cant put him back together.

    George Bush needs to lose these midterms - then investigations will begin. There will be no immediate impeachment, but once the investigations begin impeachment will be unstoppable - as it was during Nixons time there will only be 4 or 5 Republicans willing to go down with the sinking ship and they will all vote overwhelmingly in the House and Senate to stop the damage immdediately - once investigations begin and the American people know what we have long suspected about his numerous crimes.

    I agree with Mask - we dont need yet another law saying the President has to follow the law - just get the Republicans who support George Bush no matter what out of there, and let the investigations begin.

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 09:36am

16. "...but I don't think Ms V H was taking herself too seriously."

    Posted by LRJONES4 07/25/2006 @ 09:35am | ignore this person

    That'd be a first...ever seen her on "Hardball"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 09:37am

17. Posted by CONSHAME 07/25/2006 @ 09:36am | ignore this person

    CONSHAME, 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong.

    1. A "vote him so overwhelmingly the hell out of office that all the Diebold voting machines and Jim Crow waiting lines and challenges cant put him back together" should be there...IF the public feels the same way about Bush as the polls and his opponents indicate.

    No need for excuses though, if Dems lose....if Bush IS "the worst President in history", claiming it's "rigged" just looks foolish, since as CON noted, it should be easy to "overwhelm" even a rigged election, right?

    As for impeachment....never happen. Dems have ONE SHOT (in 12 years!!!!) to prove they can GOVERN, not go on and on with endless investigations and try THEIR hand at an unpopular impeachment process on a lame-duck President.

    If they can't prove they can move on REAL issues (health care, education, deficit)...and only seek to oust Bush and/or Cheney...they'll lose Congress again in 2008. The public doesn't approve of Bush's job handling, but NO poll shows they hate him like the 15-20% of the population on the Left that does.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 09:42am

18. George Bush said we shouldnt investigate 911 - it would distract our intelligence agencies. It would distract our intelligence agencies to investigate the worst terrorist attack. It would distract our intelligence agencies. When George Bush stonewalled the 911 commission as director Kean Republican said, that was obstruction of justice. Surely some innocent trifle can be found as an excuse to remove the idiot without investigating his crimes more deeply than the American people would like to know.

    Mask is right - they should not write a new law saying the President has to obey the law. Signing a statement reserving himself the right to break the law is an impeachable offense all by itself, because he is directing his agencies not to follow the law, which is obstruction of justice.

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 09:44am

19. Mask is right - either we vote or we get to experience more pain. Theoretically, when we have experienced enough pain, Americans will rise up and vote overwhelmingly, and all the Diebold machines and Jim Crow voting restrictions wont help.

    Then, Investigation = Impeachment

    Heck, impeach him for jaywalking - we already know what the investigations would find. George Bush said we cant investigate 911, it would distract our intelligence agencies, and all truth-loving leftists would like to see the investigation happen - which 911 Commission Director Thomas Kean says still never credibly took place - but we know what the investigation would find. If the powers that be want to not investigate so they can pretend they got away with it, fine then, impeach him for jaywalking.

    Vote overwhelmingly, then investigate, the rest is inevitable.

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 09:48am

20. Mask is right - no new law saying the President has to obey the law - just vote, investigate, and start cleaning up the mess for the next 5 decades.

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 09:50am

21. MASK

    I agree with your contention that we neither live in a monarchy, nor in a one-party system. My point was that in your original post, you objected to the admittedly sensationalist headline of the article and did not address the content of the article at all. Your objection to the use of "one-party" rhetoric is valid, I think, especially as Arlen Specter (who is, by the way, elected, unlike the ABA) is heading the Congressional inquiry [kansascity.com] into the President's use of signing statements.

    Posted by twocinc at 07/25/2006 @ 09:58am

22. To return to the main point of this article, I think Congress has a simple solution to eliminate any meaning from Signing Statements. They can simply pass a law that withholds funding for any Executive Branch acts in violation of enacted laws. Wouldn't that simply and elegantly solve the problem? What do you all think?

    Posted by trabaris at 07/25/2006 @ 10:09am

23. Posted by TWOCINC 07/25/2006 @ 09:58am | ignore this person

    Well, what Ms vanden Heuvel does is, she takes a reasonable point (on the "signing statements") and plays to the "We're in a fascist dictatorship" hyperboles...thus ruining her point.

    Not here maybe, since she's preaching to the choir mostly. But if she takes that rhetoric "out in the streets" (like on "Hardball"), she's going to come off as silly.

    First thing any thinking person will say is "One-party state? So the Democrats are helpless, or is this woman just bloviating?"

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 10:19am

24. "That'd be a first...ever seen her on "Hardball"?"

    M,

    I defer to your opinion of this fine but humourless lady. Could have sworn there was a twinkle in her eye.

    If Bush is exceeding his constitutional authority is there no legal process by which the extent of his powers may be tested? It almost seems, on the surface of it, that if there is not, then he has not exceeded his constitutionally granted or implied powers.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/25/2006 @ 10:24am

25. "That'd be a first...ever seen her on "Hardball"?"

    M,

    I defer to your opinion of this fine but humourless lady. Could have sworn there was a twinkle in her eye.

    If Bush is exceeding his constitutional authority is there no legal process by which the extent of his powers may be tested? It almost seems, on the surface of it, that if there is not, then he has not exceeded his constitutionally granted or implied powers.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/25/2006 @ 10:29am

26. Easy to overwhelm an election, right. It isnt easy and it isnt right, we are supposed to have majority rule here. You arent supposed to have to go up against Diebold and Jim Crow. That is the Conservative thought process, that isnt how its supposed to be. Another Conservative thought process, dont investigate, oh go ahead and investigate a blowjob - but dont investigate energy policies, dont investigate the Anthrax killer, dont investigate no-bid contracts, dont investigate the plain fact that the Bush family has been in business with the Bin Laden family to the tune of $100,000,000s for decades.

    You dont need an investigation to know that when bombs are dropped or gas prices go up, George Bushs investments make his family millions and millions of dollars more.

    But the Conservative mentality is, investigate a blowjob, but dont investigate the incompetence of the FEMA under George Bush, dont investigate direct violations of FISA, and as George Bush himself said - dont investigate 911 because it would distract our intelligence agencies.

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 10:31am

27. Mask

    point #1...does Dick and his shotgun count?

    On point #2...there will always be some questions regarding election validity, of 2000 (Dubya was appointed) and 2004 voting irregularities in several states, but especially OH. So in direct answer....maybe so on point #2.

    #3...well, since it is a "uniparty" system of rampant "GOP-ness" running the gov't (regardless of your statemen)t...the Dem side is nearly powerless without a majority in one house...so why would Congress? ....a "non-item" presented

    On your point #4...actually yes. The SCOTUS did in fact point out holding people indefinitely without charges WAS unconstitutional.

    on #5....no but, they do represent a legal think tank as it were. And just sit back and think about it for a second. Many of us have a "gut-reaction" perpsective re: Lawyers and morality, right? When the lawyers band together to call a foul....you gotta wonder just how low-down the "foul-ee" is.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/25/2006 @ 10:33am

28. one party domination of washington is bad for government, allowing the executive to run amok and concurrently diminishing the legislative. and it obviously is bad for policy, as fewer voices and options are heard in the decision making process, leading to ever increasing arrogrance and hubris in the executive, and an atmosphere of defeatism among legislators. a more enlightened executive might well invite others to voice their opinions and actually become part of a serious policy discussion, but the current administration is so ideologically driven, and sees even congress through the "either you're with us or against us" prism, that it prefers isolation to. and though there are some centrists in both parties who still try to reach across the aisle to build broad consensus, this administration's narrow approach to governing has led to an increasingly exclusive approach by democrats. basically, the governing process has broken down, but the tone is always set by the executive, and a new president with a new attitude could go a long way in improving things quickly.

    Posted by nk at 07/25/2006 @ 10:39am

29. If Bush is exceeding his constitutional authority is there no legal process by which the extent of his powers may be tested? It almost seems, on the surface of it, that if there is not, then he has not exceeded his constitutionally granted or implied powers.

    Posted by LRJONES4 07/25/2006 @ 10:24am

    Sure, the process is impeachment by the House of Representatives, followed by trial in the Senate. If convicted in the Senate, the impeached gets tossed from office. In our history, 2 presidents (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) have been impeached by the House, neither was convicted in the Senate.

    As many here in the US fail utterly to understand, impeachment is a political process, not a legal one; the object of impeachment/trial need not be accused/convicted of a crime in order to be subject to the process.

    Personally, I feel that Bush deserves impeachment and to be convicted, but unless we impeach and convict Darth Cheney first, we are just entering a deeper circle of hell.

    Beyond the impeachment process, there is our court system, where in the US Supreme Court would decide Constitutionality,

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/25/2006 @ 10:39am

30. Then when you Republicans try to say all the Democrats do is investigate, the Democrats will tell you about the 200 bills they passed awaiting approval by the Senate, being blocked by 1 Republican vote, bills for Stem Cells, bills for Students, bills for Elderly People, and it gets better and better.

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 10:40am

31. And, the Republicans will all be in favor of the investigations, if not initially.

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 10:42am

32. "a law that withholds funding for any Executive Branch acts in violation of enacted laws."

    Lost me there Trabaris. The fundamental distinction is between theory, the legislation, and practice, implementation/enforcement.

    There's a Confucian adage along the lines of: when corruption reigns, many laws are promulgated.

    Throw in the epigram that we cannot legislate morality and I'm back agreeing with KVH and Con: elect a democratic majority to investigate and impeach.

    I guess that places me in the 20% far left Mask posits.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2006 @ 10:43am

33. I have seen no one defend the signing statement or the fact that chimpie has used it more than any other prez, exponentially more. What I see here is "don't like the message, attack the mythic left". Just once I would like to read exactly what horrors the left has forced on the American people, against our will. You neo-cons constantly denigrate personalities associated with the left, but I never read about undoing say, child labor laws. (OK you shop at Mal-Wart to get the same result).

    Do you think signing statements are an effective and valid tool for a president to use? Why? He has congress wrapped around his fingers, should he not get what he wants out of them?

    Mask, do you see a 2 party system as being far superior to a one party system, as in China or Cuba? Does it really benefit the average joe?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2006 @ 10:47am

34. Theyll do anything to prevent Democrats from getting the House even by 1 seat - the Democrats must also use every tactic at their disposal

    Posted by conshame at 07/25/2006 @ 10:51am

35. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/25/2006 @ 10:33am | ignore this person

    # 2 wasn't about "Florida-2000" or "Ohio-2004"....but the Congressional elections of 2000, 2002, 2004.

    Endlessly debate "the Supreme Court in 2000" or the "Diebold machines in 2004", but Repubs have been holding the majority in Congress for 12 years, and the Dems have had their fair shot at re-taking it SIX TIMES....

    ergo, we're NOT a "one party state", it's just that one party keeps winning the elections.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 10:54am

36. Mask, do you see a 2 party system as being far superior to a one party system, as in China or Cuba? Does it really benefit the average joe?

    Posted by CRABWALK 07/25/2006 @ 10:47am | ignore this person

    Here's CRAB giving an example of what I posted on at 7:08am ("stop sounding like every hyperbolic leftist blogger."--Posted by MASK 07/25/2006 @ 07:08am)

    WE HAVE a two party system, CRAB. (as I said right above) It's just that ONE party keeps winning the Congress and White House.

    And, pointedly, according to THAT definition of "one party system"...it would have to apply to 1993-1994, when we had a Democrat President and Democrat-controlled Congress....wouldn't it?

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 10:56am

37. Cute trick! Declaring the American Bar Assoc. LAWYERS who continually are handed the ripest legislative plums by the Demoncrats to have a bipartison committee! Might as well as have declared Santa Claus is real!!!

    That would actually be the TRIAL lawyers who are big Democratic supporters. The ABA does include many other types, in case you hadn't heard.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2006 @ 11:00am

38. MASK

    I'm sorry, but....

    WORDS mean things. And "king" and "one-party state" mean things.

    I'm sorry, but you wouldn't recognize a metaphore if it came up with a huge placard saying "MASK! I AM A METAPHOR!!"

    Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2006 @ 11:02am

39. The reason we have one party domination at this time is that the democrat party got out of touch with middle America and paid the price for it. I read message after message on this board criticizing republican power but the same people want to take the democrat party further and further to the left. The democrat party is being hijacked by the far left---and if it continues to move in that direction you can look forward to republicans keeping control, with only few and short lived periods of a democrat majority. The democrats have a chance to retake the House this year---but it won't last long if the dems continue to move towards the political views of KVH's of the world.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 07/25/2006 @ 11:06am

40. I don't think what Bush is doing is right, either. I just think Ms vanden Heuvel is playing to the outrageous metaphors of the Blogosphere Left, with her "king" and "one-party rule" usages.(emphasis added)

    Okay, so maybe you do. But I don't think the monarchial metaphor is so far out when you add the "signing statements" to the whole unitary executive theory and the sweeping assumption of "war powers"

    Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2006 @ 11:08am

41. Beside, I think she only used the "King" reference as an allusion to the movie title "The Madness of King George".

    Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2006 @ 11:10am

42. Katrina's leftist.

    Her middle and far right names

    are vanden Heuvel.

    I personally think she's

    a great writer/spokesperson.

    Posted by lewwelge at 07/25/2006 @ 11:25am

43. mask, do you think our 2 party system is working for the common person?

    And yes, I think when Clinton and the dems ran everything it was not good for most of us. see NAFTA. But I do not see Clinton as a lefty, I see him as a corporate Dem. That is who has taken over the democratic party, not some fringe left group. When the dems were really left, they passed some good laws. It helped create the middle class that made this country great.

    It does not help that so many people are wiliing to vote for someone that wants to move their job overseas as long as they stop flag burning. That is the electorate that voted in chimpie. Not people that are really aware of what's going on.

    Who thinks chimpie should use the signing statement 700 times while his party controls congress? Anybody? Anybody want to stop attacking KVH ( as poor a spokesperson for the left as Donna Brasil, I have not much use for either) and defend w? Anybody got a good reason for such a power grab?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/25/2006 @ 11:37am

44. The reason we have one party domination at this time is that the democrat party got out of touch with middle America and paid the price for it. I read message after message on this board criticizing republican power but the same people want to take the democrat party further and further to the left.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 07/25/2006 @ 11:06am

    Little Lenny Mosse -

    This is hyperbolic nonsense.

    'Further and further to the left' of what?

    I don't want to see us polarized as far to the left of center any more than I want to see us polarized to the right of center as we are right now.

    If progressives fell out of touch with middle America and has paid the price, what are regressives doing right now? Seems to me that they have failed to learn from the mistakes made by the other side, if nothing else.

    Bushco have gone too far, way too far, especially on the issue of obfuscating checks and balances. It's time for this to end, for the health of the nation that we leave to our children, if nothing else.

    It's time for nation before ideology.

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/25/2006 @ 11:51am

45. Next November will not depend on Bush, his non vetos nor anything else he does, as he will be yesterdays news.. It will depend on the congress in 06..for if the dems win by 3-4 seat(ala Mask), it maybe ashes in their mouths, setting up an even bigger GOP win for years to come. All one has to do is listen to the dems talking points today..all anti Bush and NO SOLUTIONS OFFERED..OR EVEN IDEAS... I am sorry, but " If I were president this would not have happened" is not an idea anyone can take seriously and no one will...

    What will happen here on this page if the dem nominee for president gets beaten again in the 08 elections and a true conservative wins? Do you here actually think that because many on the right are also tired of Bush and don't like so many of the things he has done or how he governened, that they are clamouring for a candidate from ther left? If that is the case there should be a landslide building in your ever present polls..and there is not...

    Many conservatives are still waiting for Bush to do something conservative. If the dems retake the house by any number of seats and the country witneses the chairmanships of the committees seating, Rangel, Conyers, Waters, Waxman,Markey, Frank, et al,and the entire list perpetually praised on this site...then you can look for an even bigger win in 2010 by the GOPs.

    These guys are election killers..the country has been drifting to the right for years and despite momentary bumps left(Clinton, although he ran as a conservative dem)the country will continue to drift right, at least for a while, name the last guy who claimed to be a solid progressive that has won any election solidly,...all Bush has done is drift back a little left domestically to many of his followers..

    I don't know who the republican candidate will be in 08 but the dems will have Hillary..and she will lose to a true conservative if the right can find one....another North East liberal is a guarentee for victory..on the right.

    What will the loyal bloggers here say if the right wins again? You have been trying to live on the ever "stolen election" fantascy for 6 years now.. You are the only group(hard left of the dem party, that still believe 2 elections were stolen), so if the country votes in a true conservative will you still claim the voters voted against their intertest?

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 11:57am

46. ONE party rule? How do you explain all the angry conservatives at Bush? Nothing conservative has occured on Bush watch, which would tend to cancel the one party rule arguement.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 12:03pm

47. From a practical point of view, how much of the "peoples" business would get done with a far left congress and a right leaning excutive branch?

    Nothing, which, may actually beneift us all.HMMMM

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 12:04pm

48. Posted by BRUNOWE 07/25/2006 @ 11:08am | ignore this person

    "one party state" has a firm, definitive meaning. And to "muddy the waters" by including "a 12 year period of one party winning elections and a President of the same party invoking Executive priveledges" as part of that definition...

    shows either ignorance of dictatorships....or whining.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 12:09pm

49. mask, do you think our 2 party system is working for the common person?

    Posted by CRABWALK 07/25/2006 @ 11:37am | ignore this person

    CRAB...we tried a third party.

    And what you got was Ralph Nader siphoning votes...and George W. Bush becoming President.

    Win a few US Congressional seats by the "Greens" or "Natural Laws" or even "Reforms"....then we can talk, until then, it's just spoiler talk.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 12:11pm

50. Can someone out there who has issues with the "far-left wing" and "hyperbolic leftist bloggers" and similar labels for political progressives provide examples of what specifically you don't like about progressive policies?

    Is it Civil Rights? Peace on Earth? Fair Elections? Equality and Social Justice? The Rule of Law? Affordable and Accessible Health Care? Access to Education? Clean Air and Water? Economic Fairness?

    Do you believe these ideals are wrong? Why do you fight so strongly against them?

    Posted by larrywirth at 07/25/2006 @ 12:12pm

51. Mask,

    Don't forget we got Clinton because of Perot, twice...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 12:12pm

52. Can someone out there who has issues with the "far-left wing" and "hyperbolic leftist bloggers" and similar labels for political progressives provide examples of what specifically you don't like about progressive policies?

    Is it Civil Rights? Peace on Earth? Fair Elections? Equality and Social Justice? The Rule of Law? Affordable and Accessible Health Care? Access to Education? Clean Air and Water? Economic Fairness?

    Do you believe these ideals are wrong? Why do you fight so strongly against them?

    Posted by LARRYWIRTH 07/25/2006 @ 12:12am

    I think that it's more that such people even exist, really. It seems to be a source of great personal pain to them, sort of like stepping on a hemorrhoid.

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/25/2006 @ 12:16pm

53. Larry,

    Your premise is wrong..example

    "Is it Civil Rights? Peace on Earth? Fair Elections? Equality and Social Justice? The Rule of Law? Affordable and Accessible Health Care? Access to Education? Clean Air and Water? Economic Fairness? "

    This is what they far right claim they are about,too...what one has to look at are actually policys in place and the most of the country views the social programs from the Great Society as a failure, the school systems a failure, and in fact most things large governmemt do a failure and lay it at your feet(far left, progressives, socialist, whatever,) since it is from that side of the political spectrum that constantly wants more of these programs and states we can not live without them...plus tax increases that are viewed as from the left as punitive

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 12:18pm

54. It is not the labels, but rather the results or lack of results, that drive labels as failures..

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 12:20pm

55. Don't forget we got Clinton because of Perot, twice...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/25/2006 @ 12:12am | ignore this person

    Worked out pretty well, I think, JOHN. After he flubbed up and tried to "move Left" in 1993, we got a divided government...

    that led to surplus budgets, prosperity, and relative peace for 6 years.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 12:34pm

56. Posted by LARRYWIRTH 07/25/2006 @ 12:12am | ignore this person

    LARRY, for my part...setting aside your claim to "all good" for yourself and your ideology...

    I was noting the hyperbolic bloggers on the Left who throw around the definitive and MEANINGFUL terms of "dictator", "fascist regime", and "one party system"...without thought and simply to declare the fact that since their politics is out of favor (and the other guys are in power) that we're living in "Oceania" or something.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 12:36pm

57. I see now where we differ. I don't agree that the right proclaims their belief in the same ideals as the progressive left.

    I haven't researched the statistics, but personally I believe the Great Society programs were very successful.

    The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the National Endowment for the Arts; the National Endowment for the Humanities; Job Corps; the Clean Air Acts and Amendments of 1963, 1966, 1970; the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Head Start; Medicare....

    These were not failures - they were the implementation of compassionate progressive ideals, with real results that bettered the lives of millions.

    Posted by larrywirth at 07/25/2006 @ 12:51pm

58. Larry,

    "These were not failures - "

    I guess it depends on what success and failure means to each group...for me I think the programs failed because we still have as many "poor" as before those programs. It fails to me because we have built a dependance class and have not helped them LEAVE these programs for a real life...

    It is the "give them fish verses teach them how to fish" notion..my idea of a successful program that addresses the cause of problems and then works towards a solution...I have witnessed first hand a failure with my sister -in-law...We have been fighting and watching the system she is in for 20 years..it is a complete failure...it enables people like her..

    In other words, building a permanent class dependent on the program is a massive failure in any examination...all the while the system demands MORE funding to throw at the same group, so many, like my mother-in-law can feel she is helping...When in fact, it is killing her....we , my family, have rasied my neice and are sending her to school.

    The program is the problem many times...

    ..Massive failures...feeling good about an ideal of a program is not the same as success of a program..

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 1:04pm

59. MASK - What is this crap about a 2 party system. You were just castigating KVH for using the terms "king" and "one party system," and now you are spreading the myth that somehow we have a two party system. Nothing in our consititutional structure supports this claim. In reality, it seems like a two party system, just like in reality present federal government looks like a one party system. To be sure, a few things, like qualifying for matching funds sometimes limits federal funding to two parties, but this is not our system of government. It just is the case that in the US, only two parties at a time tend to dominate (remember the GOP is a third party, supplanting the Whig party as a member of the big 2 roughly with the election of Abe Lincoln. It doesn't matter that recent third parties have failed to take hold, we still do not have a two party system. If semantics are important for KVH, then you MASK, need to pay them heed as well.

    Posted by noparty at 07/25/2006 @ 1:06pm

60. Excellent list, Larry...and there are many others that could be added. Mask's point about hyperbolic rhetoric without the facts to back it up is a good one - he should pay more attention to what he says when he declares the Great Society social programs as "failures." Most of these programs have been incredible successes, and Mask fails to point out how exactly they have failed the average person in the US, while resorting to the usual empty argument of "big government is bad." I'd rather have a "big government" that helps its own people in meaningful and substantial ways than what we have now...an even BIGGER government that seems to care very little about protecting the rights and interests of most of its citizens.

    Posted by liveeasy at 07/25/2006 @ 1:06pm

61. Posted by NOPARTY 07/25/2006 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person

    NOPART....we HAVE a two-party POLITICAL system, because the largest, even "most viable" political parties number TWO.

    I DID NOT SAY we have a "Constitutional two party system", did I?

    Before semantics, should come "reading comprehension".

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 1:14pm

62. Posted by LIVEEASY 07/25/2006 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person

    LIVE, I believe you and NOPARTY should take that "Reading Comp" class together.

    I didn't mention "The Great Society" here (I have elsewhere)....when I was discussing "hyperbolic Left bloggers" I was pointing to the use of "dictator" and "fascist regime" and "one party rule" by them.

    And if you need evidence of that ...try "Daily Kos"..."HuffPost"..."MoveOn.org" or even Katrina vanden Heuvel's latest.

    As for the "Great Society", it was a "success"?....Okay? Then why did Bill Clinton say we needed to "end welfare as we know it" in 1992?

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 1:16pm

63. MASK...I apologize...it was MAASCH who mentioned Great Society. My reading comprehension is just fine (as I am a Reading Specialist in our "failing" school system). I merely read the posts too quickly and misdirected my reply. And, again, I completely agree with your assertion about the uselessness and counterproductiveness of hyperbolic rhetoric.

    Maasch...

    The direct cause -> effect moving from "government establishing social programs" to "creation of a permanent dependant class" is not as clearcut as you pretend it is. You ignore a whole lot of societal changes that had little or nothing to do with the implementation of liberal social programs when you try to create such a neat correlation (eg - increased cost of living, deterioration of urban centers, loss of manufacturing jobs, increase in extremely low-wage service sector jobs).

    And, you also ignore the fact that there are a lot of people who have used liberal social programs for their intended purpose - to keep oneself alive, healthy and reasonably comfortable while pursuing the ability to become financially and otherwise independent.

    Posted by liveeasy at 07/25/2006 @ 1:24pm

64. I would love to continue this dialogue with you MAASCH if you'd be willing, but unfortunately I must go do some real work now - figuring out ways to substantially improve our "failing" school system instead of simply blaming it all on one political party or the other.

    Posted by liveeasy at 07/25/2006 @ 1:29pm

65. One party controls everything because the other party has lost it's marbles! THEY HAVE NO IDEAS, NO SOUL, NO CONVICTION, AND NO RESPECT FOR THIS COUNTRY! They are willing to give aid and comfort to our enemies for the sole reason of regaining power, and will stop at nothing in their quest for it! Thank god there are still enough American voters to see it, because it's blatantly apparent! The one thing that baffles me though, is why don't all you loser marxist, socialist whiners move to France? I mean, you seem to agree with their politics much more than ours! Please, just stop trying to screw this country up and go where the other leftist nuts are and we'll all be happy! Can you take Alec Baldwin and Michael " a double with cheese " Moore with you?

    Posted by barry25 at 07/25/2006 @ 1:35pm

66. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/25/2006 @ 1:04pm: I have witnessed first hand a failure with my sister -in-law...We have been fighting and watching the system she is in for 20 years..it is a complete failure...it enables people like her..

    But John, I thought that you were a wealthy and successful businessman. How could your sister-in-law be on welfare?

    Couldn't you help her out, with all your money?

    If nothing else, couldn't you get her a job?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 07/25/2006 @ 1:47pm

67. Posted by LIVEEASY 07/25/2006 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person

    No problem, LIVE....I too see how it's easy to mis-read a post. Frankly, given similar positions on some issues, suprised there's not more "mix-ups" between "MASK" and "MAASCH".

    And no, conspiracy fans, we're not "the same guy" or related or anything.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 2:38pm

68. We all know that lying under oath is a big no-no - Clinton certainly knows it - so when Bush took his oath of office and promised to uphold the Constitution and it can be shown that he's violated that oath, doesn't that put his presidency in jeopardy? He says that one reason he refuses to enfore certain parts of bills HE'S SIGNED is because they're unconstitutional. Well, if he signs a bill into law that is in any way unconstitutional knowing that it's unconstitutional, isn't he violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

    Posted by felicity at 07/25/2006 @ 2:52pm

69. "The Constitution is not what the President says it is." Especially a president who could not get accepted into law school. And with his family and legacy connections, that was no mean trick.

    Posted by The Goods at 07/25/2006 @ 3:00pm

70. Or,

    "But John, I thought that you were a wealthy and successful businessman. How could your sister-in-law be on welfare?

    Couldn't you help her out, with all your money?

    If nothing else, couldn't you get her a job? "

    I did, even offered to buy here a house here in Lincoln, but she refused..instead, she wanted to be " free"...

    you see, OR, throwing money at problems is ineffective, as are many of the programs out there, I offered to help here get counciling, be part of the family, help obtain a job that could grow with her, instead, she wanted to live in a government subsidzed apartment, with governmemnt foods stamps with government electricty, ect, in a horrible meighborhood in Douglas Arizona, with no responsibility...she prefered to deal drugs...and for $ 2000 she drove a pick up truck full of Mexican pot with no plates on it through a back road with no lights...only to get arrested. Paroled, of course, conditional on maintaning a job, which she had at Dennys.....social worker checked on her and was told she quit...since she was able bodied 40 year old woman in the welfare system for 20 years, (why should I work? I get free money from government)and welfare reform kicked her dead ass off the main roles, she now had to comply with strict rules, like a part time job in return for federal money and rents...so, she quits, leaves her daughter, loses her rent subsidy, food subsidy, and electric subsidy and takes a powder...My wife and I rescue my niece from the system and take her in.. we have had her for 4 years she is now in college...doing fairly well..

    So Or, becarefull before you make assine idiotic statements in your post about my money and what I do with it...

    The system you believe helps all have a better life, in fact traps many into a depedency on the very help they need..but he you meant well,, results don't matter.....

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 3:21pm

71. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/25/2006 @ 3:21pm: I did, even offered to buy here a house here in Lincoln, but she refused..instead, she wanted to be " free"...

    I still don't understand, John. When you offered to buy her a house, wouldn't the house have been " free"?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 07/25/2006 @ 3:26pm

72. Thanks to those of you who are using the right word--the Roman word, "dictator." I have been following the arguments now being made by Bush and nearly every prominent member of his administration to convince our fellow citizens that the President of the United States has the legal and constitutional authority to order warrantless searches of them, not to mention indefinite detention, "rendition" and torture, to make war contrary to treaty, to spend funds not appropriated by Congress, to appoint officers who will disobey the laws they are to execute, and to appoint to the federal bench only those lawyers who have served the presidency by endorsing such authority and keeping it all secret. I think that the decision of the people on this question is crucial to the survival of republican government in the United States.

    As I am not a lawyer, only a longtime history teacher, I had decided some time back to pay most of my attention to what the lawyers had to say on this issue. The least secret of the lawyers' arguments is a new book by John C. Yoo, one of the Justice Department's original torture memo composers, who is now a professor, no less, at the great law school at U.C. Berkeley. It's called "The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11" (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005). With the ruthlessness typical of my profession, I found it possible to reduce Yoo's book to a formula suitable for high-school students:

    "Power to the presidency; all power to the presidency in wartime; in all times, all power to define, declare, make, and end war to the presidency; war without end; Amen."

    Substitute "dictator," "king," or Führer" for "presidency" and you have the prerogative demanded by a dismayingly long string of monarchs, from the Caesars, Medicis, Stuarts and Bourbons known to the Framers of our republican Constitution, to the Bonapartes, Hitler, Stalin and Saddam, whose means to power they tried to anticipate and prevent. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what his fellow Framers had designed in 1787, he said, "a republic" but only "if you can keep it."

    Election of a Congress which will reassert its responsibility as the first branch of government--the law-making power in a republic--is a citizen's last resort in this congressional election year. The current president has left us no good reason to suppose that he will obey the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and leave office after two terms. William R. Everdell | 07.25.06 - 1:19 pm | #

    Posted by weverdell at 07/25/2006 @ 3:27pm

73. The current president has left us no good reason to suppose that he will obey the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution and leave office after two terms. William R. Everdell | 07.25.06 - 1:19 pm | #

    Posted by WEVERDELL 07/25/2006 @ 3:27pm | ignore this person

    See, this is the OBVIOUS outcome of the talk of "Bush is a dictator".

    Paranoia and conspiracy theories.

    So Mr Everdell, without a Democratic Congress in November, George W. Bush will nullify the 22nd Amendment, declare martial law, and TRULY make himself a dictator? Is that your prediction?

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 3:50pm

74. "I still don't understand, John. When you offered to buy her a house, wouldn't the house have been " free"? "

    Free for her but not me...I would be willing to buy it...problem with symantics?

    Yes, in her name...she was offered choices..I(my wife and I) proposed below or anything she could come up with that could work for all of us...

    1.I Buy it out right and give her title, but she would have to make payments into a savings account or IRA or whatever, equal to mortagage, which would be in her name in order to build a savings for her and her daughter. She could see the money grow and OWN something...

    2. Pay us a "rent" check where we would use it pay the mortgage.

    In reality, we would give her the house and help her establish a real life, but it would require a commitment on her part , otherwise, we would just be replacing a government hand out with another with no investment of time or whatever by the recipient, as in all of these wonderful helpful government programs..

    We figured, her daughter would never have to worry about a home or a place to call hers and we could bring home the prodical daughter so to speak and work as a family.

    Anything else, OR?

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 4:02pm

75. Her idea to be "free" is no one to answer to, so I guess government programs fit the bill nicely..

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 4:03pm

76. Perhaps permanent birth control would be a solution for people like her...or any group who are bringing new life into the world with no hope for them and those they begat...something all studies show is a major contribution to poverty and failures..no intact familys with two parents in the house who actually care.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 4:11pm

77. Posted by MASK 07/25/2006 @ 3:50pm

    Perhaps not, kabuki-man, but you cannot tell me that there are not people in this country who think that setting aside 22 would be a great idea, and would not queue to walk the plank in support of it for their man.

    Posted by skeletonman at 07/25/2006 @ 4:32pm

78. Posted by MASK 07/25/2006 @ 10:54am Posted by MASK 07/25/2006 @ 10:56am

    I thought it was about Congress...and NOT the WH. Then you bring the WH into it so my point stands in that respect.

    I only hope people start waking up and seeing that the track of the Repubs is not taking this country anyplace they'd want their children to be. It's all about filling pockets NOW.

    (Not that many Dems are that much better....but I'll take a snippet of altruism over self-serving gratuitous money-grubbing politicians any day.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/25/2006 @ 4:41pm

79. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/25/2006 @ 12:03am

    But aren't the so-called "conservatives" in charge? They were last I checked...and are spending the US into a hole that even Clinton wouldn't be able to bail us out of.

    These "Dubya years" will be remembered as a sad time in American history....take a look at our waffling a the G8 recently. Leader of the Free World my ass!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/25/2006 @ 4:45pm

80. talk about baiting, madame orwell...it might be worth your tedious efforts if there was some real humor, but this is sad

    Posted by nk at 07/25/2006 @ 4:46pm

81. LOC,

    "But aren't the so-called "conservatives" in charge? They were last I checked...and are spending the US into a hole that even Clinton wouldn't be able to bail us out of. "

    Yes, they are spending like drunken democrats and if you are honest about it, it was the congress of 94 that balanced the budget in the face of multiple Clinton vetoes and $ 500 b deficits into the next century...who cares, for me the congress of 94 is what I want and the Repub congress of today does not resemble them at all, especially the Senate...and for me the dems are worse and will be worse... I wish for a true conservative...not progressives...

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 5:43pm

82. Zero, I empathize with your view of things in the Middle East, I really do. However, you have blissfully ignored several things. First, the killing is not one-sided. Earlier today rockets were fired into Israel killing many civilians. The civilians were DELIBERATELY killed. Civilians in Lebanon were warned by automatic telephone calls, and by other means to vacate the areas Israel was going to target.

    Hezbollah has NEVER warned any Israeli civilians to vacate any area. They just shoot, kill, and as they did following the horror of 9/11, dance in the street to celebrate innocent deaths.

    Hezbollah, those cravenly cowards, hide in civilian areas. Israel's mlitary bases are separated from any civilian areas. Yet Hezbollah doesn't attack Israel's military, they fire into areas that are 100% civilian.

    Hezbollah, in addition to starting this terrible war in the North while Hamas started a war in the South (Gaza) has prevented civilians from leaving areas that they KNOW are being targeted.

    So, my friend, you tell me and the rest of the world, what should Israel do? Should they just all hold hand and walk into the sea as the Arabs wish, or should they fight for their survival as they are doing.

    If Canada started lobbing rockets into, say, New York from downtown Toronto, don't you imagine that some civilians in Toronto would die? Yes, any loss of life, civilian or military is life that is to be mourned by anyone with a heart. But I guarantee you this, the United States understands what is at stake in the Middle East. The ONLY FRIEND we have in the Middle East is Israel.

    I hope that you have as much sympathy for the Israeli civilians who are being mercilessly targeted as you are the Lebanese whose destruction Israel tries to avoid. But as long as the craven cowards, Hezbollah, hides behind the skirts of women and their children, unfortunately, some will die.

    Bush. What is going to have to take place to impeach him? Clinton had done nothing to deserve impeachment: nothing! Bush is breaking the law and spitting on the Constitution all day long and nobody is taking action. My loathing for him and his group of Conservatives without a Concious (John Dean's new book is incredible). If Nixon thought he was an imperial president, what does Dubya think he is, a pontif president? We cannot go on much longer without a Constituional crisis tearing our beloved country apart.

    Posted by bevku at 07/25/2006 @ 5:54pm

83. "one party state" has a firm, definitive meaning. And to "muddy the waters" by including "a 12 year period of one party winning elections and a President of the same party invoking Executive priveledges" as part of that definition...

    shows either ignorance of dictatorships....or whining.

    C'mon. KVH's clear point was that the Democrats are so supine that it may as well be a one-party state. Semantics are effected by context and I rather doubt any halfway-intelligent reader thinks she meant that literally. You are either being obtuse or diversionary.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/25/2006 @ 5:59pm

84. BE<

    "My loathing for him and his group of Conservatives"

    Here is your first mistake...

    He is not a conservative and neither are those who govern with him...loathing is a waste of emotion...his term is over soon, many hated clinton too, but it didn't keep them awake at night, as I suspect , you are not sleeping well..

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 6:11pm

85. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/25/2006 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person

    Fine, LOC...that's politics and not hyperbole.

    I just object to the willy-nilly throwing around of SERIOUS words like "dictator"....or the nutty conspiracy theory that "Bush is going to recind the 22nd and assume dictatorial powers".

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 6:38pm

86. I rather doubt any halfway-intelligent reader thinks she meant that literally.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/25/2006 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person

    BRUNO...have you read the other posts on this thread?

    There ARE people who think Ms vanden Heuvel is not only serious about "one party state"...but agree with it.

    Posted by Mask at 07/25/2006 @ 6:39pm

87. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/25/2006 @ 5:43pm

    Per the CATO Institute it was neither a GOP Congress, nor "Clintonomics" that brought about the majority of the surplus....it was massive reductions in the military spending. (Although the claim in the report linked previous points out that the first two were likely BOTH contributory factors.)

    Now bear in mind that Dubya & co. were actually digging the deficit hole BEFORE 9/11 - and the increase in military $$$ only added to the frenzy of spending. You are quite right...Dubya and most Repubs appear to NOT be conservatives. So "what's up with that?" And....while claiming "conservative" due to the Fundyvanglist kowtow Dubya keeps half-way bowing, the current GOP admin (Dubya included) is NOT conserving ANYTHING; not money, not resources, not the Constitution nor the Liberty it purports to imbue to the Republic, and certainly not the environment. However, the GOP is the GOP...so to call them "drunken Democrats" is ad hominem attack that is beneath most folks here....but apparently not you.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 07/25/2006 @ 7:00pm

88. LOC,

    Please, the dems are just to blame as the repubs....ad hominem attacks..they are not innocent...if they capture(steal?) the House, you watch the spending,as long as I have been alive there has NEVER BEEN A REDUCTION IN SPENDING NO MATTER WHO IS IN CHARGE.

    If we ever get a true consesrvative congress again or in the White House, you may actually LIKE it..

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 7:33pm

89. Bush is in office without winning either election. He stole them. Does he have the power to kill oppoonants? May I mention Paul Wellstone , who told a VA group that Cheney had threatened him about a week before his unexplained plane crash. Does he jail people without trial? Ask Jose Padilla, American citizen , held in solitary confinement for years without charges and then charged with something entirely different than what Ashcroft said was the reason he was jailed. He is not a complete dictator , but is certainly working towards that end.

    Posted by bansidh at 07/25/2006 @ 7:53pm

90. you are talking about cia family. these are the mopes that geeked up the kurds to spill each others blood over there to make this occupation a mopup; there is no reason for the american blood lost over there except the greed of a fake texan.

    Posted by joebear9 at 07/25/2006 @ 7:56pm

91. Looney left alive and well here in Nation land...read no further..

    "Bush is in office without winning either election. He stole them. Does he have the power to kill oppoonants? May I mention Paul Wellstone , who told a VA group that Cheney had threatened him about a week before his unexplained plane crash. Does he jail people without trial? Ask Jose Padilla, American citizen , held in solitary confinement for years without charges and then charged with something entirely different than what Ashcroft said was the reason he was jailed. He is not a complete dictator , but is certainly working towards that end.

    Posted by BANSIDH 07/25/2006 @ 7:53pm | ignore this person

    This is too precious to be on the ignore list..this is election material for campaigns...if you are a red stater!!!!!

    Posted by john maasch at 07/25/2006 @ 8:23pm

92. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 07/25/2006 @ 7:00pm

    LOC,

    Probably socially conservative. We also have a "conservative" goverment (of "economic rationalists", which means selling every public utility possible and using the money to help the budget bottom line) that runs large surplus budgets, then hands most of it back to taxpayers each year in things like $4000 for having a baby (not means tested) $600 ($ 1200 if the child has a disability) per child each year also not means tested which is on top of family tax packages that are means tested and often make it pointless to work when those benefits often exceed a second or for the lower paid a first income source. If one is prepared to use public hospitals and wait your turn for elective surgery it is virtually free to everyone, so many do not take out private health insurance. And income tax cuts most years. And so the list goes on. Of course government spending increases, even under conservatives, as John has noted. Recently one economic conservative commented that it is a goverment that goes against all its economic credentials and indulges in the provision of middle class welfare. So it seems that at the economic level we are all socialists these days.

    On the social side of things the government recently passed legislation "that marriage is between a man and a woman". So the U.S. is not on its lonesome.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 07/25/2006 @ 9:13pm

93. bush clearly stole the first election, with the help of republicans on the supreme court and cheating in florida. it isnt as clear that he stole the second.

    Posted by pretzel at 07/25/2006 @ 9:19pm

94. all this whining by the republicans about using phrases like 1 party state is simply an attempt to dodge responsibility for the numerous, serious mistakes republicans have made running the country. another form of this maneuver is the claim that Bush isn't a conservative--they can't stand to admit how bankrupt their ideology is. most americans now recognize it, which is why the chimp has approval ratings mired in the 30-40 percent range.

    Posted by pretzel at 07/25/2006 @ 9:25pm

95. According to the latest Harris Poll half the people still believe ole'Saddam had WMD and was working with al-Queda. Seven out of ten think the Iraqi's are better off now than before the war. Can you imagine such a populace giving a flip about the Constitution or the separation of powers? H.L. Mencken was right and the Republicans know it too: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public".

    Posted by sulphurdunn at 07/25/2006 @ 9:41pm

96. C'mon, skeetjr.

    You know better than that. You write that the best way to convince people you're "right" is through ideas supported by sound, implementable policies.

    Let's make sure you address the dark abyss of ideas from the elitist GOP and their ilk within your critique.

    What's popular with the masses is not always the best for sustaining their way of life--consumptive habits whose detrimental lessons YOUR leaders won't learn, authoritarian government anathema to our founding documents, rewarding entertainers and sportsmen with huge salaries while our first responders and teachers of the next generation struggle to make ends meet, ignorance of and disrespect for other nations who ALSO inhabit this small planet and have an equally rightful claim on its limited resources.

    Need I say more?

    What, pray tell, are your solutions to our problems? Will they lift people up or hold them down? Will they promote a clean and healthy future for our children, or let them wallow in filth and despair after we're dead and gone? Do they advocate peace or nuture incessant war?

    Before you start disparaging others' ideas, come up with viable ones yourself. Then we'll talk.

    P.S. By the way, if you haven't noticed, look around you---conservatism, is a failure. Come join us as we return to an America we can be proud to bequeath to our children, not ashamed of.

    Posted by Richard E at 07/25/2006 @ 9:45pm

97. I don't know who the republican candidate will be in 08 but the dems will have Hillary...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/25/2006 @ 11:57am

    Nein. Das ist nicht richtige, Herr MAASCH.

    Dems are NOT willing to go off a cliff for Hillary. She is unelectable and will not get the nomination, so sorry. Apologies to your ersatz election prognostication abilities...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 9:56pm

98. HRC is the Howard Dean of 2008 - lots of $$$ but not enough votes.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 9:57pm

99. Bush is dangerous but so is a Congress that is willing to leave him unchecked. There's a lot of blame to go around.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/24/2006 @ 11:35pm

    I don't really blame Bush for pushing the edge of the envelope on presidential powers. It is just the nature of power-hungry assholes to act that way.

    I do blame the GOP congress for rubber stamping his power grab.

    The delicious irony of it all is that the supreme court, with 2 new Bush-nominated members, has checked George's power grab with the recent ruling in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.

    To quote Nelson from "The Simpsons": Har har!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 10:02pm

100. And what you got was Ralph Nader siphoning votes...and George W. Bush becoming President.

     Posted by MASK 07/25/2006 @ 12:11am

     So sorry, but the critical vote siphoning was done by one Jeb Bush, who disenfranchised thousands of african american voters in Florida in 2000.

     Give "credit" where it is due...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 10:05pm

101. These were not failures - they were the implementation of compassionate progressive ideals, with real results that bettered the lives of millions.

     Posted by LARRYWIRTH 07/25/2006 @ 12:51am

     Perhaps MASK likes the taste of higher mercury levels in his air and water....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/25/2006 @ 10:08pm

102. I could be wrong here, but signing statement or no, if a bill isn't vetoed, isn't the president STILL obligated to enforce the law as written? Seems to me signing statements were meant only to point out areas of ambiguity or conflict with existing law - NOT to circumvent it. The fact that the Bush AG thinks differently doesn't make it so.

     Posted by dgvb55 at 07/25/2006 @ 11:16pm

103. Posted by SULPHURDUNN 07/25/2006 @ 9:41pm

     Now you're speaking my language. What gives me the shits with Lefties, is not so much their belief system but the fact that they take themselves so seriously. One could be excused for thinking that one was joining a group of Puritans at prayer, when logging on here.

     It's reassuring to know that the "man in the street" takes his politics with a grain of salt. That love of arms length political activity surely makes for a safe, peaceful and uninvolved democracy where few are likely to riot. The fact that the American "man in the street" doesn't have to vote unless he wants to, surely is another great bulwark against fanaticism.

     I can see now why you have such a great democracy.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 07/26/2006 @ 05:24am

104. I'm sick and tired of listening to this crap about how Ralph cost the Dems the election. Al lost because he was a boring sissy and Kerry lost because he ran one of the worst campaigns in recent memory. These two losers have only themselves and their advisors to blame. Now people actually want to run Hillary! Give me a break.

     Third parties may not be the way to vote this Nov, but we must turn all these bastards out eventually. We need to learn that neither party nor for that matter any third or fourth party left unchecked has our, the citizens, interests at heart.

     George is acting as much as a king as he can at this time and don't make any mistake about it he will do whatever he thinks he can get away with to protect his ass, he already has.

     The sad part is there are people who still think Clinton getting a BJ and then lying about it, as any man would, is worse than violating international treaties and by default our own constitution. Not to mention the litany of illegal, unethical, and immoral acts perpetrated by this administration and congress.

     Mark this word, our troops will never leave Iraq until the last drop of oil is in our refineries no matter which of the current parties is in power. If one believes that World War III is going to be fought over oil then George has done us a favor unless everyone wants to start putting their feet on the road or in public transportation. This is why both parties have suported this war of aggression. This was our best opportunity to do things old school.

     So, keep voting for these bastards at your own peril, because in the end there is no difference between them or where they get their money.

     Posted by LogicZero at 07/26/2006 @ 06:45am

105. Dear Liberal Brothers and Sisters.

     Bush's tenure as president has been during one of the most difficult times in our history. Despite these difficult times, Bush has steered the economy to prosperity; He has appointed brilliant judges to the bench, and he has fought terrorists in Iraq. If we can all come together and stand behind our president, we will soon complete the task in Iraq, and bring the troops home Divided, we are weaker, united we are strong.

     Posted by Reagan at 07/26/2006 @ 07:22am

106. Reagan, thanks for that. Always good to start my day with a hearty chuckle.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 09:04am

107. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/25/2006 @ 10:05pm | ignore this person

     Sorry, ILP....know there's still a few Ralph apologists out there...but the truth is, if Nader hadn't been in the race, Gore could have run more centrist and STOMPED Bush in two, maybe three more states.

     And all the "Jeb Bush disenfranchisement" in the world, wouldn't have lost Gore Florida.

     Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 09:05am

108. "Al lost because he was a boring sissy"

     Posted by LOGICZERO 07/26/2006 @ 06:45am | ignore this person

     Somebody better update LOGIC, that Gore is now "beloved" by the Left and to stop talking this way!...hehe

     Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 09:06am

109. Is there anybody out there that has a defense for the signing statements? I ask again, ANYBODY?

     It is a power grab by people that have abused the office of the president more than any other group I can think of. The ABA (and all the republicans that have joined them) is correct in their attempt to get chimpie to own up to what he has done and to get him to stop.

     3 pages of blather, and hardly a mention of what KVH wrote about. It is the madness of a boy that would be king.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 09:11am

110. If Gore had been an actual good candidate he would have won. Blaming Nader, who would have made a GREAT president, is sour grapes and avoids the facts. Even if Nader had not run, millions of us could not in good consience vote for either Al or chimpie. We would have cast ballots for third party candidates.

     Ralph would not have resorted to signing statements.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 09:14am

111. It's a truism that people get the leaders they deserve. Reagan's post up-thread demonstrates how the uncritical are easily manipulated into "going along" with oligarchic professional pols of either/both parties, who pose as Patriots and who seek not to reform "patriotISM" from Dr. Johnson's "last refuge of the scoundrel," rather do "business as usual," i.e. cheat, lie and steal.

     Full disclosure: I'm really not a cynic as the above would seem to indicate. I am, however, an unrepetent liberal skeptic who's currently enjoying the "comic sociologist" David Brooks' "On Paradise Drive." Much insight there/here, I aver.

     Posted by lewwelge at 07/26/2006 @ 09:31am

112. "… (from the) Federalist Papers #69, which states, "In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain..."

     Perhaps King (GB style) W has been reading the Federalist Papers, between brush trimming. At least the unqualified fragment above.

     Bush 1 and Clinton also added signing statements. That in its self is hardly a crime. Perhaps if someone did not treat us like mushrooms as Van Heuval does and gave us a damning example of a W statement and how it negates the intention of the legislation and if we knew what the intent of the signing statements of Clinton and Bush 1 were, there may be something to discuss and debate.

     Is this anything more than an argument between lawyers on the use and intent of signing statements?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 07/26/2006 @ 09:48am

113. I've always thought Bush was a kind of "Manchurian" President. Surely, you don't want to give him credit for much more than the ability to talk clearly with his mouth stuffed full of bread. Who comes up with these ideas in the administration-members of Cheney's "shadow cabinet"?

     Posted by John Earl at 07/26/2006 @ 10:19am

114. Posted by CRABWALK 07/26/2006 @ 09:14am | ignore this person

     CRAB...you dissing Al Gore, too?

     Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 10:34am

115. Posted by CRABWALK 07/26/2006 @ 09:14am

     Rule of thumb #1. Intellectuals never ever make leaders of anything. (read somewhere here that Nader is an intellectual).

     Many may not like Bush or agree with his policies but he has been the most decisive and strongest leader the U.S. has had in a very long time. His father and Clinton were ditherers. To have accomplished what he has done has leadership written all over it. Leaders that produce the goods are, almost by definition, not contemplative intellectuals. As far as I know no one has ever accused Bush of being an intellectual.

     Perhaps a country needs a GW only once a century but he was certainly the leader the U.S. needed after 9/11.

     A lot of the anti-Bush gripes some have about things like jobs going offshore indicate that they are unaware that this phenomenon is happening in every other industrialised country in the world. That will continue to happen, whilst there are very large, cheap, Asian, labour markets, no matter who is running the show. The world is irrevocably changing and domestic labour markets will need to adjust to that reality.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 07/26/2006 @ 10:35am

116. And all the "Jeb Bush disenfranchisement" in the world, wouldn't have lost Gore Florida.

     Posted by MASK 07/26/2006 @ 09:05am

     The fact is, Gore won Florida regardless, as shown by the recount done by several media organizations after the election was certified by K. Harris.

     Just getting the facts straight, not trying to start a rehash of 2000...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 07/26/2006 @ 11:16am

117. Mask, yea I am dissing Gore. He is a very smart guy, knowledgable about running government, history and international relations. But he was a poor candidate. He never disowned billies shortfalls, allowed himself to be wrapped around the same corporate interests that gave us billy (a much better prez than chimpie) and came off as a doofus. Much of the blame lies with Donna Brazil and her failure as a consultant. Gore should have wiped chimpies butt, even with 4 Naders running.

     I voted for Nader because I wanted to since I was ten. The guy is a true hero in my book, even counting the whole "unsafe at any speed" fiasco. He has won more cases before the supreme court than any other individual and saved more lives than any other single person. Lambast at will, I don't care. We need an ascetic in the White House for a change.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 11:26am

118. To have accomplished what he has done has leadership written all over it.

     Posted by LRJONES4 07/26/2006 @ 10:35am

     Pray tell, just what has he "accomplished"? Define his leadership skills.

     I think you are leaving out a few intellectual leaders, say Jefferson, Madison, Churchill, Marx ( don't agree with him but he was darn smart) Blair (same).

     Part of the problem in the US is that too much of the electorate is scared of intellectuals. They would rather have a straight talker that is wrong than an in depth discussion of ills that gets to the correct answer(s). Having wrote that, let me also write that I have met a fair number of PHD's that could not find their way out of a cul-de-sac. Depends on the person

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 11:33am

119. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 07/26/2006 @ 11:16am | ignore this person

     Okay, let's not get back into THAT again. Seems I remember a HELLUVA lot of media outlets going down there in the winter of 2001 and trying to prove that...and they came up empty for headlines.

     Regardless, without Nader, Gore wouldn't have felt pressured to "move Left" or "populist" and he wouldn't have had a liberal base calling him "no better than Bush".

     Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 11:42am

120. Posted by CRABWALK 07/26/2006 @ 11:26am | ignore this person

     Just odd, given the recent LOVE for Al here at "The Nation" and on the blogs lately and talk of "Gore in '08".

     Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 11:43am

121. NOT ONE PERSON HAS DEFENDED W'S 700+ SIGNING STATEMENTS! NOT EVEN HIS MOST DEVOUT FOLLOWERS! HE IS OUT OF CONTROL. A MAD BOY-KING.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 11:47am

122. Posted by CRABWALK 07/26/2006 @ 11:33am

     Amen to that...funny though, folks distrust them "high-speakin intellectuals" and then get on their cell phones and bitch (nvented by someone moderately bright) and bitch about problems that require intellectual solutions.

     Posted by leftofcenter at 07/26/2006 @ 12:34pm

123. NOT ONE PERSON HAS DEFENDED W'S 700+ SIGNING STATEMENTS! NOT EVEN HIS MOST DEVOUT FOLLOWERS! HE IS OUT OF CONTROL. A MAD BOY-KING.

     Posted by CRABWALK 07/26/2006 @ 11:47am | ignore this person

     You might have something here. Some specific examples: April 30, 2006

     Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution. The federal government is instructed to follow the statements when it enforces the laws. Here are 10 examples and the dates Bush signed them:

     March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

     Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

     Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

     Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

     Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

     Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

     Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

     Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

     Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

     Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

     Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

     Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

     Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

     Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

     Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

     Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

     Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

     Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

     Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

     Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

     SOURCE: Charlie Savage

     © Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/example s_of_the_presidents_signing_statements/

     Sure looks like he THINKS he's a king!

     Posted by cliffy at 07/26/2006 @ 12:51pm

124. It is obvious that neither the Republicans or Democrats are keen on protecting our constitution as they have all sold out to the highest bidder. It is time to vote for real change, for a third-party. Technically, we only have a "two-party" system because the two major parties say so, isn't time we have a say in our government? Isn't it time we vote for what is best for our country rather than getting victimized by voting for the "lesser of two evils". As for me, I will not vote for evil, lesser or not. I decided long ago that I will never again be fooled by these two parties, now I only vote for Libertarians. Whatever third party you prefer, please stop the madness. Vote for the party you want and stop this game of picking between two parties that only care about more money and more power at the expense of the taxpayers.

     Posted by fixitj at 07/26/2006 @ 12:54pm

125. Mask, the entire sum of what you don't grasp about our system of governance and about historical context is staggering. My suggestion, stop blogging the Nation and others, go to a library.You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time spewing nonsense, do you even have a job or is that RNC check enough to cover expenses for the trailer and beer? Just asking.

     Posted by way left at 07/26/2006 @ 2:05pm

126. Posted by WAY LEFT 07/26/2006 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person

     Well, given that you've named NO specific examples of where you think I am "ignorant"....I'll wait for that trip to the library

     Posted by Mask at 07/26/2006 @ 3:02pm

127. Posted by CRABWALK 07/26/2006 @ 11:33am

     Leadership involves getting things done and of course means having followers here are some indications of Bush's leadership abilities:

     1. Successful mustering of an international force that removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and caused Al Qaeda to flee from the country in which it had safe haven for its extensive training camps.

     2. Galvanised the world community to identify and join in a WOT. That war continues today in Europe and South East Asia and around the world.

     3. Got Pakistan, an erstwhile supporter of the Taliban and Al Qaeda by default, on side as an ally on his WOT. Pakistan continues this role and has been a scourge to Al Qaeda in its own territory and along the Afghan border. Bush's leadership skills were evident in his dealings with General Mushariff.

     4. His leadership skills in the forming of a coalition of military forces and the defeat and removal of the Baathist regime in Iraq.

     5. His ability to keep focussed on Iraq and get the UN to support, by resolution, the coalition occupation of Iraq. Mustering the help of some European nations that did not initially join the coalition to get involved in the process of police force training and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. Perseverance, in the face of stern opposition, is an important leadership trait. Bush has this in bucket loads in contrast to say Reagan and Clinton.

     6. Changing the ideological bent of the Supreme Court by various appointments.

     7. Getting his economic policies such as tax cuts implemented.

     The fact that for the first time he was able to get the Evangelical wing of the Christian Church involved in politics shows that he provided a leadership focus for that group, whatever we may think of that being a good thing.

     The fact that he has your crowd so agitated and dispirited is a pretty strong confirming indication that he has successfully implemented much of his agenda. That is I would suggest the best test of political leadership.

     Whether one likes that agenda or not is another issue.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 07/26/2006 @ 5:29pm

128. don't know if this thread is still going on but... LRJONES

     . Successful mustering of an international force that removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and caused Al Qaeda to flee from the country in which it had safe haven for its extensive training camps.

     breaking news, the Taliban not only remains in Afghanistan but is undergoing a resurgence, opium production has increased, warlords run 90% of the country. Al-Qaida remains in Afghanistan and is gaining converts all over the middle east. When we started the WOT they had about 3000 agents. We have captured or killed a couple of thousand, I have seen estimates that put their current strength at over 3000.

     . Got Pakistan, an erstwhile supporter of the Taliban and Al Qaeda by default, on side as an ally on his WOT. Pakistan continues this role and has been a scourge to Al Qaeda in its own territory and along the Afghan border. Bush's leadership skills were evident in his dealings with General Mushariff.

     Pakistan continues to be lead b a military dictator. His government refuses to et US troops enter his country to go after AlQaida. Members of the guvt lend financial, tactical and strategic support to terrorist groups.

     . His leadership skills in the forming of a coalition of military forces and the defeat and removal of the Baathist regime in Iraq.

     Removing one guvt and replacing it with a civil war is not a success, it is a catastrophe. The coalition continues to be 85% American, with countries dropping out every quarter.

     W failed to get a UN resolution allowing a legal invasion of Iraq. His "leadership" was an abject failure on this point. He was gamed by Saddam the whole way.

     6. Changing the ideological bent of the Supreme Court by various appointments.

     That is not leadership, that is a perk of being prez. It takes little leadership to guide a qualified candidate throught the process. I note he could not get his personal attorney even through the door.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 7:43pm

129. As far as signing statements go, thank you for offering up a defense. I myself do not count Tony Snows endorsment as anything other than noise from the mosh pit.

     If I grant that presidents can offer up their interpretation of a law, that is one thing. To compare 100 to 750 takes quite a leap. Just because chimpie declares a law unconst does not make it so. As is clear from recent Supremes decisions, chimpie has a slim grasp on that document.

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 7:49pm

130. The fact that he has your crowd so agitated and dispirited is a pretty strong confirming indication that he has successfully implemented much of his agenda.-LRJONES

     "My crowd" appears to be about 70% of the electorate.

     He failed Soc Sec reform, put in a nightmare of a drug benefit, broke laws left and right, ruptured the coffers and sent soldiers on a fools errand. Great leader!

     Posted by crabwalk at 07/26/2006 @ 7:51pm

131. ZERO, I understand your frustration, but you must recognize that while the Democrats are far from perfect we'd be a whole lot better off right now if Nader hadn't swung Florida away from Gore in 2000. And, yes, I've heard all the arguments about sending both parties a message, ad nauseum. The math is simple. If 90% of the Nader voters had stayed home in disgust and the remaining 10% voted for Gore, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Voting their conscience in was selfish and self-righteous. Sometimes you have to realize that perfection is the enemy of the possible good. Petulance among the holier-than-thou elite on the left gave us Bush. How's that working out??

     Posted by bartchris at 07/26/2006 @ 9:24pm