Another New Precedent from Bushy.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Not that I disagree with you, because you are correct; however, I wouldn't say the Dems cutting off funding to Cheney (which I agree with) isn't really keeping in the spirit of checks and balances either. Nor is not wanting to wait for the report from Iraq to decide what to do with any funding.

Yeah, there have always been political games, and these games will always be played.

9/11 just allowed the executive branch to expand its powers, and it'll probably take at least a decade to correct for an inordinate expansion. I'm absolutely convinced that the Bush administration's decisions have made America LESS safe.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I agree. It's his underlings too.

I'm willing to acknowledge that Bush hasn't handled the executive authority with perfect aplomb. Is that too hard for you to concede about Dems?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm willing to acknowledge that Bush hasn't handled the executive authority with perfect aplomb. Is that too hard for you to concede about Dems?

Bill Clinton abused the power of the oval office--especially the bathroom and the presidential cigar box.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The executive is doing whatever he can to weaken Congress' oversight of the executive branch. Bush is also happy to ignore the judiciary and precedent.

This isn't exactly a new strategy for wartime presidents. See Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by YOhio

This isn't exactly a new strategy for wartime presidents. See Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson.

Exactly. Alberto Gonzales reminded congress that Washington authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale than Bush has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3lYA3V5gZ8

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I am not sure what you are arguing- that it is alright because it has been done before?

That logic virtually guarantees that each successive wartime president will go further than the previous wartime presidents in the boundaries they will cross.

I'm not really arguing anything, just recognizing that this is a debate that seems to occur whenever our nation is mired in war and not solely due to the fact that George W. Bush is the current commander in chief. It's a good debate to have or else the scenario you outlined could possibly occur.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Bill Clinton abused the power of the oval office--especially the bathroom and the presidential cigar box.

I was thinking more of the filibuster of judicial nominees.

[All-American]

Quick quiz: what national governmental entity has an approval rating even lower than Bush's?

Answer: Congress.

Moral of the story? Nobody's doing a good job.

It seems fairly obvious to me that since the 80's, Americans (in general) have wanted their government to take a step backwards and out of their lives. Bush I and II are as unpopular as they are because they betrayed conservatism (exempli gratia: "read my lips"). Clinton is grudgingly conceded as a good president even by many on the right, because he worked with the conservative legislative branch.

The next president who will earn a place in the heart of America is the one who gets off the front page of the newspaper and gets the government out of the faces of American citizens. Unfortunately, one does not get elected to the nation's highest office by staying off the front page.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't have a problem with the filibuster in general (regardless of which party uses it), and it certainly isn't a revolutionary tactic.

The extent of its use to block judicial nominees was a first. That's all I'm pointing out. And despite their moral indignation, you can expect that the Republican will "payback" in the same manner under the same circumstances.

As I said, there have been several, for both sides.