Spork Boards
Hot Spork Chat : Join us in an AIM chat room!

Presidential Politics

tomierna's Avatar Picture tomierna (Admin) – December 07, 2007 09:43PM Reply Quote
Every election is the most important one.

tliet – December 13, 2007 01:24PM Reply Quote
'How Bush became a government unto himself'

Bush has issued 1100 signing statements -- almost twice as many as all previous presidents put together -- often completely reversing the intended effect of legislation. For example, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban torture, Bush announced that this would "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture." Two weeks later, he added a signing statement to the bill that allowed him to ignore it.

stan adams – December 14, 2007 09:26AM Reply Quote
Tliet:

Good topic, crappy, watered down/muddy reporting on it by MSNBC (imaginee that....)

Much better article as why this presents a problem:

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/2006/07/thanks_to_the_p.html

And key points in regard to 'blame":
"... the practice has increased in modern times, and some of that increase can be attributed to presidential abuse. But much of the increase is a function of Congress’s increased use of omnibus legislation that includes, among literally hundreds of constitutionally unobjectionable provisions, a handful of provisions that might be unconstitutional, including some that are clearly invalid under governing Supreme Court precedent. In such cases, at the very least, a refusal to enforce has been and should continue to be uncontroversial."

What it REALLY gets down to is the 'political game' that Washington seems to have fallen into -- the Congress delays making any decision until very late in the cycle and then sends the bill bundled with a bunch of non-controversial/needed authorizations. If the White House vetos the bill they authorizatins collapse and/or speniding expires. -- "the constitutionally objectionable provisions are included in important omnibus bills, such as an appropriations bill, containing numerous other valuable or essential provisions. And it is with respect to these omnibus bills that Presidents generally have resorted to the signing statement and nonenforcement, rather than using the veto."

Such signing statements might not be needed if the Congress had the bravery/good sense to send only LIMITED legislation to the Executive branch. Of course given all the LAWYERS in Congress and the vageries of the the Courts they like the game they've come up with MUCH better.

SoupIsGood Food – December 14, 2007 05:38PM Reply Quote
I really like how the RePubs now fall all over themselves to blame the less-than-one-year-old Dem Congress for all governmental ills.

Words to look for in Congressional campaigns in vulnerable "Purple State" battles... "Obstructionist" and "Doctrinaire" and "Politiburo" or "Commisar". For instance, "Unlike Commisar Mitch McConnel, I will represent the best interests of Kentucky as a blue-dog dem voted in by crunchy granola lefties and pragmatic country bumpkins, err, a representative of the people of KY."

Etc, yadda.

~ Soop

stan adams – December 21, 2007 10:48AM Reply Quote
I don't like to cut & paste from other sites, but this is an interesting list from a pro-GOP WSJ blog:

 
1) S-CHIP -- Mr. Bush vetoed the Democrats' bill expanding middle-class health care subsidies and Democrats were unable to override that veto. 2) Alternative Minimum Tax -- Democrats passed AMT reform without the offsetting tax hikes they had threatened. 3) Energy bill -- What was a monster at the beginning of the year is now just a fairly harmless CAFE standards bill. Environmentalists are fuming. 4) Hate Crimes Legislation -- Mr. Bush blocked it. The Congressional Black Caucus is furious. 5) War funding -- Mr. Bush prevailed without any pull-out date. At the start of the year this looked impossible. 6) The Budget -- Mr. Bush mostly prevailed on domestic spending totals. 7) No new taxes -- all of the Democratic tax proposals were killed, including tobacco taxes, hedge fund taxes and energy company taxes. It pretty much looks like the White House ran the table. Merry Christmas, Madam Speaker.

Funny thing is, I really don't see any of those items being a big club for Dems to battle incumbent GOP congress critters, NOR do I sense that whoever gets the Dem nomination will get too bad a lickin' for being on EITHER side of these issues. Ultimately I think that the next few months of how crummy the day-to-day economic picture domestically and how peaceful the domestic and middeast terror situation remains will have the biggest impact on whether the WH gets a red or blue tint come Nov. '08...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2007 10:51AM by stan adams.

Mokers – December 21, 2007 11:58AM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
Quote
SoupIsGood Food
I really like how the RePubs now fall all over themselves to blame the less-than-one-year-old Dem Congress for all governmental ills.

~ Soop

Sort of like the Dems blaming the economic downturn in 2001 to the nascient Bush administration?

Personally, people tend to take credit and cast blame way too liberally (no pun intended). As bad Hastert and Frist were leading the House and Senate, Pelosi and Reid have been just as bad.

As stan's list points out, the only thing consistent is that nobody is really getting anything done.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2007 12:00PM by Mokers.

ddt – December 21, 2007 12:26PM Reply Quote
not to keep you worked up (focus on your hammock photo...) but though i agree pelosi and reid aren't all that, they aren't the reason nothing is getting done.

ddt

Mokers – December 21, 2007 12:53PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
The filibuster was used by the 109th Congress as well, and every Congress before that. People can't be up in arms about things just because the other side wants to use it when it's their turn being bent over. Yes, the 110th Congress has used them more than anybody else. It's funny to listen to hear Dems talk about obstruction now and then:

Quote

I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up.-Harry Reid

ddt – December 21, 2007 01:39PM Reply Quote
true, all of what you said. and it's also true that the rules were designed to empower the minority, to protect the body from the "tyranny of the masses".

but as long as people are painting the current (slim) majority as ineffective, it's best to keep in mind the reason. and if you're running against a "do-nothing" congress, you might want to watch out for the facts that explain why.

ddt

Mokers – December 21, 2007 03:22PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
I didn't mean to lay into Pelosi more than anybody else, although I will say her trip to Syria puts her up their with Trent Lott on the stupidity poll. I think there is just a general lack of leadership. I'll give the Dems credit considering they don't have the White House, an advantage Frist and Hastert pissed away, but I think Congress deserves their low approval rating.

rino – December 22, 2007 04:13AM Reply Quote
In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich.
> I think there is just a general lack of leadership.

You said that.
Since when? Like 09.12.01 IMO.

We could have been 1/2 way off the teet by now but not with the wrong corporate interests holding our democracy oligopoly together.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2007 04:14AM by rino.

ddt – December 22, 2007 05:42AM Reply Quote
yeah, again i agree about congress deserving low approval. maybe not that low, but i'd ding them not for not proposing solutions, but caving time and time again to threats of vetos, to threats of obstruction. and i think that's why a lot of Ds turn thumbs down on them -- not because they disapprove of the goals, but because this D congress hasn't found ways to stand ground on them and push them through (all in the name of "bipartisanship", which now seems a code word for "give the president what he wants").

in other news, can't say i'm a supporter but have to admire (and like) this campaign video. and i'm not a hippie!

ddt

Mokers – December 22, 2007 05:54AM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
Quote
ddt
yeah, again i agree about congress deserving low approval. maybe not that low, but i'd ding them not for not proposing solutions, but caving time and time again to threats of vetos, to threats of obstruction. and i think that's why a lot of Ds turn thumbs down on them -- not because they disapprove of the goals, but because this D congress hasn't found ways to stand ground on them and push them through (all in the name of "bipartisanship", which now seems a code word for "give the president what he wants").

in other news, can't say i'm a supporter but have to admire (and like) this campaign video. and i'm not a hippie!

ddt

oh, i agree. when i hear bipartisan, i know it means both sides only agreed to spend more money



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2007 05:54AM by Mokers.

tliet – January 02, 2008 12:51AM Reply Quote
http://extra.volkskrant.nl/kieskompas/

A Dutch newspaper has developed a site that will provide voters by answering questions on a few hot topics some guidelines on the presidential candidates. In English.

stan adams – January 03, 2008 11:07AM Reply Quote
I went to school in Iowa. The caucus process is incredibly weird, prone to manipulation by bullies and kooks. Fortunately few Iowans are either, but however things turn out tonight keep that in mind:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7693.html

If you live someplace where there are maybe under a hundred or so folks at the caucus it is real hard to go against the crowd, that could have some profound implications.

ARL (Moderator) – January 04, 2008 07:11PM Reply Quote
I whinge therefore I am!
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/01/04/1198950075905.html

Yay Obama!

Should I start a democrat social club thread?

bahamut – January 04, 2008 07:40PM Reply Quote
WOW. thought for sure there'd be more here.

well hilary seems to be heading into that magic zone that people like Spindler or the Palm folks get into... where they don't have any clue why their tired old line is failing and keep muttering more of the same when people point out that they've pissed themselves.

her speech last night was a disaster.

Obama's could have been better. there's something about his style that isn't quite there, maybe it's his gawkiness. but he's almost jfk like. easily the most inspirational prez candidate in years. compare him to old fat-ass al gore or rich boy john kerry. it's amazing the diff. his speech was interesting because he basically said, the fact that you've given #1 to a black man is revolutionary, not because a black man deserved it, but because it showed you didn't care he was black, rather you cared about the message. this is pretty sophisticated stuff, but he got it across i thought.

on the republican side, i didn't see romney, but i did see rudy. he's off his rocker. another hilary.

huckabee... who i instinctively shirk from ... did a really good job in his speech too. he distanced himself from the bush admin and linked himself up with the obama we're all in this together as americans business. heck, i began thinking he might not be so bad... and i KNOW i don't like his social conservativism.

if romney or hilary try dirty campaigning in NH, my hunch is they will be at rudy g. level faster than you can say dirty sanchez. i think the turning point for hilary was the attack on obama. look, billy is a sleeze. he was, imho way way way better than the current prez and as a bumper sticker said, "at least bill's lies didn't kill anyone," but he's a sleez. saying he didn't inhale was assinine. so to attack obama for telling the truth about a youthful indiscretion is worse than hypocrasy, which would be mere sleeze, it's sleeze ^ 2.

interesting night, that's for sure.

Mokers (Moderator) – January 04, 2008 08:35PM Reply Quote
Formerly Remy Martin
Damn interesting night. Obama basically ensured himself a place on the ticket. He is either going to win the nom, or he will be tapped for VP. Obama is a fucking Rock Star right now, fo shiz, fo sheez. The JFK point is a good one I think Baha. Very inspirational, and I think with his win in Iowa, he will get a lot more people to believe. The again, now he gets to to see how it is to be the leader of the pack. Hillary was in a tough position basically being at the front the whole time. I don't think last night was a huge blow for her. She's got smart people, and she knows what it will take in the next few weeks. I think the big loser for the Dems is Edwards. He put everything he had into Iowa, and his type of message seems made for the Caucus, but he also suffers from "I've heard all of this before". He didn't deliver one state to Kerry in 2004, so I think he is dunzo for 2008, but stranger things have happened.

Hillary's strategy will be interesting. She has to go after Obama, but if she is too dirty, audacity of hope wins. Not sure if Obama would tap her for VP, or if she would accept. I think Hillary would tap Obama. If I were Obama, I would probably go for Chris Dodd, who did a great job, but was going against too many heavyweights.

As for the Goopers, Huckabee is good news for Guiliani because it spreads the Jesus lovers out, and it spreads Romney's money out as well. Huckabee's record as governor is going to come out more, and it won't stand well with the fiscal conservatives. Iowa and New Hampshire are strange places where crazy shit can happen, but I don't see him benefitting from the Iowa momentum in the same way as Obama. I think Iowa voted him in because he was the most sincere about dropping loads of farm subsidies all over the place.

PS I missed this:

Quote
tliet
'How Bush became a government unto himself'

Bush has issued 1100 signing statements -- almost twice as many as all previous presidents put together -- often completely reversing the intended effect of legislation. For example, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to ban torture, Bush announced that this would "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture." Two weeks later, he added a signing statement to the bill that allowed him to ignore it.

God, I really don't see why people are so up in arms over this. Signing statements have increased in frequency with Bush, but they have increased in frequency with every presidential administration since Reagan. I think it is every right as a president to implement the laws as they see fit. That is part of the job of the fucking executive branch. Signing statements don't mean the next president has to interpret or enforce the law in the same way. Wow, a study that shows a task force put together by a bunch of lawyers thinks that Bush is full of shit. How is that supposed to be news? What if some Evangelicals convened a blue ribbon task force that stated Darwin was full of shit? Doesn't meant that it is true. It's like if signing statements were taken away, somehow Bush would be reigned in somehow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2008 09:16PM by Mokers.

rino – January 05, 2008 05:25AM Reply Quote
In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich.
For me, both Hillary and Obama -- we need more of both in our elected offices.

My wife said: "Who is disliked/mistrusted more in this country? Women or African-Americans?"

rino – January 05, 2008 05:43AM Reply Quote
In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich.
This is damn interesting:

http://www.techpresident.com/
Tracking the traction of the candidate's use of technology -- views, friends, etc... on various social media sites.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2008 05:43AM by rino.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login