Here we go. An escalation of a very long string of questionable assertions, regarding our fundemental laws. These laws are what form the backbone of our system of government. Time tested and just stuff.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/12/15426/7096

We have to draw the line somewhere. It is clear, this administration regards itself as some higher entity, entitled as a whole to some above the law status.

We don't grant this here, to anyone, because in doing so, we surrender our check on those who would take advantage --just as this totally and completely corrupt administration has.

We are being robbed blind, manupulated into surrendering our core freedoms, coaxed, teased, beaten, and lied into a state of fear.

This nation was formed by people, who had enough of this treatment. They stood strong and asserted their rights as people and did their best to leverage the law for the common good.

This asshole has largely ruined all of that!

The law is still there, our founders values are still there, yet we talk about this stuff as if it is some sort of twisted political game.

Boundaries people. Distorting them, moving them, redefining them without our mutual consent strikes to the core of who we are --who we are supposed to be.

For all of you calling Democrats something dimunitive. Know they are doing their level best to play by the rules, abide by the law and address the harm. Of course, all is not good. They are doing some crappy things, but they are not standing up and essentially giving us all the finger.

No GOP vote for me period, for a very, very long time.

Honestly, I would not be surprised if we didn't see some crisis hit over this seemingly immutable group of bastards, claiming to be above the law and supporting their assertion with the simple idea that it is in our best interests for it to be so.

Are we stupid?

Clearly a solid 20 or so percent of us is. What about the rest?

When does the danger of losing our shared American roots trump the need to indulge in petty squabbles over who gets what, when and why?

We all should be very ashamed. We also all should be very afraid. Not the kind of fear the cultivate, but the kind of fear that comes from knowing one has lost control over something vital and that something is looking to bite back.

That's what I keep saying, we gotta hold them responsible and stop them NOW -- not wait till the next election and "send them a message". start those investigations and inquiries now. let them pardon themselves if necessary, but at least we'd have it on record they were found guilty of circumventing the law.

geez, i'm starting to admire Ashcroft more and more these days -- at least he didn't stoop to their level.

I'd be doing the same thing. The Democrats are only looking for something to try to do harm to Bush. He's wise not giving them anything.

Sorry, It isn't an issue of All republicans are on their own agenda and all Democrats are doing their best to uphold the rights of the people. None of them were held accountable to their voters, so they all go on their own agenda, make backroom deals, and do what they want to accomplish. The problem is too many voters will vote for one because they dislike the other so much. The real problem is they become entrenched in the office. The solution is to not let ANY of them get comfortable in a career as a "PUBLIC SERVANT". NONE of them should be in for more than two terms.

Take issue with any cause you support and let your reps know. Same if you are against something. If you've never contacted a senator, congressman, or city council member for that matter, then your concerns will never be addressed.

Remember too that your vote is your vote. Don't like either candidate, Write in your choice. someone running unopposed in a local election? Write yourself in. The mind set is "well I don't like either party leader, and the third party guy can't win. I don't want to waste my vote on the third party candidate, so I'll vote for the D, because I really don't like the R. Enough people continue to do that to make the others part of the lunatic fringe rather than "MAINSTREAM MEDIA DARLING".

Vote D. or R. or the long time incumbent, and you will only get business as usual......

New blood, new faces..........

Seperation of powers, one branch can't order the other around, and someone should tell the Supreme Court that.

Thomas Jefferson, while conceding that "all persons owe obedience to subpoenas", also took the position that a President still had a higher obligation to "the particular set of duties imposed on him".

His theory was that a President "was not per se immune to subpoena, but that the courts could not command "the executive to abandon superior duties" at will. If a President were obliged to honor every subpoena at the risk of imprisonment for disobedience, the courts could breach the separation of powers and "keep him constantly trudging from north and south and east and west, and withdraw him entirely from his constitutional duties". The result would "leave the nation without an executive branch." The Imperial Presidency, Schlesinger, p. 31-32.

Schlesinger thought that in the end, the Supreme Court asserted a constitutional right to subpoena Presidents, and Jefferson asserted a Presidential right not to show up in court. He wrote that both were correct, and suggested the answer was in a proper balance between a President's obligation to his official duties on one hand, and the importance of a particular case and the indispensability of the President's, or the Executive branch testimony on the other.

President Jackson, whom the Senate passed a resolution of censure against, laid down the gauntlet of impeachment. He claimed that the censure accused him, indeed, of high crimes, and the resolution of censure was "in substance an impeachment of the President.". Otherwise, Congress was evading its own constitutional authority. Congress in this case chose not to impeach.

Perhaps President Bush should throw down a similar gauntlet and demand that, in light of all the allegations being bantered about, impeachment proceedings begin immediately. I wonder, if it came down to it, if the Democrat Congress would have the cojones to actually go through with impeachment proceedings.

"I wonder, if it came down to it, if the Democrat(ic) Congress would have the cojones to actually go through with impeachment proceedings."

Sadly enough, so do I.

" He's wise not giving them anything. "

Because if he did, what would happen?

>>>"Because if he did, what would happen?"

They would search for things to take out of context, or to make political hay with.

Don't forget, this is all about politics. Nothing more. Bush fired 7 attorneys, Clinton fired 100. Bush didn't fire anyone in the White House Travel Office, Clinton fired everyone and put in his cronies from Little Rock. People make changes. Politicians try to make the opposition look bad with it.

Private America:
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Political America:
If it ain't broke there must be something wrong with it cause it is not working right, pour millions of dollars into finding a reason why, perform endless studies on the impact of the solutions, debate it without resolution, then have the whole thing fall apart when the janitor simply turns on the light switch and fixes the problem of no light in the executive John!

Reread the thread.

This is about A LOT more than politics.
It's about politics only because that's how YOU view it.

Take the blinders off and look at the big picture.
The future of the Republic is at stake.

I reread the article as you suggested and wish I hadn't. Depressing liberal dribble. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Concerns me no more than "I didn't have sex with that women", which was a bold faced lie by the President of the United States. The Republic didn't crumble then either.

Is there something in the water in Oregon these days?

Why do I have the feeling you'd be singing a different tune if it was a Democratic Administration pulling this shit?

He didn't have sex with that woman.. she blew him. I'm sure any politician, lawyer or frat boy could explain to you the difference - receiving oral sex is a passive act, while penetrating another person is very much the opposite.

If they wanted the right answer, they should have asked the right question.

Maybe the sky is falling, and maybe it isn't. One thing's for sure though, by the time you're convinced, it will be too late to do anything about it (and maybe it already is).

"I'm sure any politician, lawyer or frat boy could explain to you the difference..."

Man, are you reaching.
Politician.
Lawyer.
Frat boy.

None of whom rate high on public trustworthiness.

"If they wanted the right answer, they should have asked the right question."

You're saying oral sex isn't sex with a straight face? And you're defending a disbarred lawyer who parsed the word 'is.' Slick Willy, indeed.

Herb

Monica swallowed potential Americans and Bill lied about it.

Iraq swallows real Americans every day and George still lies about it.

So, lessee, maybe potential triplets went down that sweet intern's gullet, and over 3,500 have died for the shrub.

3 > 3,500 is the new math.

The current Democrat Congress, despite their campaign promises, have accomplished NOTHING. None of the legislation they promised.

What do they have to offer? Hearings about Bush. More hearings about Bush. Endless posturing about ending the war in Iraq (although they don't have the balls to de-fund the war). Foolish threats of impeachment when they don't (and won't) have the balls to go through with it.

The Democrats have done nothing, stand for nothing, and have no plans or ideas about how to go forward. They're useless. It's no wonder that Congress has a lower approval rating -29%- than President Bush.

Mr. Bush is trying to give an imprisoned people a shot at freedom. It would have been far easier for him politically to cut and run.

Mr. Clinton pathetically remains concerned only about himself.

Herb

Actually, I would say that both Democrats and Republicans have a bounty of ideas. However, the corporate shills we keep electing are dumber than a sack of hammers and refuse to listen to what we want. The Federalist Papers warned us about the foolishness of a two party system, and letting ideals have greater importance than ideas, but who the hell cares about American history, right?

Chicken Little: "The sky is falling! The sky is Falling!"

I love that analogy. Every day buckets and buckets of little chickens are served to folks who sit in line at a drive-up window burning fuel and growing obese. They love the concept of our country, they even sweat in the hot sun getting a flag up in mid-June, but then they drop their ballot off at a drive-up window too.

Of course, our entire system is in peril, and those folks won't be up for a hike when that becomes the only option. They will be confused about foraging and cultivation when that becomes their life calling. Once the medicine cabinet is bare, they will either leave the cul-de-sac or die of starvation.

The sky has fallen already. We are simply suggesting that you help pick it up, lift it with the rest of us, and put it back in the heavens. Oh yeah, sure, when you are done with your chicken.

Deane, if any of the attorneys were fired for political reasons, as opposed to normal performance based reasons, would you have any problem with that? Any at all?

CJ, do you suppose Clinton fired 100 of them for performance reasons, or political?

You changed the subject to Clinton (what a suprise), and did not answer the question.

Do you see any difference at all between the circumstances between the BA attorny firings, and your misdirection to the CA attorny firings?

Deane, would it bother you at all? That's all I'm asking.

I would prefer it wasn't done for political reasons, but I am a realist and realize this is the way it works in politics. Anyone without a stomach for that needs to find a desert island to live on.

It appears that these attorneys may have been silly enough to bite the hand that feeds them.

Whatever the case, the Democrats in Congress need to be able to have something to hassle Bush with. They certainly have no effective program of their own of any kind to focus on.

I'm far more disturbed by the way Bush has treated some of the Border Patrol agents than I am these attorneys. And, I'm far more disturbed by the way Clinton treated the White House travel office personnel than I am these attorneys.

OK. Me too. I would prefer that too. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that if I had known Clinton did that for political reasons, I would be disappointed. More than disappointed. I would be worried.

Let's talk a little more. Why would YOU prefer it wasn't done for political reasons? I know my reasons; " Because it's not an area that politics should be played. You get unfair rulings that are self-sering to the administration."

Do we share some reasons why we don't prefer it to happen that way, Deane?

"It appears that these attorneys may have been silly enough to bite the hand that feeds them."

Like how? Going against Bush in some kind of legal ruling?

>>>"Let's talk a little more. Why would YOU prefer it wasn't done for political reasons?"

I wish our legal system was blind to politics and equal for all. Dreaming, I know, but wouldn't it be nice.


>>>:Like how? Going against Bush in some kind of legal ruling?"

My understanding is that all were involved somehow in bringing cases against Republicans, but I'm not sure of that.

"My understanding is that all were involved somehow in bringing cases against Republicans, but I'm not sure of that."

Is that not part of their job? Should they NOT have broght cases against Republicans? Should they have said " Nope. I don't hear cases about republicans because it might make me rule against them and I can't do that."?

CJ, they were prosecutors, not judges. Of course they should be totally unbiased and apply prosecution without regard for politics. Things just don't work that was, however.

Sorry sorry. I knew that. Got caught up in a bad logic spiral there.

But my point is that they should have been allowed to bring cases against Republicans without fear of repraisal from the Bush administration. That's NOT, to me, biting the hand that feeds them. I mean, that's how Bush sees it - obviously. But he is mistaken.

It actually gets pretty complicated. If prosecutions should change the balance of power in a voting body, the Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, could lose control. Neither party is going to let that happen.

Do you think any of these politicians want fairness, equity, truth and justice? No, they want power. That's what all of this stuff is about.

Amen to that, Deane!

Agreed.

And if it's about power (and I do believe it is), then we the people need to make sure we are preserving our share. That is why we have the process we do.

Our government works for us, not the other way around. We don't do deciders because we learned that lesson already.

Yeah, I know sometimes people are just stupid, but that does not change the core dynamic.

Given this focus on power, calling for our voice to be heard such that the beast of self-governance returns to our control is just and true then, correct?

Our power trumps the Presidents power. Our power trumps big business, Congress, the whole affair.

We allow business to exist because we are better off with it than without it.

We allow government to exist because we are better off than without it.

We craft laws because we are better with them, etc...

At some point, a value judgement must be made. This judgement lies with us, not the courts, not the government, not business.

I'm no longer better off with government in it's current form and direction.

Said government has perverted the courts, thus eroding the value law has to me.

Big business is more focused on itself than us, and is milking us accordingly. This value proposition is diminishing rapidly too.

As Americans, we are not only permitted to engage in real discussion as to how power is distributed and what actions we take to get it there, but we are obligated to do this! That is the law of the land.

Again, somewhere in all of this, way too many of us have forgotten just who serves whom and why.

Yeah Deane, it's about power. So, let's have the discussion accordingly then.

Concentrating power in the executive does us no good. Bush has proven that nicely. Game, set, match.

Continuing to favor multi-nationals interests, when their interests are dollars and not us, is not doing us a lot of good in a growing number of cases as well. This needs to be addressed.

Our courts continue to serve, but are growing hobbled through lack of diversity.

This all is being done through fear and disinformation. This also needs to be addressed, for our own good. Yeah, that's a lot of the megaowned media.

You make this sound like just another walk in the park. All is fine in politics.

Well, there is a line between political things and criminal things. That line has been blurred enough to make discussion of the matter very difficult. Said ambiguity does not serve us well either.

Comes down to this:

What kind of person are you? (and that's a general question, not aimed at anyone in particular --just food for thought. Add some sauce, if you must.)

Are you wanting to be led, or are you wanting to be represented?

Me?

I clearly know my best interests. This means my government works for me, and my fellow Americans. People first, other things come after that.

I want solid representation and am quite willing to go the distance in order to get it through checks and balances. The process must be sacred.

It is the boundary that makes this nation sing. It is who we are supposed to be.

It currently is not who we are and that's a crisis that needs to be addressed.

All this talk that detracts from these simple points is like chemical castration. You still have the sack, feel good about it, but are completely useless in the end.

No thanks.

I'm far more concerned with the Democrats goal of stopping free speech on the broadcast media than I am with Bush working to maintain the separation and independence of the various branches of government that has served us well for more than 200 years.

I've been hearing that a lot. AM conservative hate radio is nearly 10 to one dominant. (and I thought it was perhaps 3 to 5) It's highly likely to be a major pillar supporting this whole mess. People hear that dominant view and think maybe it's all ok.

This is worrysome.

Other viewpoints being aired on radio is not a simple matter of competition. The owners of the majority of the hot sticks are conservative, thus the market is not fair.

(and there are no free markets, but there can be fair ones --ask Thom Hartmann about that)

Where other traditional media forms are concerned, that same ownership has been somewhat more permissive, but it's not anywhere close to being a system that serves us very well. The recent Media Matters study indicates our media does not trend progressive at all. It's more corporitist than anything. Again, look at the ownership for why and how that is.

All of this lends credence to the idea that this crap lies within the sphere of mainstream American thought. This is false.

http://home.ourfuture.org/assets/20070612_theprogressivemajority_report.pdf

When people trot out that tired line, they mean they are worried about that dominant view having to actually compete in the marketplace of ideas. Should this happen, as has happened on the Internet, Rush would very quickly be reduced to the gas bag he really is.

Want to know who is closest to mainstream American thought? The indie and leftie blogs and news sites. They got people elected last cycle, and that's flat out amazing from a citizen point of view. Scary as hell for the established players.

Every last person I've turned onto the Internet for news and information has come back and said they were shocked, surprised, etc... The latest include my hard ass right family.

We made a deal. I consume their media sources, they consume mine and we talk. No contest!

We are likely to see the Internet change in this regard. If you are really about free speech, then you really should be making your calls and such, unless you really are all about making sure one view remains dominant no matter what.

That is the case right now with traditional media.

Again, if those blowhards really had to compete in a FAIR marketplace, in a BALANCED way, much would change. Count on it.

Democrats know these things. Many of them are still for people powered politics. That's the framers intent, and it's as solid today as it was back when they got it done.

Democrats and Independants have no problem with competeting ideas. May the best win for our mutual benefit. That's a representative government that serves us, just as it should.

Conservatives are scared to death of this. All comes back to what kind of person you are. Needing to be led, means somehow feeling comfort from seeing one view dominant --even if it's not really all that defensible. In this scenario, government does not serve the people first.

Our time tested system of government is being driven to a breaking point. Do we want a King? That's where Bush is taking things.

Our nation was founded because we were tired of Kings, or did you miss a day in school somewhere?

You do seem well educated. Perhaps you've consumed a bit too much of that artifically dominant view for your own good. Think I'm wrong?

Answer this then: If the GOP noise machine is so spot on correct and good for us, why worry about legislation aimed at making sure other views are heard as well? This is not silence, but competition. There is a clear difference and claiming silence is being far less than honest.

I know you know better, so what's the deal?

It's ok if you can't / won't answer. There is plenty of sand Deane. Find a nice spot and just stick it in deep. Go deep enough and it feels cool and comfortable. You won't miss a thing, trust me. Do it long enough and you've no worries ever again. It's your time, use it well.