Dissent or Division?

The left is fond of saying that Bush has divided America. But I wonder at the logic of this. Aren’t those who say that "DISSENT" is the highest form of patriotism actually dividing America? Logically you can’t blame such division purely on those you disagree with. By definition those who ‘dissent’ are creating the division by setting themselves apart.

The left is fond of saying that Bush has divided America. But I've wonder at the logic of this. Aren't those who say that "DISSENT" is the highest form of patriotism actually dividing America? Logically you can't blame such division purely on those you disagree with. By definition those who 'dissent' are creating the division by setting themselves apart.

Certainly, if the country elected a far-left President one day (like Kerry, Gore, Clinton, et al.), I would not only disagree but I would create as much division as possible against the wrong headed and self-destructive leftist policies that would no doubt ensue. But it would be dishonest to claim that a President elected by a majority of the people was completely to blame for my disagreement.

It is quite selfish and self serving for the left to think this way. Meaning that their way is the only right way and all else who disagree are obviously evil people. They rant that corporations are obviously out to steal, kill, pollute, and exploit at every opportunity. That Republicans are racists, and corrupt... that the rich actively keep people poor... it's rather sad really.

Even when opinion has shifted among some Democrats to be able to say that capitalism does in fact bring prosperity they just can't bring themselves to say that Republicans were right. Instead they hold onto the cobwebs of contradictory economic theories and must express a caveat about how exploitative and how unequally wealth is distributed. Then it's off to the races with plans of government intervention again!

The word liberal itself has lost it's meaning. It has been corrupted by socialist ideology and should be redeemed someday by those who truly believe in liberty for all rather than state control for all.

The truth is that I am a liberal. A classical liberal. A conservative as well because change for change's sake is not always good. (For instance, the change in 1917 really wasn't a good thing for Russians, though many thought it would be at first.) Those who wish to interpret the constitution without any rational standards by freeing themselves from a strict interpretation of it are deceiving themselves and practically begging for exactly the same kind of tyranny.

I believe liberals believe that they are right, just as I believe I am right. The difference I see is that liberal policies do not rely on the wisdom or freedom of people to decide for themselves. (Unfortunately, Republican policies don't always either, for that matter.) But by and large, liberal solutions are always government solutions by definition. This necessitates a great deal of government control in order to "solve" the problem. If we are lucky, the government solution merely costs us more in taxes. If we're not lucky it costs us in taxes and in fewer choices and usually ends up creating more problems and not solving what it was meant to in the first place. Nearly all the time we are better off leaving it alone.

Take gas prices for instance. A few months ago a Democratic congress would have stepped in to stop the "unfair gouging and obscene profits", etc. Can you imagine any worse possibility than allowing congress to set the price of goods and services? And yet the liberal impulse would have been to take action to balance a percieved unfairness. In so doing they would have upset the market and likely made gas cost more to produce not less. Probably resulting in shortages with high prices.

There are a host of issues like this that illustrate this same point, despite protestations to the contrary.

So today, and into the future, what kind of standard has the left set for dissent and division? Shall we deem every elected President as being illigitimate? Should we claim election fraud every time our guy loses an election? Shall we declare warnings of a police state in the midst of war and undermine every action taken and every decision a failure because we wish it so? I hope not. But that is what we have had from the left in this country. From some quarters we have had what borders on hatred and 'dissent' from those who claim to be the most tolerant and merciful.

Let's not pretend that the lapses of tolerance, mercy and understanding are all Bush's fault. He's done what he believed was right just as any liberal would have. It's too bad they'll never see it.

Posted by Eric Simonson at October 14, 2006 3:30 AM
Comment #188070

Bush as part of his first presidential campaign stated he was coming to Washington to be a uniter. Of course as we have found out over the last few years that was just the start of saying one thing and doing the opposite. Of course with different political philosophies involved there should be debate and discourse. Good people can disagree and compromise, Bush was abusive,IMO, and further divided the Country. Bush is reaping what he has sowed.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 14, 2006 5:00 AM
Comment #188072

Look, it’s Eric’s favorite game…

“The left is fond of saying…”

“They rant that corporations are obviously out to…”

“A few months ago a Democratic congress would have stepped in to stop…”

“just as any liberal would have…”

Dancing with the straw men.

Posted by: Beijing Rob at October 14, 2006 5:47 AM
Comment #188075

Eric makes a good point. No matter what the relative position, someone who dissents really cannot blame the other side for being divisive.

It is funny to hear people say that they hate Bush so much and will never agree with him because he is being divisive.

I guess they think democracy does not mean chosing what you want; it also means making everybody else choose what you want.

Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 6:43 AM
Comment #188078

boy i had to chuckle at this topic. were you reading my posts over in “war on terror” just teasin ya but it sure is coincidental.

Posted by: The Griper at October 14, 2006 7:11 AM
Comment #188080

anyways to just add my two cents worth in and maybe add to what eric is saying

dissent is the first step to division and assent is the last step to unity. with consent unity exists.

from the above we can see this;
dissent is the first cause to war while assent is the last cause to peace. with consent peace exists.

an example is that Geo. Bush dissented from the way the UN was handling Iraq therefor the war there. if we had assented to their ways we would probably not be at war now. and we would united with the ways the U.N on this issue rather than at odds with them as john kerry would have us to do.

am i making sense here?

Posted by: The Griper at October 14, 2006 7:28 AM
Comment #188081

I think you set out the current “culture” of dissent quite well. What has bothered me more than the recognition of this irrational and often vicious and unproductive dissent, is a cogent analysis of why our country has drifted into this eventually untenable miasma of political confusion.
Could it all have something to do with the lack of adequate education during the last 40 years or so of our children, mostly now adults and many in positions of leadership. In this context you brought up, by adequate education I am thinking about the woeful lack of a knowledge of history as well as an apparent lack of understanding of the ethics, morality and cultural requirements, as displayed by so many, give or take, of our citizens, to behave, communicate and act in a mature manner. (See my blog on the subject of Santayana.)
Mature people, even politicians, would not talk or write or behave the way too many of them do today as we can daily witness in the “deliberations” of Congress or the election confrontations between candidates. Much of the media indulges in the same unproductive and name calling “prose”, without serious content and thus ending up in what you rightly call “dissent”. But a dissent with a teenage, immature character.
There is little dissent of substance, only of soundbites and soundbites will not improve the world but rather confuse it and put its future at greater risk.
It requires a basic understanding of why the world is in its present condition, why so many people still behave like barbarians and why we have been cast in the unenviable position of trying to do something about controlling the current political cancer that has invaded our little globe in terms of Jihadism. Thanks for bringing the topic of dissent more into the public eye.

Posted by: fred at October 14, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #188084

If the boat might be sinking, would it be divisive to bring it up?


You forgot to mention the treasonous, traitorous, terrorist loving fascists, that have been a staple of your rants here.

Sorry, I forgot.
If it comes from the “right”, it’s not divisive.

When millions of people around the world protested the Iraq invasion, Bush actually said, “I know what I’m doing”.
Now we find it quite clear that he didn’t.

Were those millions of people being divisive as well?

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #188085

You people are something else. Just another feeble attempt at revisionist history. The demonization of liberals and democrats began long before Bush took office. How quickly you forget this fact and Rush, Newt and Tommy Delay and what they did to Bill Clinton. How Quickly you forget that the citizens of this nation rallied behind the flag and Bush after 911. It was the Bush policies that destroyed that comradery. It is the Bush screwups that have widened this division and the worst part is that this pigheaded fool has no ability at all to learn from his mistakes, NONE! Perhaps it is because he thinks he cannot make a mistake. Ditto for the true believers.

Posted by: jlw at October 14, 2006 8:58 AM
Comment #188087

There are some good points in this article. Unfortunately, Eric, your past posts show that you are not in the moral position to make them.

Posted by: Trent at October 14, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #188090


Bush lost all chance of being a uniter based on the election. Democrats have believed that he stole the election and were not willing to give him a fair shake. Just for the record, I think the same would’ve happened had Gore won.

That being said, Bush did do a good job of unifying the country following 9/11. Only when the situation in Iraq became a topic of political divisiveness did Bush become a divider. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that Bush makes stands and refuses to compromise. Honestly, I think a bit of compromise and humility would do Bush good, but it is very easy both to admire and to vilify a man who doesn’t compromise. Those who support Bush can contrast him to Clinton, who they said were poll driven, those who revile Bush can compare him to Clinton and say that unlike Clinton’s pragmatism, Bush is obstinate and inflexible, unable to adapt to changing realities. Both statements have some factual basis, but people’s biases will dispose them to see only one or the other.


Good post. I think part of the problem today is that we have pre-packaged politicians who are so afraid to stand for anything that they end up standing for nothing. Ask them a yes or no question and you hear 5 minutes of rehearsed bs that tells you nothing about what they think. Our soundbite culture has banned substance and introspection and it the body politic that has suffered for it.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 14, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #188093


Having disagreements between liberal views and conservative views is not necessarily divisive. It is how we disagree that is divisive.

Having honest disagreements between liberals and conservatives, respecting each other’s view points and then a reaching a consensus is civil and good democracy.

But today we disagree without any respect for each other and without consensus. It is winner take all. It is to demonize the other side. Both sides play this game; But I blame conservatives for creating this environment and for being so good at it. It is about controlling the debate, demonizing your opponent and sending out misinformation and propaganda to support your view point.

We are a highly polarized country where conservatives have decided that liberalism is intrinsically evil, responsible for our social ills, have become socialists, anti-American atheists and therefore must be destroyed. Conservatives claim the moral high ground with God and country on their side. Conservatives have declared war on Liberals.

Have you heard Conservative radio and read conservative books targeting liberals? It is pure venom against liberals. Liberal Dissent is viewed as “Unpatriotic” when you do not agree with them. You know the “Hate America First Crowd”.

So the real issue is not that we disagree, but how we disagree.

Posted by: Stefano at October 14, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #188095

My Name Is Roger


Good Job ! ! !

1 LT B….

I understand where you are coming from.

Honesty and Humility are always good.

Compromise is not always good….if it envloves giving up Ethics or compromising on what is right or wrong.

We see and hear a lot about Conservatives being labeled as [NARROW MINDED], because we will not give up or conviction concerning [ETHICS OR WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG]. And if thoses ethics are based upon the teachings of the Bible, we are labeled as [BIGGETS].

Sometimes compromising is good.

But it is never good… if it means compromising ethics or morils.

I think sometimes both Rupublicand and Democtats have done some compromising in the name of the Party, and when they do that, it always come back to bit them in the butt.

ROGER A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 14, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #188098

thanks for the response. I agree with your point about “confused” politicians, and not only politicians!!!. As a matter of fact, there might well be a link between what they say and profess and what they actually do at crunch time because of their lack of grooming in education, ethics, morality, history and manners, which would account for their current unprincipled and distasteful behaviour. Any further thoughts?

Posted by: fred at October 14, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #188100


I love the post and you’re spot on about constant government contol of everything. Take education. Vouchers are not a good because parents might actually gain some control over what their children learn. Charter schools? Horrible idea, teachers and school administrators might gain autonomy over the curriculum and end up teaching instead of indoctinating the liberal mantra handed down from the now old and dusty 60’s liberals who were high when they made it up. Boys actually succeeding in some academic way over a girl? Wrong, males, ‘the patrichary’ is bad for ALL people so any boy who shows a hint of testosterone must be drugged or placed in special education until he behaves like a girl or on some level becomes one. If the government controls the family, then you get gay marriages, and single motherhood all over the place.
Liberals want every entity of your life controlled by the government. Diversity is supposed to make everyone get along. (Talk to Rodney King about that one…and Reginald Denny too!) Anti-bullying laws are supposed to monitor the playground, when back in the day, a kid who bullied people found himself (or herself) confronted by a mob of angry parents (including his own), or a mob of angry kids who had had enough.
I can’t wait for the baby boomer generation to move on from this world, so we can have it back. Let them control purgatory with their obnoxious PC rules.

Avis - black republican in Connecticut

Posted by: Avis at October 14, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #188102


I think that the culture of Washington is fundamentally corrupting. One of the best things that could ever happen to our country would be term limits. I would say 8 to 12 years for the House and 12 years for the Senate. I think the longer people are in DC, the more separated they become from the very people they represent and become more concerned about being re-elected than in representing the best interests of their constituents.

I would like to add that I think that the entire electoral system needs revamped. All fundraising and donations should be banned. Rather, primary elections should be based not on party affiliation, but should be based on overall total percentage of the vote received. Every candidate that gets a set percentage of the primary, say 10 or 15%, should receive a pre-set amount of money from the federal government and that should be all they get. If the profit motive, such as it basically is today, is taken and government service is no longer allowed to be a lifelong calling, we might have a chance at getting the most qualified people, rather than the most convincing liars.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 14, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #188110

1LT B,

“I would say 8 to 12 years for the House and 12 years for the Senate. I think the longer people are in DC, the more separated they become from the very people they represent and become more concerned about being re-elected than in representing the best interests of their constituents.”

Shock of shock.

I agree in principal, however I would set term limits at one six year term for every public office, all of them, even at a time of “war”. That way there would be no re-election pressures for any office holder, and every American could get re-involved in the governing of our country.
I would also reduce all saleries of all public offices, AND, make sure that they wouldn’t become lobbyists for at least ten years, after the end of their term.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #188111

The problem with your thesis is that people are naturally divided. Were we not, a United States would not be necessary. Geography separates us. Culture separates us. Religion separates us. Race and ethnicity separates us

There’s a great deal that separates us. But as we all know, we’re a country bonded together in more ways than we can count.

But there are divisions and the nation is born in the tension between what unites us and what divides us, and how the shape of the divisions contributes to what the majority comes to believe.

The Republican party, as it is now, has little respect for people disagreeing with them. It presupposes that unity under their banner is the first priority. It does this because it has a sense of exceptionalism about things like defense, morals, and economics, wrapped around the belief that its rival’s beliefs will destroy the country.

This does two things. First, it makes it difficult to diffuse tensions by compromise, which means that Republicans are bad at uniting folks when they get on their high horse. Second, it means that when the stress gets high enough, they end up tearing at themselves, purging themselves thin like a supermodel on steroids.

It is for this reason, during the start of the Cold War that Liberals became the uniting force in the country, and stayed that way until the end. As it turns out now, we will become that force again.

The self destructive thing that the liberals did was accepting the Reagan Revolution instead of learning from the mistakes that frustrated people into supporting the conservatives. It was accepting the “lessons” of 1994 by trying to become something were not, and subsequently failing to distinguish ourselves from our rivals. There’s nothing wrong with doing that. That’s the heart and soul of competition.

Conflict and temporary division is inevitable in a system like ours. Some people make a business of permanently entrenching those differences, like the Republicans attempted to do. What they fail to realize is that people will change regardless of what the party wants to remain permanent, in no small part because that’s what the system was designed to do.

America was designed so that government would be a partnership between the public and the officials they elect and put in charge of them. Bush was never meant to be some near king.

It’s certainly frustrating to have a president from your party held up to criticism and derision, but that’s the price of power in Democracy. If you don’t want criticism, you can both improve the performance of your policies, and better compromise and prove yourselves to your critics.

Unfortunately, the Republican party has spent the past generation taking and keeping power by telling America that the Democrats were a threat to them, that liberalism in the modern use of the term was a danger to them.

Now, in today’s world, they’ve proven their ability to make the problems they’re supposed to be handling worse, and to pose as much of a threat to America’s economy, morality, and way of life as they alleged the Democrats were. The Republicans aren’t failing merely on the intense criticism from their rivals, but also on dissatisfaction, disappointment, and disillusionment from within. There’s no real center in the Republican party, no real good, generally beneficial policy machine within the party to hold things together. They have a vision, but the vision’s survived the impact with reality rather poorly, even as the Republicans have peaked in their power to enact their agenda. Result? The collapse of the Republican majority.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #188112

Jack - I believe that is the problem we have right now. Bush (the decider) has decided that the rest of us need to follow his dictates and stop being so disrespectful of his decisions. This is NOT contributing to unity unless you believe unity means following the leader because he says so.

Rocky, et al; Maybe we should just have a coin flip every five years to see who runs the country. No more attack ads,etc.

Posted by: jcp at October 14, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #188115


“Rocky, et al; Maybe we should just have a coin flip every five years to see who runs the country. No more attack ads,etc.”

So what you’re saying is the “status quo” is just fine with you.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #188116

Wouldn’t term limits only serve to make those not elected (corporations, special interest grops and their lobbist amongst others) to office stronger in DC, which I believe is the root of the corruption we are witnessing?

Posted by: j2t2 at October 14, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #188117


“It is for this reason, during the start of the Cold War that Liberals became the uniting force in the country, and stayed that way until the end. As it turns out now, we will become that force again.”

First of all where does this come from? And if it’s true it actually explains alot.

Since the beginning of the Cold War the conservatives in this country basically sat on the sidelines trying not to be bothered by the government. Raising their kids trying to make a living and get ahead. Meanwhile like the frog in cold water, they didn’t notice the subtle changes going on around them. The schools started spending more time on social engineering then on education. Government entitlements leading to thing like AFDC which encouraged woman to have babies with no man around. The Gay, Lesbian, Transgender whatever lobby kept getting stronger until the lifestyle was totally in you face.

When Reagan came on the scene the conservatives finally decided to jump out of the hot water before it was too late and try do do something about governments continued path to the left.

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #188118

I could not agree with you more about the fundamental corruptiveness of our Washington D.C political environment. Many State Capitals are not far behind either.
Like you, I believe in term limits for all elective offices but the most recent effort at this in the 90-ies didn’t last past the first representative who’s limit was up and then went for re-election anyway. You are right, that apart from being corrupt it is just one huge jobs program, mostly for people who probably couldn’t find a decent job in private industry.
So unless the national electorate becomes focussed agin on the need for limits, which would need a Newt Gingrich or someone like him to accomplish, I don’t see any improvement in this condition in the short term.
Money and power is indeed what drives most people into politics so it would be logical to ban this flow of funding to the parties and the individuals. Recent attempts to do just that turn out to be, as was to be expected, totally ineffective. The human mind is so creative that it manages to avoid new obstructions and limitations by inventing novel ways to get their hands on money. I have no good workable idea to propose aty this time but we do need a different way of financial support for our electable politicians. But as long as the government is part of the funding stream I am afraid it will be subject to tampering by those we elected to abide by it. Human nature again.
In a sense, it seems to me, you cannot legislate bad, immoral and unfair behavior anymore than you can legislate rain to fall in the desert.
These cultural and political dilemmas can really only be curbed by a society’s own inbred good sense of values. The latter secular behavior must ultimately be anchored in our traditional Christian ethic. If people lose sight of that in their daily lives many societal ills develop, some of which we are discussing right here. What to do? Educate, educate, differentiate right from wrong, encourage good behavior and performance, disapprove and/or punish bad. There is no free lunch!! I believe it would also help reunify the country and develop respect for our elected representatives, none among whom will ever be perfect.


I agree with you that term limits are probably our best bet. But how to achieve that again, we just tried a few years ago so to speak, I don’t know. But then unless we come up with a really good diagnosis of our political problems we most assuredly will botch any kind of remedial solutions.

Posted by: fred at October 14, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #188122

Dissent is good in the political arena. So is consent. Both are necessary in order for the political process to move forward to compromise. And compromise is what gets things done.
But dissent purely for political gain and to tear down the other party, like we’ve seen for the past 3 decades, is divisive and not good for the country at all. The only thing this has accomplished is allow the problems this country is facing to become worse.
The politicians have been so busy taking cheap shots at each other that they have been ignoring these problems and the national debt is past the point it’ll ever be paid off. Our educational system is the laughing stock of the world. Our military has been abused, ignored, and hasn’t had a pay rise in at least 20 years. Meanwhile the benefits for our veterans has been cut. Crime is being rewarded more than punished. And deficit spending is out of control causing even more national debt.
But our politicians are more worried about getting control of or keeping control of Congress and the White House than addressing these problems and have turned them into political footballs. And BOTH parties are just as guilty.
The sad thing is we the voters are going along with it. And our problems are getting worse everyday.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #188125


“Government entitlements leading to thing like AFDC which encouraged woman to have babies with no man around.”

So what you’re saying is that AFDC, which was formed under the name “Aid to Dependent Children” (the name was changed to “Aid to Families with Dependent Children”) as part of the Social Security act in 1935, is the reason that so many children are born to unwed mothers?


When I was growing up in the ’50s and ’60s having a child out of wedlock was a black mark women wore in shame.
It wasn’t until the ’70s and ’80s with the “sexual revolution” that this changed.

I have known plenty of unwed mothers that have struggled to raise their children alone, yet have succeeded with minimal help from the government.

To say that the government encouraged these women is pure fantasy.

Sure there have been some slackers that have taken advantage of the system, though for the most part that has changed with welfare reform.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #188126

Every politician should serve two terms.
One in office, and one in prison.
I’m for term limits myself. The lack of them has led to the corrupt system we have in DC and in most the states.
The only way I see for term limits on the national level to become reality is through a Constitutional amendment. But try to get our current bunch of DC politicians to get the ball started on it. You’d rather wrestle a grizzly bear. You have a better chance of winning.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #188127


“But how to achieve that again, we just tried a few years ago so to speak, I don’t know.”

This needs to be a referendum by the people of America. If it is put in the hands of those in Congress, it will always fail.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #188128


Bush is the decider. That is what it means to be president. In our democracy people have a right to dissent and we have other centers of power besides the president. But the President has powers and prerogatives others do not.

Liberals and Dems can expect to be consulted and have their opinions considered, but the President decides. That is the part of the system you seem to miss. You can ask for things, but sometimes the answer is no.

The majority of voters who elected President Bush gave him a mandate to carry out his policies within our system of government until 2008.

I have perceived since 2004 that Dems don’t really get this. They envisioned some kind of co-rule. Politics just do not work that way.

Dems will probably win the House this November. Let’s see if they share with Republicans. I do not recall Dems being so generous previously and I do not expect them to do it. Why should Dems expect it from Republicans.

Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #188129


When you create a program that not only gives young woman money for having children out of wedlock and actually sends people to their homes to verify that there is no man living there, what do you think the outcome will be?

And actually I believe the “sexual revolution” was within the last 40 years.

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #188130

The common element in dissent, or bias, or “wrong”? It’s always the other guys.

We need to be principled in our views and we can maintain them with integrity and conviction, but we need a bit more moderation in how we conduct the debate. There’s always going to be an element of hypocrisy when we call an opposing view unpatriotic, biased, or evil. Can anyone watch the “fair and balanced” news channel and, with a straight face, claim there are no biases?

What becomes excessively divisive is the tendency to convert disagreement to judgment; and the far right seems to have elevated this practice. They’ve labeled dissent on Iraq as unpatriotic, and they’ve labeled disagreement on social issues as immoral or even evil. There’s an old saying in church circles; hate the sin, love the sinner. Many of these same people who profess an underlying religious morality seem very quick to bash dissenters with ad hominen attacks and personal derision. That doesn’t do anything to unite.

Let’s accept that none of us has all the answers, and that big government is not a mechanism to advance our viewpoint; either from either the left or right. If we could reduce government, and allow us each to operate from the guidance of personal conscience, we’d be much more true to the vision of our founding fathers.

Michael Smith, Republican Candidate for President

Posted by: Michael Smith at October 14, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #188131


And who pushed for Welfare Reform?

Posted by: Keith at October 14, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #188142


“When you create a program that not only gives young woman money for having children out of wedlock and actually sends people to their homes to verify that there is no man living there, what do you think the outcome will be?”

Maybe you missed it, but the program you speak of was formed in the ’30s, hardly a precursor of the “sexual revolution”.

“And who pushed for Welfare Reform?”


“The stage was already set by 1996. Bill Clinton, a Democratic President, had promised to “end welfare as we know it” in his State of the Union Address. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton’s decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.”

As for those that may have taken advantage, I actually mentioned that in may previous post.

Perhaps you missed that as well.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #188145

Amen to that, but let’s keep trying.

Posted by: fred at October 14, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #188155


More persecution complex, more strawmen, more whining. I will not go on-and-on about how all Republicans are homophobes, corrupt, and evil because it is silly and not so. I will go on about a failure in leadership in this country not the least of which is the divisiveness of this administration.

Bush, Rove, Congress, and Company has done more to divide this country than Clinton ever did (it’s laughable you call him “far left”). Of course we look at government and solutions to problems differently! If those in power say they are “uniters, not dividers”, lose the popular vote in an election, and then turn around and say to at least half the people in this country “screw ‘em” they can be rightfully described as divisive.

Same thing with the response after ‘911’. We had virtually the whole world on our side, united, and even support for going into Afghanistan which was thrown away by a small group’s insistence on midadventures in Iraq. Then they had the gall come election time of comparing those who disagreed with them to the terrorists themselves.

B-T-W, the last third of your post actually made interesting points. I may disagree with some of them but it is much more interesting and constructive to think about. Let’s not ruin it with hyperbole and fallacies next time.

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #188157

Jack said,

The majority of voters who elected President Bush gave him a mandate to carry out his policies within our system of government until 2008.

Jack, you need to clarify “mandate”. Certainly you do not mean it in the way it has been used in recent history to show clear and overwhelming support for the election proved no such thing.

Also, to suggest that Bush and Co consult in any meaningful way at all with the opposing party is disingenious rhetoric. I think the best they could ever come up with is putting a democrat (Mineta) in the post of transportation secretary back in 2001. This is the “uniter, not a divider”?

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #188158

Stephen D. -
“The Republican party, as it is now, has little respect for people disagreeing with them.”

As it is now? Get real! I have not (in the last 35 years) seen the Dems have any respect for people disagreeing with them. The one disagreeing is always the one who needs to be shut up, according to the Dems.

“Bush was never meant to be some near king.”

Again, get real! If he were king you would have to check to make sure you still had your head every morning. The newspapers would not be allowed to oppose him so regularly. His political opponents would not have the free reign to “dissent”. Bah! What drivel!

Further, I remember what it was like under the kingdom of Clinton. His opponents were attacked and destroyed on a regular basis. Many opposers lost fortunes and reputations at his hand (and there are questions as to whether some may have lost their lives due to his stormtroopers.) He abandoned any underling who disappointed him. And certainly many women were soiled by his hands. Recent events have shown his true character and disposition. He was not a very kind despot.

Posted by: Don at October 14, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #188159

Gerry Studds died. Does anyone think this will boost Repubs?
It could jog peoples memory about how one man (R), was villified and resigned, as he should have. And another, (D), in the exact same cicumstance was given a standing ovation by his party and decided to keep office and run for re-elected.
Off topic but just wondering.

Posted by: andy at October 14, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #188162

Studds will be praised by the Dems for his “integrity” and “courage”. Then they will use his funeral for a political speech. (Just going from history).

Posted by: Don at October 14, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #188163

Ron Brown,

Good post. I agree with you pointing out the important principles of “dissent” AND “consent”.

Leaders govern by the consent of the people. Even though Bush lost the popular vote (something no one disputes) in 2000 I did not go around and say he “owed” the Democrats anything. It is a winner-takes-all system. However, I would say he failed as a leader if he did not reach out and compromise with that half (majority if you like) of the country who voted for his rival by reaching out to Democrats. Unfortunately the self-proclaimed uniter became a divider.

And the negativity of our electoral process only serves to exacerbate it. BOTH parties are guilty of it and our country’s problems mount because of it. I think the electoral process is broke. It also requires a “perfect storm” of sorts to get incumbents out because of districts made safe by incumbents. In-the-meantime, an electorate busier than ever with making a living and constant denigration of public education by parents who don’t care and Republicans who despise it just make it worse.

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #188165


“It could jog peoples memory about how one man (R), was villified and resigned, as he should have. And another, (D), in the exact same cicumstance was given a standing ovation by his party and decided to keep office and run for re-elected.”

Interestingly enough, neither man had commited a crime in the eyes of the law.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #188167


What’s your point? That Dems are more liberal or that Foley should have stayed? Or was that just an observation.

Posted by: andy at October 14, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #188170

Just an observation.

Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #188175

Chris2x -
“Unfortunately the self-proclaimed uniter became a divider.”

Not totally true. He made several valid attempts to unite and cooperate with the Dems BEFORE doing anything that could be interpreted as division. He even made several attempts to work with Kennedy (one of the most divisive Senators on the Dem side) before giving up on him. But the Dems refused to play ball (can’t have a game without two teams on the field). That’s when he began to play a little tighter with the process. Also, the Dems took his “I want to work with you” stance as a weak position and tried to exploit it. They began to make demands instead of bringing compromise to the table. They were in no position to demand anything. They got locked out because of their own greed.
That’s when Bush shut them down. So, as usual with those who call “foul”, they did it to themselves.

After that, the Dems went on full-bore attack. No one can compromise with those who use terrorist tactics. The Dems lost again. They doubled their attacks, and then said that Bush was a divider… So, if Bush is a divider, the Dems made him one by their own refusal to compromise. Bottom line: If the Dems would have come to the table they would have had a say in the policies and decisions of the last six years. But by being antagonistic and uncompromising, they have been locked out of the entire process.

“Then they had the gall come election time of comparing those who disagreed with them to the terrorists themselves.”

I keep hearing this argument but I have never seen a quote from the Republican leader who said it. Therefore, I think it’s a SICK, UNFOUNDED, statement. The only quote I could find was from Ashcroft, December 7, 2001:

“To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.”

It doesn’t sound quite the same in context does it?

Posted by: Don at October 14, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #188183


I just mean mandate in the original sense. The voters chose Bush.

The President can consult with the opposition as he sees fit. No child left behind, prescription drug plans etc were clearly bipartisan. As a matter of fact, so was the resolution to use force in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It makes sense for any leader to consult, but he does not have to. Our system is majority rule. Minorities are protected by various laws and rights, but concerning their RIGHT to govern, the only right the minority has it to become a majority.

The Dems are also playing hard ball on the cooperation thing. They all know we have to address the SS problem. They didn’t like Bush’s plan, but made no attempt to improve it or work with Republicans. Contrast that with Republicans (divisive as they were) who gave Clinton the line item veto and worked with him on NAFTA and welfare reform.

Posted by: Jack at October 14, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #188193

Here’s a few for you Don, please don’t get SICK.

“The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists.”

-Scott Mclellan on Murtha’s proposal to withdraw from Iraq.

“If you don’t think we should be listening in on the terrorist, then you ought to vote for the Democrats.”

-George W. Bush, Oct. 3rd. 2006

Rush Limbaugh posting on his web site an article on his web site with pictures of Saddam Hussein and Tom Daschle captioned “Running mates 2004?”

“I listen to my Democrat friends, and I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting terrorists than in protecting the American people,”

-John Boehner, Sept 12th, 2006.

Also this from the Washington Post

Vice President Cheney said critics “claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.” (…) Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone.

Basically accusing the Democrats of being on the terrorist’s side is incredibly base, SICK, and UNFOUNDED.

I stand corrected on the important work Bush did with Kennedy. God help us all on “No Child Left Behind”. Nothing like flawed legislation and mandates that are then not even close to being funded as promised by Bush. The legislation was bi-partisan, the renegging on funding was not.

Hey, I wonder if the wolves running thru GOP ads this year will actually carry little signs saying “Vote Democrat”.

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 6:02 PM
Comment #188194


I give you credit. I didn’t think you were spouting the administration line about clear mandates for Bush’s agenda, especially social security reform.

Democrats drew a line in the sand on social security private accounts, especially since Bush’s proposals did nothing to make SS more solvent, just worse, and were just more of Grover “we’ll launder Abramoff’s money for a fee” Norquist’s wet dream.

Also, Democrats have never been in power under Bush and have had terms dictated to them unlike the Clinton/GOP congress years. In fact, Democrats have often been frozen out of negotiations and house-senate conferences on bills.

Posted by: chris2x at October 14, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #188202

Chris2x- originally said…
“Then they had the gall come election time of comparing those who disagreed with them to the terrorists themselves.”

I called you on this. Your quotes in response to this did not quote anyone saying this. BTW - Rush Limbaugh has not been elected or appointed to any position in the Republican party (in case you didn’t know). So, your comments about him wouldn’t count, but he didn’t say that either.

I didn’t see any comment comparing those who disagree to the terrorists.

Sorry, no cigar there, bud! Please do better next time.

“I stand corrected on the important work Bush did”
Thanks for agreeing.

Posted by: Don at October 14, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #188221

No, the Republicans never just passively gave up power You had McCarthy and the Republican majority scaring people into voting for them in the late 40s. You had Eisenhower and his telegenic vice president. You had Goldwater. You had that telegenic vice president elected, after the Democrats screwed things up and became divide. After LBJ, there would only be one Democrat in office for the next quarter century.

I didn’t say Republicans didn’t try to be the uniting force I just said Democrats became the uniting force. After Truman, there wasn’t another Republican majority in both houses until 1994.

The history of the Republicans does not begin with Reagan, and it shouldn’t end with Bush. You’ve got to recognize that America never shifted as far to the right as you thought it did. There was reason that Clinton remained in power, reason he could turn Americans against your party, reason that before 2002, the Republicans had actually lost the Senate.

The Republicans have mercilessly spun their own image. What’s happened here is that Americans have gone beyond needing the potential of good government, which you can essentially brag into existence, and have gotten to the point where they need people in charge who really know what they’re doing. The Republican Party is in trouble now because it failed to live up to its boasts in America’s time of need.

Our world has become a less stable place, and our role in it more uncertain. Some Republicans are trying to create a unified scourge in the form of the so-called “Islamofascists”, but the word is more telling a comment on the ignorance of those who use it regarding the diversity of cultures, political parties, religious sects and other interests which get lumped together. The truth is we have no unified enemies. The Axes imagined are loose associations at best, paranoid suspicion at worst.

Ron Brown-
The key is to neither become cynical or naive about these things. They time has come to put some sting behind our complaints, and start demonstrating that anybody who crosses us, the voter, will find themselves out of a job. That’s what our vote is for. If we just elect these people out of fear of the other side or the cynical belief that it won’t make a difference, then we’re just going to perpetuate the problem.

Your tone demonstrates the correctness of my charge. Instead of providing substantial reasoning as to why Bush is not autocratic, you defend his kingly virtues by equating Clinton’s administration with his in terms of abuses of power. You bring up the classic Clinton conspiracy theories, and essentially sidestep my point.

Which is: No president is meant to be like that. Clinton was no where near so secretive, nowhere near so willing to claim absolute power from some bastardized misreading of the constitution. This is a point that can be demonstrated empirically, just by looking at how much Bush has classified.

You say Bush tried to work with us, but Bush’s form of cooperation was him getting whatever we wanted, with us nodding in the background. That’s not cooperation, that’s simply being co-opted, and there was a limit to how much we would let the president use this nation’s unity simply to pass partisan legislation that wouldn’t pass the smell test.

Terrorist tactics. What terrorist tactics? Were they any different than the filibusters of the Republicans, or Gingrich’s government Shutdown? Was it holding up a handful of judges where the Republican Congress held up scores of Clinton’s? Was it impeaching a president over dishonest concerning a sexual affair, rather than something more substantive like sending troops on false pretexts, or spying on Americans without warrants?

You folks locked us out, and did so quite on purpose. If you think your politics were so inclusive, what was that whole TRMPAC thing in my state about? Why was the Republican party seeking to take an already Republican-favoring district plan, and changing it to one that ensure that the Texas delegation to Congress would actually be more Republican than the state itself? Who funnelled money from Virginia corporations, in spite of Texas state law to do this?

Who was it who said that he would not talk to lobbyists if they used Democrats to represent them?

Bush is a divider by his own choice, and so are most Republicans in Congress.

You folks just don’t take criticism well, especially from us. There’s a reason your control has slipped, a reason your pary is on its way out of the majority. When the majority of Americans

a)told you they thought you were doing things wrong;

b)complained about your transparency;

c)came to oppose your President’s war;

d)expressed fears, even with 9/11 a fresh memory, about the constitutionality of your actions, your party’s response was not to determine what was going wrong, even if it was bad marketing, but instead was to label Americans that dared open their mouths to their president as traitors or dupes.

You can’t really charm folks into agreement using such language. You only convince them that you’re trapped in your own world of partisan spin.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 14, 2006 8:22 PM
Comment #188228

Stephen D-

First, my “tone” has NOTHING to do with your charge. I’m not a Republican. I’m also not a Bush lover. I just don’t like Bush-haters (I find them depressingly short-sighted). YOUR tone proves more than mine.

Second, you say “…you defend his kingly virtues by equating Clinton’s administration with his in terms of abuses of power.”

Untrue. I don’t equate anything Bush has done with what Clinton did. I’m just saying that if YOU say Bush has had some king-like attributes, I find MORE king-like attributes in Clinton.

Third, RE: Secrecy…
The problem with secrecy is that YOU don’t really know anything about what has been kept secret. (Or do you have special clearance???) Therefore, YOU DON’T KNOW whether those things have been kept secret for evil reasons or for good reasons! Further, you also don’t know if the things Clinton kept secret were kept secret for evil or good reasons. That’s the very nature of secrecy. And the number of items kept secret also has nothing to do with whether a person is doing evil or good. There may just be more that needs to be kept secret. (We are at war, after all)
Dems in congress may SAY that those things are kept secret for evil purposes, but is that spin or truth? Unfortunately, you’ll never know. Thank you.

Fourth, you say “nowhere near so willing to claim absolute power from some bastardized misreading of the constitution” (as Bush). However, this is usually just spin. Some SAY that Bush has twisted the constitution, but that charge has yet to be PROVED. Some SAY they have evidence for such a charge, but when I read their arguments they are full of twists and turns. They often don’t deal with the precedents for the decisions Bush has made. They often amplify and misstate Bush’s decisions, claiming that (in one case) Americans were being “spied on.” [It wasn’t true.]

Fifth, you say “Who funnelled money from Virginia corporations, in spite of Texas state law to do this?” Nice try! But there are two problems with this. 1) It has not yet been proven that this actually was done in the way you allege. 2) If you are correct that it IS PRESENTLY illegal to do this, it was not illegal AT THE TIME it is alleged they were done.

Finally, its time to give up the Bush-hating rhetoric. He can’t be re-elected. Your hatred has made you short-sighted (as it did in the last election, by the way), as I mentioned. Only you can choose if you want to plan for the future or stay stuck in this losing cycle of Bush-bashing. You seem fairly intelligent, maybe you could use your talents for something more purposeful.

Posted by: Don at October 14, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #188230

On point 5… in looking back at your statements I’m not sure if you are referring to DeLay or to the treasurer of TRMPAC. If to DeLay, he hasn’t been convicted of any charges. If regarding the treasurer… he was convicted of something in this case, but I don’t remember the whole story.

Posted by: Don at October 14, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #188242

I brelive that both parties can take credit for the sad state of our educational system.

Stephen Daugherty
The key is to neither become cynical or naive about these things. They time has come to put some sting behind our complaints, and start demonstrating that anybody who crosses us, the voter, will find themselves out of a job. That’s what our vote is for. If we just elect these people out of fear of the other side or the cynical belief that it won’t make a difference, then we’re just going to perpetuate the problem.

See we can agree on somethngs.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 14, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #188264


There it goes again; the circular reasoning spinning into a crescendo!
If not for dissent, you would be paying taxes to the British!
When there was no dissent, Adolf Hitler took Germany by sturm.

For the record, the Left wants the government to fix what the government broke. How many of our soldiers, veterans of Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and WWII, are missing limbs and insane, homeless and begging for change, broken and discarded?
Yet services for them are slashed on a regular basis, and service standards for them are lowered.

Yes, November approaches. Dissent will unite Americans against your Fuhrer. The fourth Reich will be stopped. And one can hope that Bush will find one last creative use of a 7.65 mm Walther, as Hitler did.

Then you will be the dissident!

Posted by: pissed off at October 15, 2006 1:38 AM
Comment #188265

pissed off

Sounds like you fit into the insane category.

Posted by: Keith at October 15, 2006 2:39 AM
Comment #188279

Just how am I supposed to know from your words alone that you’re not a Republican? Go back and read them. As for your tone, it was generally hostile.

You say you’re not a Bush lover. Fine. But you are an apologist, having put together a whole line of thinking just to justify the lack of bipartisan consultation. You’re repeating many of the talking points that essentially excuse Bush from any wrongdoing. So am I supposed to conclude from all this that you’re actually a critic of his? I’m sorry, I’m only working on the information you give me about your views.

As for Secrecy, you can count the number of documents being classified. You can read reports of studies and other things made top secret. You can also find out just how secretive your president has been by all the dirty little secrets that start popping up. Bush is a man who sent his gubernatorial papers, which would have been released to the public to his father’s library to exploit a loophole so he didn’t have to release them. This is a guy whose administration sued to keep the names of the people he consulted with on energy policy from Congress. This is a guy so secretive that Nixon’s former White House Counsel, John Dean, a man who was convicted as part of the the coverup of the break-in, is saying that Bush’s White House has been more secretive than his. His book, Worst Than Watergate details just how bad its gotten.

Many of the things he keeps secret are little things like how certain his administration really is about the information that lead us to Iraq. The classified version of the NIE authored to deal with questions of Saddam’s WMD’s and his relationship to al-Qaeda had a plethora of footnotes and competing views. Bush published a declassified version sanitized of that important information, to a Congress that he himself had deprived for the most part of security clearances. That’s right, the body whose duty it is to decide whether we went to war was not provided with all the facts. In fact, even members of the intelligence committees were deprived of such information, with only a handful actually fully informed.

And they couldn’t tell anybody else what they knew about the missing footnotes and whatnot. Yes, this is a time of war, but no, not all secrets are good in that time. We lost Vietnam because command in Saigon kept secrets from leaders in Washington, and vice versa. Our worst problem in Iraq, a lack of manpower to cover the country, stems in no small part because of that worst kept secret, one which the generals keep because the last person who told the truth got publically rebuked and canned.

Moreover, this is a president, according to Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine, who is not fully informed of events and intelligence regarding things, because to do so would remove from him plausible deniability. Can we not agree that secrecy has gone too far when the President is making crucial foreign policy decisions without knowing the full quality or character of the information?

I can say that a secret is evil when the consequences of not knowing what was going on are bad. America rushed to war because it believed it had no other choice. But it believed that, because of what the President told them, and because people are conditioned to trust people in authority in a time of war. Bush and company abused that trust, failing to hold their evidence to high enough standards to keep America from getting egg on its face. Maybe a war in Iraq would have been necessary and good at some point, but because of the way Bush lead us to it, the timing and the manner of our invasion hobbled us, and kept our soldiers from fulfilling their mission.

As for the constitutional issues, let me present it to you plainly. There is proof Americans were spied on: his own words. He admitted to using programs that monitored the associates and associate’s associates of terrorism suspects without attaining warrants for such activity. He has made actual claims of the constitutionality of different policies, and had those claims struck down in a court of law. It’s on record. You can deny it if you want to, but you part ways from the facts in the process of doing that.

On the subject of the funnelled money? Again you come with this tone of yours telling me there’s no proof. Guess what: there is! A trail of checks, of money going up, of money going down. The ban on the use of corporate money, and the illegality of laundering it to get around that ban were on the books long before the TRMPAC broke them. It’s the conspiracy charge that might have that problem, not that crucial (and more toothy) money-laundering charge.

As for Bush Hatred? The very term gives me a headache every time I see it. I’ve got rational reasons to think he’s a lousy leader. I can list the specific screw-ups, the tendencies his mistakes follow. I can point you to Frontline Documentaries and books to give you a good idea of just why I’m so opposed to his policies, and why I think they need change.

I’ll admit that Bush was not my desired choice right off the bat. But I felt in the days after 9/11, that he had a chance to shed the immaturity of his former leadership, and do something greater. That never happened. He made a bunch of promises, and failed to carry them out. This was not the time for a mediocre president to lead, and regardless of whether he’s re-electable, he’s still writing policy. Men and women of good conscience should not be silent during terms when they are vocal during elections. If nothing else, regaining the majority has been about putting ourselves in a position to take back control from Bush. If we can’t take the office from him, we can just take the Rubber Stamp from him.

You fail to realize that folks like me aren’t simply doing this for the sake of abstract politics. If for no other reason, the rise of the new Democrat in America in this day and age is thanks to the vivid reminder Bush and his congress have given to us as to the importance of good leadership, a vivid reminder in the form of a nearly unbroken string of disasters.

For many years, folks believed it simply did not matter who was in office, that everything would simply run, business as usual. These past few years have proved those people wrong. You call it Bush bashing, but whether it’s Bashing or not means nothing to whether its justified or not. Some people deserve criticism and backlash for the decisions they’ve made. LBJ is rightfully bashed over his leadership, as is Carter, to some degree. There are good criticism for Clinton, and for the Democratic Congresses over time. I am a Democrat, but I do not feel the need to gloss over the mistakes of the past, including segregation, involvement in Vietnam, the deficit spending that LBJ allowed so he could keep his precious war and his great society. These are not boogiemen to run away from, but lessons to be learned. Bush gets bashed because Bush neither has learned his lesson, nor shown that he wants to. His stubborn error encourages the strongest efforts at correction as a result. It doesn’t help Bush that his disasters have truly frightened America regarding his leadership.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 15, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #188283

Let him whom the shoe fits put it on. Dissent and division are still alive and kicking.

Posted by: fred at October 15, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #188302

Bush is the decider. That is what it means to be president. In our democracy people have a right to dissent and we have other centers of power besides the president. But the President has powers and prerogatives others do not.

this above was a early post by jack and it brings out an important element of dissent. dissent flows upward to power never down. it is the less powerful that dissents from the powerful. that is what differentiates it from disagreement. disagreement flows both ways or either way between powers of equality.

to put it simply dissent is an act of insubordination.

we can show this by the fact that in a dictatorship where power is absolute that dissent cannot be allowed or is not allowed.

Posted by: The Griper at October 15, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #188439

Those who say george bush was elected, your are a bunch of liars. Al Gore was duly elected by the majority of the voting public of this country. The supreme court sold the presidency and control of OUR government to gorege and his band of thieves.

Posted by: Juan at October 16, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #188510


If we are all liars, then you are an idiot. Read the Constitution.

Posted by: Keith at October 17, 2006 2:42 AM
Comment #188793

“Bush is the decider. That is what it means to be president.”

Really? Where does it say that in the constitution or anyplace else? Or are we strictly going with Bush’s own interpretation? While it is true that our president actually believes that the executive has ultimate authority to interpret the constitution, thankfully, the supreme court and general population and hundreds of years of legal precedent do not agree.

But he did make that one speach with that one soundbite. Right, griper? And that carries more weight, right?

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 18, 2006 2:37 PM
Post a comment