OK, all you self-loathing conservatives please tell me, how can you have confidence in a President that has confidence in Alberto Gonzales, a man who “can’t recall” or “I don’t remember” so many times. Let me ask you, if you were the CEO of a company, and something bad happened, and you asked your main man, WTF happened here? And he said “I can’t comment on something I don’t remember”, would you can his ass??? Be honest, whether you want to or not!
you ain’t got to go home, but you got to get the hell up outta here.
You would say that to Gonzo, right??? You are a man among men, if so!
If I were CEO, I’d tell my subordinate to sack up and quit act like he did something wrong when he didn’t.
Then I’d tell the jackholes chasing him down to do their own job instead of trying to do mine.
[quote]micromuscle wrote:
OK, all you self-loathing conservatives please tell me, how can you have confidence in a President that has confidence in Alberto Gonzales, a man who “can’t recall” or “I don’t remember” so many times. Let me ask you, if you were the CEO of a company, and something bad happened, and you asked your main man, WTF happened here? And he said “I can’t comment on something I don’t remember”, would you can his ass??? Be honest, whether you want to or not![/quote]
Short answer: if Bush cans Gonzales, it sets a precedent that an aggressive Congress can influence who works in the executive branch and who doesn’t by applying pressure. If Gonzales leaves, a door is opened that we don’t want.
Oh, and good to see another 14 year old quasi-troll around here. We needed another one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
micromuscle wrote:
OK, all you self-loathing conservatives please tell me, how can you have confidence in a President that has confidence in Alberto Gonzales, a man who “can’t recall” or “I don’t remember” so many times. Let me ask you, if you were the CEO of a company, and something bad happened, and you asked your main man, WTF happened here? And he said “I can’t comment on something I don’t remember”, would you can his ass??? Be honest, whether you want to or not!
Short answer: if Bush cans Gonzales, it sets a precedent that an aggressive Congress can influence who works in the executive branch and who doesn’t by applying pressure. If Gonzales leaves, a door is opened that we don’t want.
Oh, and good to see another 14 year old quasi-troll around here. We needed another one.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Short answer: if Bush cans Gonzales, it sets a precedent that an aggressive Congress can influence who works in the executive branch and who doesn’t by applying pressure. If Gonzales leaves, a door is opened that we don’t want.
[/quote]
Well, he looked very very bad on the hearings. Now THAT is the behavior emboldening the enemy.
You have to wonder if the heat Bush’s suffering from would be as heavy if he didn’t invade Iraq.
My 2 cts.
clinton was always so much more forthcoming.
methinks you will apply logic a bit differently to bill.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Short answer: if Bush cans Gonzales, it sets a precedent that an aggressive Congress can influence who works in the executive branch and who doesn’t by applying pressure. If Gonzales leaves, a door is opened that we don’t want.[/quote]
Leaving aside the fact that I think that the various branches of government have always influenced each other by using pressure, bargaining, threatening etc (it is the natural outcome of a multi-partite government where each part wields differing powers) your claims leaves us with the sad fact that the executive branch should keep someone who’s obviously unfit for the job, simply to save face and show that they won’t be influenced.
In other words, only people from the party in power should get to criticize each other, which, of course, they have often little inclination to do. While the opposing party might have too much incentive in finding fault, when the fault is real and damaging, it should be acknowledged in a non-partisan way and dealt with.
Dealing with those issue at the earliest would prevent those long drawn out media circuses and prevent everyone from entrenching themselves in their position, making them ever more likely to ignore a problem simply to save face.
[quote]pookie wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Short answer: if Bush cans Gonzales, it sets a precedent that an aggressive Congress can influence who works in the executive branch and who doesn’t by applying pressure. If Gonzales leaves, a door is opened that we don’t want.
Leaving aside the fact that I think that the various branches of government have always influenced each other by using pressure, bargaining, threatening etc (it is the natural outcome of a multi-partite government where each part wields differing powers) your claims leaves us with the sad fact that the executive branch should keep someone who’s obviously unfit for the job, simply to save face and show that they won’t be influenced.
In other words, only people from the party in power should get to criticize each other, which, of course, they have often little inclination to do. While the opposing party might have too much incentive in finding fault, when the fault is real and damaging, it should be acknowledged in a non-partisan way and dealt with.
Dealing with those issue at the earliest would prevent those long drawn out media circuses and prevent everyone from entrenching themselves in their position, making them ever more likely to ignore a problem simply to save face.
[/quote]
Good post. Very, very good post.
The polarization of politics today has risen to a disgusting level.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Leaving aside the fact that I think that the various branches of government have always influenced each other by using pressure, bargaining, threatening etc (it is the natural outcome of a multi-partite government where each part wields differing powers) your claims leaves us with the sad fact that the executive branch should keep someone who’s obviously unfit for the job, simply to save face and show that they won’t be influenced.[/quote]
The problem, of course, is that wanting it to be that way doesn’t mean that is what we have.
Serving at the President’s pleasure has that inherent risk - if we don’t want it, then we have to formally change the legal nature of that relationship.
Of course, doing so runs into what many consider a bigger problem - proper separation of powers. Is it worth it to have a schmuck like Gonzales in his position sometimes to preserve ironclad separation of powers?
To me, the answer is yes.
Well, there is a qualitative difference in being publicly critical and trying to use legitimate Congressional powers (subpoena power, etc.) to try and lean on executive appointees.
Take to the editorial pages of the NYT, make speeches, no problem - but when formal government power is used, a line gets crossed. And we all presume bad things happen when you cross it, else we wouldn’t have set the government up this way.
And, what Senate wouldn’t use this to aggravate an executive they didn’t like, once the precedent is established?
Earlier is better, but it can’t be done in a way where the legislative branch meddles with the executive.
The reverse is also true. Congress enjoys certain insulation from the executive branch - and we don’t want to tear down that wall either.
There will always be situations where some moron gets appointed - but the price of Congressional intervention is too high.
The Dems are attempting to blur the lines between the branches of government, with this unwarranted attack on AG. The goal, in their minds, is simply power.
BUT: Do they realize the long term implications of obtaining power in this way? Maybe they do, which is all the worse for us. That makes them evil.
Thunderbolt understands the issue and he is correct. This sets a VERY dangerous precedent.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The problem, of course, is that wanting it to be that way doesn’t mean that is what we have.[/quote]
Good point. But always tolerating what’s there because it is what it is, is not conductive to eventually improving the solution.
Unfortunately, I think you’re right; if not necessarily on the principle of the thing, at least in the pragmatic reality that not enough people care enough about and get involved in politics to prevent most of our elected officials to get away with conduct they should never even consider.
The problem with extremely partisan politics as we’ve been seeing these past years is that those methods don’t seem to carry the weight they used too.
A NY Times editorial will be countered by dozens of right-wing media outlets, and vice versa. If you can spin enough doubt in the public’s mind, you can take the wind out of the sail of any outcry.
When public dissent is seen as treason and asking questions described as giving comfort to the enemy, we can’t be too surprised when other, more coercitive legal means are brought to bear.
[quote]And, what Senate wouldn’t use this to aggravate an executive they didn’t like, once the precedent is established?
Earlier is better, but it can’t be done in a way where the legislative branch meddles with the executive.[/quote]
Dealing with it earlier, I believe, would make it easier to invoke another reason than congress’ applied pressure. Only by flatly refusing to acknowledge a problem and dragging the whole thing out through an escalation of pressure tactics does the executive branch paint itself in a corner.
At this point, giving any ground will create precedent; but it didn’t have to be this way.
The other upside is that people might be more inclined to trust their elected official if they showed enough backbone to do what’s right without having to fight it out to the last option every time.
Yes, I know, I’m a dreamer.
[quote]The reverse is also true. Congress enjoys certain insulation from the executive branch - and we don’t want to tear down that wall either.
There will always be situations where some moron gets appointed - but the price of Congressional intervention is too high.[/quote]
At this point, you’re probably right. It is still frustrating to have to endure those situations simply because the simple solution might cause more problems in the long run.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
micromuscle wrote:
OK, all you self-loathing conservatives please tell me, how can you have confidence in a President that has confidence in Alberto Gonzales, a man who “can’t recall” or “I don’t remember” so many times. Let me ask you, if you were the CEO of a company, and something bad happened, and you asked your main man, WTF happened here? And he said “I can’t comment on something I don’t remember”, would you can his ass??? Be honest, whether you want to or not!
Short answer: if Bush cans Gonzales, it sets a precedent that an aggressive Congress can influence who works in the executive branch and who doesn’t by applying pressure. If Gonzales leaves, a door is opened that we don’t want.
Oh, and good to see another 14 year old quasi-troll around here. We needed another one.[/quote]
It would actually make me more confident that Bush would have the balls to get rid of one of his “Bushies”. Show some nutz, instead of his “because I said so” attitude. Oh, you and your Civil War hero pic can bite my ass, I’m a 33 year old female who states her mind… Dick…
[quote]micromuscle wrote:
It would actually make me more confident that Bush would have the balls to get rid of one of his “Bushies”. Show some nutz, instead of his “because I said so” attitude. Oh, you and your Civil War hero pic can bite my ass, I’m a 33 year old female who states her mind… Dick…[/quote]
Perhaps you should use it a little more.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Yes, I know, I’m a dreamer.[/quote]
I actually agree in principle, but another side has to be appreciated - if we allow Congress to have this subtle “censor” function (not as in shutting speech down, more like the Roman censor), the “gentlemen’s agreement” would have to include that Congress would promise to use it fairly and responsibly, not just to play partisan politics.
For example, let’s say Gonzales is just ridiculously unfit for the job, and pressure deserves to be brought to get him out. Let’s say this extreme example - Gonzales is an inept moron - justifies it. Can Congress, in the future, be counted on only to use that pressure in extreme examples? Or will they smell blood and go after people that are plenty competent, but they just don’t like?
If the President has a responsibility to consider Congressional pressure to get rid of an executive appointee, Congress too has a responsibility to use the pressure only in extreme cases.
With politics so polarized, no way that will happen - and no one will blink first.
[quote]At this point, you’re probably right. It is still frustrating to have to endure those situations simply because the simple solution might cause more problems in the long run.
[/quote]
I agree - the one thing I hate now more than any other political topic is the lack of institutional integrity. No one cares how the process should work. No one respects the process. It is all about partisan victory, regardless if it shreds the integrity of the process.
This goes for both parties. The Republicans have been terrible stewards of “good government” principles, and Democrats pretend the Constitution doesn’t exist in their attempts to do anything to hurt Bush. A plague on both their houses.
I said it before: the first candidate that starts talking about the importance of how government is supposed to work is likely to get a lot of support from me.
[quote]micromuscle wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
micromuscle wrote:
OK, all you self-loathing conservatives please tell me, how can you have confidence in a President that has confidence in Alberto Gonzales, a man who “can’t recall” or “I don’t remember” so many times. Let me ask you, if you were the CEO of a company, and something bad happened, and you asked your main man, WTF happened here? And he said “I can’t comment on something I don’t remember”, would you can his ass??? Be honest, whether you want to or not!
Short answer: if Bush cans Gonzales, it sets a precedent that an aggressive Congress can influence who works in the executive branch and who doesn’t by applying pressure. If Gonzales leaves, a door is opened that we don’t want.
Oh, and good to see another 14 year old quasi-troll around here. We needed another one.
It would actually make me more confident that Bush would have the balls to get rid of one of his “Bushies”. Show some nutz, instead of his “because I said so” attitude. Oh, you and your Civil War hero pic can bite my ass, I’m a 33 year old female who states her mind… Dick…[/quote]
I get a kick out of this fellow also ,his points of veiw don’t jive with his civil war hero,if he reads his history his hero was another over rated drunk with a ton of problems,just happened to be a yes man in that good ol’ boys club of the time.
The Congress was set up by our forefathers to keep the prez in check… So he wouldn’t abuse powers. There are many brains at work there, where there is one brain (questionably) at work inside Bush’s head…
I would trust the Congress, no matter who controlled it, Rep. or Dem., more than the fool we have living in the WhiteHouse (although he seems to run to the ranch more than he stays in D.C.). You guys are really defending a borderline retard.
[quote]ron33 wrote:
I get a kick out of this fellow also ,his points of veiw don’t jive with his civil war hero[/quote]
No? Do tell.
This should be interesting.
[quote]micromuscle wrote:
The Congress was set up by our forefathers to keep the prez in check… So he wouldn’t abuse powers. There are many brains at work there, where there is one brain (questionably) at work inside Bush’s head…
I would trust the Congress, no matter who controlled it, Rep. or Dem., more than the fool we have living in the WhiteHouse (although he seems to run to the ranch more than he stays in D.C.). You guys are really defending a borderline retard.[/quote]
…whose test scores exceeded or equaled John Kerry’s, when both entered the service.
You would trust Congress? The Congress that was recently bought with ‘pork’ by Nancy and company, to pass the Iraq withdrawal Resolution?
Naivete is one of your qualities, I see.
And welcome to the Political Forum.