That's not where the founders meant us to go, but it is where we are being taken. It's a frightening destination.
Posted on 01/28/2006 5:15:23 PM PST by new yorker 77
So soon the libs forget the multitude of Presidential power grabs signed by Clinton. "Stroke of a pen, the law of the land." Talk about avoiding the Legislative Branch!
To the Editor:
I seldom read the Op/Ed page of any newspaper, much less a paper from Vermont, but I feel compelled to respond to your editorial “A troubling symptom”. It must be terrible to be a member of the apoplectic, impotent Left nowadays. The American electorate has turned out or turned down your leaders, the GOP controls both Houses of Congress and the White House. As any president would, Mr. Bush has sent qualified, highly intelligent candidates that fit his ideology to the Supreme Court.
In other words, the system is working…and you on the Left can’t stand it. Too bad. Instead of crying about how right you are, why not try to engage the American People on their own terms? Why insist, by extrapolation, that we are idiots for voting candidates into office that we actually want, like Mr. Bush? How about dropping the overheated, Bush-bashing rhetoric and speaking calmly instead of screaming? MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, NARAL, Code Pink, Veterans for Peace and others have failed to convince because they (and you) come off so predictably frantic, hate-filled and unbalanced. That will win few votes. So, why not publicly oppose them and their methods?
Actually, I am quite happy about this turn of events. I believe Judge Alito (or Alioto as Ted Kennedy called him) will be brilliant as Associate Justice Alito, showing his wisdom, experience and intelligence on the Supreme Court as he has done on the Circuit Court.
So, keep up the good work. The crazier you on the Left appear, the better Americans will see your true natures and send your devolved, childish thinking to the ash heap of history.
The valid argument the liberals have is "Two words: President Hillary." I find it scary, because the conservatives may focus on terrorists, but President Hillary? Who are her enemies?
And, if elected, it will make no difference to her what the law is. It has never made a difference to the Clintons.
Were there laws that allowed them to junk the White House Travel Office? Were there laws that allowed them to secure 900 FBI files on their opponents? Were there laws that enabled them to collect millions in Chinese money to support their re-election?
Thinking in terms of legislation that will forbid abuses of power is self-defeating in their case. When (if) they have power, they WILL abuse it.
The only protection we have from the Clintons and their like is not to elect them in the first place.
I would say that anyone who is not a Marxist has the potential to be on her enemies list. Heck, any Marxist who forgets to blindly follow the party line won't be safe for that matter.
Let Al Gore get caught breaking a law that was so clear that nobody ever violated it before, and he says "there is no controlling legal authority" - insinuating but not saying in plain language that there is reason to suppose that the law is unconstitutional and he is challenging it (of course he never did, because with Janet Reno in the Justice Department his bluff was never called).Here we have a situation where the law has been tested in court, and the president was found to have the authority Bush is claiming. Not merely is there "no controlling legal authority" against the president - there is controlling legal authority in favor of the president.
Thanks for the target i'll bring it to the the shooting range and yes i will put a bulls eye in the center.
Just what I have said all along, no matter what the Dims are accusing the Bush Admin of, they are and have been doing the same.
I love when people like Al Sharpton say things like "Why haven't we gotten Osama yet?" And that if he was elected President, he would get him, as if the president should personally get on a C130, grab an M16, and go hunting in Bora Bora. Does he think Bush intentially let him go? Why? For what reason?
No matter who is in the White House, would they not still have the same military commanders and troops, and the same CIA and FBI? Do they think everyone would be fired and all new people would take over and solve all the problems and trouble Bush got us into? Get real!
Excellent.
Don't forget that Klintoon FIRED EVERY FEDERAL ATTORNEY when he took office and only hired back those recommended by dims. Not one damn word from MSM. It still bothers me that President Bush REFUSED to clean up DOJ, State, CIA, FBI and on and on when he took office and it came back to haunt him (leaks, leaks and more leaks and outright lies from his people. He still doesn't get it.
The left is total lost.
They can not grasp that conservatives ARE the majority and the looney left was only in power because there was no way to expose the lies.
(ie walter cronkite is a bit lefty liar, jimmy carter is a raging socialist egomaniac, and feminism is about promoting lesbians and destroying parenthood.)
keep in mind MOST ALL new fed judges come from the ranks of prosecutors in the DOJ.
GWBush may pick the judges but Clinton has all but rigged the judical candidate pool.
That's not where the founders meant us to go, but it is where we are being taken. It's a frightening destination.
GWBush may pick the judges but Clinton has all but rigged the judical candidate pool.
I had forgotten that negative part of it. T;hat's pretty heavy. thanks
Rather than one chief executive and commander in chief who is directly accountable to the electorate and their elected representatives, I think it'd be far better to run our country by the consensus of 535 prima donnas, most of whom have no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.