Bush being better than a Democrat shoudln't be confused with gravitas. Reagan had gravitas and didn't respect Bush Sr who lacked it. Bush Jr is a lightweight like his father and we're seeing new signs of it every day. He won't do anything politically dangerous which means he'll stay in the mushy middle, like father like son.
As for Will, well....who cares. Baseball season is here so he will be immersed in that.
And sorry Rush. You didn't start the bitching & moaning about Bush. It has always been going on by conservatives who are masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It's not always about you, Rush.
Conservatives bitched & moaned all during the election about everything the Bush campaign did or didn't do. The armchair campaing managers have turned into armchair generals and armchair policy wonks.
W will continue to be W. Like it or not. And if you don't like it, there is Howards Phillips, Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, Gary Bauer, and the rest of the uber-conservatives who you can start leg humping on.
What a novel idea. Good on ya Rush.
Bush-Bashing by Bill Bennett
Patrick J. Buchanan
March 22 2002
"Your words can be interpreted in such ways that they hurt national resolve," thundered William J. Bennett at Jimmy Carter's remark that President Bush's "axis of evil" phrase was unhelpful.
Imputing a near lack of patriotism to war critics, Bennett that day launched his Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, AVOT. Mission: Stalk and shame the war critics. "Our goal," said Bennett, "is to fortify public opinion in the war against terrorism."
Only days later, a perfect AVOT target came into view. Under the contemptuous headline – "Where Bush Rewards Terror" – some wretch had accused our president of making "concessions to terrorism" and "ceding ... lands to dictators."
Stunned by this attack on our commander in chief on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, I wondered: "Where is AVOT? Where is Bill?" Then I noted the name of the miscreant who had savaged our president. It seemed familiar. Indeed it was – "William J. Bennett"!
What had the president done to merit Bennett's invoking of Munich and the Holocaust? ("The world, we thought, would long note what the long march of Jewish blood libels, mixed with the ceding of land to dictators, caused.")
The president had suggested that Ariel Sharon's rampage through refugee camps with tanks, where hundreds were cut down including women and children, was "not helpful." Worse, his vice president had agreed to meet with Yasser Arafat, if Arafat showed seriousness in trying to halt the violence.
What is going on here? Bennett's piece is a shot across the president's bow by a front man for "Bibi's Boys," those acolytes of the once-and-future Prime Minister "Bibi" Netanyahu. Their scribblings may be found, disguised as "conservative commentary," on op-ed pages of the major media and in National Review, Commentary, The New Republic and The Weekly Standard.
Bibi's Boys have seized upon Sept. 11 as their last, best hope to morph America's war into Israel's war. They look with anticipation to what Norman Podhoretz calls "World War IV," a clash of civilizations between America and Islam, with Israel as America's first, even if only, ally.
"America's fate and Israel's fate are one and the same," proclaims Bennett.
But how can this be? Between 1776 and 1948, America grew from 13 rural colonies on the seaboard of North America into the greatest economic and military power in history – a republic without peer – before Israel ever existed. In what sense, then, are our fates "one and the same"? Bennett's answer: "We are both democracies."
Well, yes, but the United States and Britain are both democracies, and were allies in two world wars. But that did not prevent President Eisenhower from telling Britain – and Israel's David Ben Gurion – to get out of Suez and Sinai in 1956.
Bennett is constantly calling for "moral clarity." But, mental clarity is also in order here. While Israel is indeed our ally in the war on terror, its annexations of Arab land, its dispossession of the Palestinian people, and its denial of their right to a homeland and state of their own on land their fathers farmed for a thousand years are a principal cause of this war and a primary reason why America's reputation has been ravaged in the Arab world.
Bennett also savages the president's father for having restrained Israel in 1991. "[W]hen the United States asked Israel not to defend itself after Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles at it during the liberation of Kuwait," America sent the world a message, says Bennett. "The message is this: Jewish blood is cheap. ... Terrorism works. The message may not be deliberate, but it is tragically clear."
This is a blood libel against the president's father. In 1991, he gave Israel Patriot missile batteries, $5 billion in aid and $10 billion in loan guarantees, then smashed Israel's mortal enemy, Iraq, asking only that America be allowed to do it ourselves. To Bennett, this translates into "Jewish blood is cheap." Someone should remind Bennett that, in the Gulf War, it was American blood that was shed.
"Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza is not the problem for the Arabs. Democracy is the problem," writes Bennett. But is Bennett saying that if Israel became a dictatorship, she would be welcome in the Middle East? This is nonsense.
The president must and does condemn as barbaric and evil these terror attacks on Israeli civilians. But if America is to be the Great Power broker of peace in the Middle East, we must make clear where American policy differs from Sharonite practices – or Ariel Sharon will drag America's reputation through the mud and blood of Ramallah and Bethlehem until there is nothing left of it.
But if the president does, as he must, he must also expect more of the same from Bibi's Boys.
So now we know!
First of all, CFR is going to be overturned by SCOTUS. For the first time, we are going to demand results tied to our foreign aid (and YES we do have to do something to turn around the influence of the madrassas or we'll be stuck killing terrorists for the next 100 years). As to the schools, we finally have accountability. OK, so we threw some money at them, but if we hadn't the dems would have found something else to spend it on.
Just keep bi*ching people and we're going to end up with a democrat house and democrat senate. You're doing the dems work for them.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. Its existence is provided for in Article III of the Constitution, although Congress is given the power to determine the size of the Court. The size of the court is set by Congress and currently consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices.
Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life by the President. They may be removed only by death, resignation or impeachment. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review. It may declare acts of Congress or of state governments unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The Supreme Court decides cases by a majority vote and its decisions are final.
Franklin D. Roosevelt came into conflict with the Supreme Court during his period in office. The chief justice, Charles Hughes, had been the Republican Party presidential candidate in 1916. Herbert Hoover appointed Hughes in 1930 and had led the court's opposition to some of the proposed New Deal legislation. This included the ruling against the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and ten other New Deal laws.
On 2nd February, 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt made a speech attacking the Supreme Court for its actions over New Deal legislation. He pointed out that seven of the nine judges (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, Benjamin Cardozo and Pierce Butler) had been appointed by Republican presidents. Roosevelt had just won re-election by 10,000,000 votes and resented the fact that the justices could veto legislation that clearly had the support of the vast majority of the public.
The Constitution is deliberately inefficient.
The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers is also known as "Checks and Balances."
Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.
Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited by another branch.
For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution.
All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant.
The following are the powers of the Executive: veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power. The checks: The Legislative branch can override vetoes; can refuse to confirm appointments and reject treaties; can declare war; can impeach the President. The Judicial branch can declare Executive acts as unconstitutional.
The following are the powers of the Legislature: Passes all federal laws; establishes all lower federal courts; can override a Presidential veto; can impeach the President. The checks: The Executive can veto any bill and can call the Congress into session. The Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional. In addition, the two houses of Congress must agree on legislation, providing an internal check.
The following are the powers of the Judiciary: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional. The checks: The Executive appoints members. The Legislative can impeach judges and has approval power over Presidential appointments; it can also propose amendments to overturn judicial decisions.
Historically, the concept of Separation of Powers dates back as far as ancient Greece. The concepts were refined by contemporaries of the Framers, and those refinements influenced the establishment of the three branches in the Constitution.
History of the Veto
Tracing the veto back to the Roman Republic, Spitzer states that the veto was used by tribunes to protect plebeian interests from those of the patricians. And, as a result of their conquests, the concept of the veto was spread throughout Europe, eventually coming to be one of the last vestiges of power the British monarchs had over the law-making process.
From there the veto made its way to America. But due to the experiences the colonies had had with the veto, they initially made it unavailable to those in power. However, by the time the founders met in Philadelphia, the question was not whether or not to include the veto – or as it was known at the time, the negative – in the Constitution, but whether it should be absolute or qualified.
It should be noted, though, that the founders intended the veto not just as a block to bad legislation, but as a revisionary tool whereby the president and Congress could come to an agreement on a proposed bill. This revisionary intent is an aspect of the veto that has all but disappeared over the years.
Would you mind posting some examples of people telling you to "shut up"? That would go a long way in proving your point.
Are you talking about yourself here? Do you have that high opinon of yourself? You are the one that has been telling people (me) that they are not "true freepers" if they don't join the "dump bush" movement or continually pointing to the quote of what Bush "should say" in the Forum home page as if to say fall in line or go against the Forum's purpose. You feel you are taking heat? Hell TBL you are just a small growl in a very large pack. Get over yourself.
How else do we explain his inconsistent behavior?
Still, better a suit full of empty than a suit full of Gore.