BasketCase
Username sez it all
This came up on local talk radio, so I haven't got a link to it. But then, whether it's verifiable is unimportant anyway. You'll see why in a bit.
The skinny: Some guy on the radio (I forget the name) said Bush should be "censured or impeached" because he is "not listening to Congress" (his focus was mostly on getting the U.S. out of Iraq). That the people have spoken via their vote in 2006 and Bush should do what Congress wants, is the basic gist of where this guy was going.
I disagree with everything he said (side note: it wasn't a guy actually speaking on the radio--the host was playing back a recording of some rally somewhere), but I'm glad he said it, because his words gave me some new insight on the U.S. government. The eye-opener was when I realized the actual way in which this knucklehead was wrong.
Presidents have always been disagreeing with Congress (Duh factor five, Captain). Our speaker, above, has lost sight of this. Or, maybe he doesn't care. In the end, it's simply another politician doing what politicians actually do: pursue an agenda at all costs.
The simple truth is: that's not the way the U.S. government is supposed to work. Nobody demanded of Clinton that he listen to the Republican Congress he got saddled with in 2004. Or that Reagan listen to the Democratic Congress he spent six of his eight years with. I never heard anybody make such demands of the President, and anybody who did was wrong to do so. The Democrats certainly did not say "the President should listen to Congress" when said Congress was full of Rebublicans. Back then the Democrats were saying this: "the country should follow our agenda, regardless of the fact that the voters voted against us last election".
When "the people" spoke in 2006, here's what they actually said: "We're leaning in favor of the Democrats, but not far enough as to give them a veto-proof majority". For that matter, nobody has proposed taking away the President's veto power. Regardless of what people are saying, everything is made clear by what they're doing--they're leaving the American system of government alone. And this is the way that government is supposed to work. The President and Congress are supposed to be at each others' throats from time to time.
Now, in many other CFC threads of this type, the Original Poster paints the issue as one of conspiracy-theory flavor and with dire consequence if his or her agenda isn't followed. Not me. I don't see a problem here. The guy up top who slammed Bush for turning a deaf ear to Congress? He's not a danger to anybody, because the U.S. government is specifically designed to shut down people like him.
Not worried.
The skinny: Some guy on the radio (I forget the name) said Bush should be "censured or impeached" because he is "not listening to Congress" (his focus was mostly on getting the U.S. out of Iraq). That the people have spoken via their vote in 2006 and Bush should do what Congress wants, is the basic gist of where this guy was going.
I disagree with everything he said (side note: it wasn't a guy actually speaking on the radio--the host was playing back a recording of some rally somewhere), but I'm glad he said it, because his words gave me some new insight on the U.S. government. The eye-opener was when I realized the actual way in which this knucklehead was wrong.
Presidents have always been disagreeing with Congress (Duh factor five, Captain). Our speaker, above, has lost sight of this. Or, maybe he doesn't care. In the end, it's simply another politician doing what politicians actually do: pursue an agenda at all costs.
The simple truth is: that's not the way the U.S. government is supposed to work. Nobody demanded of Clinton that he listen to the Republican Congress he got saddled with in 2004. Or that Reagan listen to the Democratic Congress he spent six of his eight years with. I never heard anybody make such demands of the President, and anybody who did was wrong to do so. The Democrats certainly did not say "the President should listen to Congress" when said Congress was full of Rebublicans. Back then the Democrats were saying this: "the country should follow our agenda, regardless of the fact that the voters voted against us last election".
When "the people" spoke in 2006, here's what they actually said: "We're leaning in favor of the Democrats, but not far enough as to give them a veto-proof majority". For that matter, nobody has proposed taking away the President's veto power. Regardless of what people are saying, everything is made clear by what they're doing--they're leaving the American system of government alone. And this is the way that government is supposed to work. The President and Congress are supposed to be at each others' throats from time to time.
Now, in many other CFC threads of this type, the Original Poster paints the issue as one of conspiracy-theory flavor and with dire consequence if his or her agenda isn't followed. Not me. I don't see a problem here. The guy up top who slammed Bush for turning a deaf ear to Congress? He's not a danger to anybody, because the U.S. government is specifically designed to shut down people like him.
Not worried.
If President Bush screws up enough that that many of his own party side with the Democrats, then he's probably wrong on this issue, anyway - which means the system is working just fine. I agree with BasketCase.
