Righties... don't you feel that the current administration is setting a negative precident for future ones?

Question

Think about it. Despite what you hope happens in the 08' elections, there is a better than good chance that Bush's antics are going to cost the Republicans the White House. Are you going to be okay with a Democrat Administration being able to play the same games with Congress that Bush/Cheney does? Are you going to be okay with say Hillary Clinton using "signing statements" to inhibit Congress from asserting it's right to checks and balances? Are you going to be cool if say Bill Clinton refuses to turn over documents because he's suddenly NOT in the Executive Branch anymore? Because everything that Bush and Cheney get away with now will be acceptable behavior for adminsitrations in the future.

Alfalfa - I hardly think Righty is a negative label.. it's a term of endearment..in Bush's case, it's a term of endurement. And face it...the way some of you guys throw the "liberal" word around, you would think it was the new "n" word.

Aimie - Examples? Let me guess...Clinton? Clinton did set a bad example and he's part of the reason Bush gets away with twisting the law to meet his own ends. However, Clinton lied about oral sex with an intern. Bush seems to lie about everything.

Answer 1

I agree and it is quite dispicable. I'm not sure what makes them think they don't need to respond to subpoenas, but apparently they are outside the realm of government oversight. Not that I trust the government to oversee itself, but this is just ridiculous. Its time the people oversaw the government and changed the whole system to get rid of these corrupt fat-cats on both sides and put people in there who actually want to see this country, not their own pocketbook, do well. Thanks and have a nice day,

Answer 2

There is nothing new here. Clinton was Executive Order happy. He bailed out Mexico with a special fund. All presidents have done the same.

Don't get wrapped up in the "signing statements" fear mongering, either. Congress is deliberately subpoenaing records and such without any criminal charges being made first. They know damned well they have no right to any senstive documents from the Executive Branch as part of a fishing expedition. The only reason they are doing it is to make the Administration have to refuse so it can be splashed all over the front pages of newspapers and websites.

Just like you and me, a prosecutor cannot supeona our personal records to see if we have done something wrong. He needs probable cause that a crime has been committed and we would need to be accused of that crime. Then the prosecutor would be able to search.

That is, unless we were Rush Limbaugh being persued by a liberal prosecutor supported by a liberal court. Then they could even supeona personal medical records looking for a crime that we were not even charged with. Or if we were Tom Delay and a liberal prosecutor was shopping grand juries. Or if we were Duke Lacross players and were being prosecuted by a liberal Mike Nifong who could see no reason to follow the rules of discovery.

But other than those exceptions, Congress may only supeona records from the President and his people if they first charge a crime. That has not happened even though a lot of liberals wish they would. The democrats in congress are not dopey enough to charge a crime where none has been committed because the same thing could be done by a republican congress against a democrat president.

But this posturing for the simpleminded seems to work for the democrats so they keep asking questions they have no right to ask just to make the Administration refuse to answer and look like they are hiding something. Just the usual democrat playbook.

.

Answer 3

The Republican congress was outraged, absolutely outraged, when Hillary apparently stonewalled them for a few weeks on turning over records from her personal law practice dating back to the 70's (which had absolutely nothing to do with then President Clinton), but now are all about "executive privilege" on something that occurred last year and directly pertains to the business of the country.

So, you are right, when Hillary or whomever trys to pull something similar, the cons will be outraged but won't have much of a case.

Answer 4

The dreamnt up charges you libs are hunting for will never appear. I as a "rightie", I feel Bush has strayed from the political idealogy of the party and is harming the conservative movement that way. Not because he has done anything illegal.

Answer 5

You are implying that past administrations have offered full disclosure, which is simply not the case.

EDIT: That's just what you're doing...guessing. When I say "past administrations", that's exactly what I mean: past administrations! Why are we splitting hairs here? I did not name specifics...in this context, and to answer this question, they do not matter.
You asked if the current administration is setting a precedent. The answer is, NO, it is not.

Answer 6

I condone very little of what's been happening on the hill. It's been out of our hands for a long time.

It's time to clean the slate and start over. I do hate the idea of yet another 'politician' getting voted into office.

Answer 7

I think bush with his policies has set a damn good precedent on foriegn affairs by taking on the worlds dirty laundry bcuz unfortunately no one else has the balls to do it, and i dont think that the dems will win 08

Answer 8

hell no i think everyone needs a change a "HERO" not a wimp, or ***** or actor. we need a neutral commander, a take charge president not a fake good president but a real take charge person who will always TAKE A STAND IN WHAT HE BELIEVES!!!! NOT A PRESIDENT Afraid of pissing people off. we need our congress@ senate to act as one for all!!

Answer 9

Don't you think that by using names such as "righties" or as others have said, "neo-con" or some other name calling and constantly bashing my President and me that you are setting a negative precident and furthering the divide between us?

Answer 10

Since both parties are in cahoots to make us all slaves to the elitists, what can you do.