Awww, Those Poor Bullied Democrats
November 16th, 2007 at 01:22pm Matt Margolis
Democrats are so tough that they’re calling President Bush a “bully.”
Democrats who lead Congress likened President George W. Bush on Thursday to a bully on Iraq war policy and vowed to spend no more on combat without a deadline for bringing U.S. troops home.“He damn sure is not entitled to having this money given to him just with a blank check,” Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrats’ Senate leader, told reporters. “Americans need someone fighting for them taking on this bully we have in the White House.”
Meanwhile as Democrats cry to their mommies about Bush being a bully, they’re denying much needed funds for our troops.
Now it is being reported that Harry Reid is keeping the Senate in session in order to prevent recess appointments. So, Reid whines about so-called “bullying” from Bush, and then pulls his own stunt, which could easily be described a bullying tactic. And Democrats blame Republicans for the partisanship that plagues Congress. If there are positions that need to be filled, but no specifics names being floated for one position or another, then there is no justification for such a move. If Harry Reid wants to set the precedent that the opposing party of the president will block every and any action he tries to make, then Democrat will one day have to lay in the bed they’ve made.
Democrats have already abused the filibuster, how else are they going disrespect the Constitution?
Entry Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Nominations, War on Terror
42 Comments
1. liberalT | November 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Why is having sessions in the recess to prevent recess appointments a bully tactic? Who are they bullying? Given the fact that he has done this before it seems like a sensible way to make sure they play there constitutional role in this democracy..
Explain
2. KCJ | November 16th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
if Bush using his veto power is “bullying” it seems to me that keeping the Senate in session would be too.
3. KCJ | November 16th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Oh, and I can’t wait for some lefty troll here to explain why it is different.
4. Adrian | November 16th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“Democrats have already abused the filibuster, how else are they going disrespect the Constitution?”
Who knows, but more to the point is who is going to care? Voters don’t seem to or there wouldn’t be any Democrats there to do the things they’re doing. So the real question is what can be done about it?
5. SteaM | November 16th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Holding congress in session to ensure there’s proper oversight of important appointments does not seem inapropriate to me. Seems like a good thing, right? We’ve seen what happened when a republican controlled congress let Bush do anything he wanted. Of course sometimes they didn’t let him do anything he wanted… and instead of vetoeing he would just add a signing statement saying he didn’t have to follow the law if he didn’t want to. He had around 1,000 of those by the way.
“If Harry Reid wants to set the precedent that the opposing party of the president will block every and any action he tries to make”
What? Dude, the president has made the precedent that he thinks he can do whatever he wants no matter what Congress has to say.
Why do you guys still support Bush? I’m kinda confused here.
6. anarchist | November 16th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I’m loving the divided government, the real winner is the individual and the taxpayer. The republicans proved over their 6 years of rule that consensus government with big plans, even a republican one, will only lead us down the proverbial Hayekian road to serfdom. There should be an excessive amount of debate and impedance before government is allowed to abolish natural rights or spend money that must be raised ipso facto by coercive taxation.
I want more vetos, more debate and more opposition. You seem to be afraid that the democrats are shackling the government, shackle and limit the government and you free and empower the individual.
7. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
and instead of vetoeing he would just add a signing statement saying he didn’t have to follow the law if he didn’t want to. He had around 1,000 of those by the way. - SteaM
SteaM,
Your obviously new here, and obviously full of left wing talking points fresh from Daily KOS. Which makes your weak assertions so easy to slap down. Read the following, you might learn something.
In using the constitutional signing statement, Clinton was similar to the Bush administration in issuing most in the area of foreign policy (52%), precisely where presidential power is at its zenith. But even where the power of the presidency is clearest, President Clinton was still willing to use the constitutional signing statement from the high profile to the mundane, often to achieve what could not be achieved after veto bargaining had taken place. And like the Bush administration, President Clinton in at least three separate instances asked the OLC to issue opinions either buttressing the president’s authority to decline to enforce provisions of a statute or to direct inferior officers on how to implement the terms of a constitutional signing statement . . . .
For the Clinton administration, the signing statement was an important cornerstone of presidential power, as outlined by Walter Dellinger in his 1993 OLC memo. It would become particularly important after the 1994 midterm elections when the Congress became Republican and more polarized.
8. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Let me try something here: Don’t know if this will work.
9. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
one more time:
10. SteaM | November 16th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
neocon, you’re assumption that i didn’t know that President Clinton (and other presidents) have also used signing statements is incorrect.
I did and do know of this. I’m not denying it.
Also your assumption that I am new here is correct. good job sleuth.
But your assumption that my comments are based on talking points is incorrect. I read the talking points from both sides. But what i say is based on my personal thoughts based on my research. I don’t just say what other people have said unless I do some fact checking and know that they are credible.
Anyways, so I just easily slapped down whatever your point was.
Come on dude, saying “clinton did it too” has really gotten old and does not apply in this case. Bush is doing what clinton did. But not in the same way. Bush is doing severe damage to the system with his actions.
So what do you say? Do you say Bush is bad but so was Clinton? Or do you say that Clinton was bad and… well Clinton was bad… and well, Bush is great!
I don’t get it.
11. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Bush is doing severe damage to the system with his actions. - SteaM
Proof? What specific damage?
I merely pointed out that Bush is exercising his executive priveledge as every other President has. I also found it interesting that Clinton felt the signing statement was a good vehicle to:
“achieve what could not be achieved after veto bargaining had taken place.”
Which is exacly what Bush is doing, yet no one seemed to be up in arms when Clinton exercised his Presidential right.
And then you launch into the typical liberal Daily KOS rebuttal of accusing conservatives of the “blame Clinton” and “Bush is great” canards.
I did neither. Not that you noticed. But your Daily KOS auto pilot mode is obvious.
12. SteaM | November 16th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Well, you did pretty much say “clinton did it too” which is something I see all the time. Gets very old as it’s not a very intelligent conversation at that point.
You hate daily KOS.
You don’t think that our system is broken since Bush has been in office.
I cannot enlighten you. I don’t have time. The information is out there. You just need to weed out the crap and open you mind a little. And stop watching FoxNews.
Even if I gave you proof of what i say I think you’d go google it and find someone that can dispute what I say. So it’s impossible to convince you since your mind is made up.
By the way, I do like KOS but I rarely go read the articles.
13. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
I cannot enlighten you. I don’t have time. - SteaM
Right back at ya.
14. liberalT | November 16th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
KFC–
—-
if Bush using his veto power is “bullying” it seems to me that keeping the Senate in session would be to
—-
using a veto is not the issue. Constitutionally he has every right to . What makes him a bully? Tactics like:
(1) sneaking things past congress when they are in recess
(2) using signing statements - which have never been used by any other president - thats just a lie (please provide specific proof of such a statement being used by anyone in the same way that Bush is). They are not constitutional - show me the passage in the constitution which states he can do this
(3) declaring anybody who disagrees with him someone who “aids and comforts our enemy”
15. Jeremiah | November 16th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I’m going to try the html too, neocon!
16. liberalT | November 16th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I should clarify my statement of signing statements. Other presidents have used them of course - but not in the same manor as Bush. Other presidents have used them as “interpretive” statements. Indicating that they think that they may be unconstitutional.
Bush has used them to attempt to change the meaning of the law. Something which the Supreme court has already ruled on saying is unconstitutional.
17. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Bush has used them to attempt to change the meaning of the law. Something which the Supreme court has already ruled on saying is unconstitutional. - liberalT
Welcome back drama queen. First of all, no, Bush is not changing law. And if his signing statements were unconstitutional then the SC would probably intervene. Don’t ya think?
Secondly, please provide us an example of one of Bushs egregious signing statements. I’ve read a few and they simply pertain to Presidential interpretation and intent. That’s what a signing statement is.
18. Tractatus | November 16th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Meanwhile as Democrats cry to their mommies about Bush being a bully, they’re denying much needed funds for our troops.
Please provide at least one example of Democrats not giving Bush all the war funding he asked for.
You can’t.
I can, however, provide at least one example of Bush being given the funds and then vetoing it, denying the troops. I suppose you have a talking point for that, right, GOP Stenograph–oops, I mean Blogger?
19. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
If I remember correctly, that’s the bill that had the timetable for withdrawal. Bush vetoed that bill which would have prevented the Patreaus surge (which was unanimously voted for by the Congress) from having the recent positive effects.
He sent it back and then finally received exactly what he asked for. An unconditional war funding bill. Bush wins again.
20. plainjane | November 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
#
17. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
And if his signing statements were unconstitutional then the SC would probably intervene. Don’t ya think?
How little you know. The Supreme Court rarely involves itself in disputes between the other two branches.
21. Ricorun | November 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
plainjane: How little you know. The Supreme Court rarely involves itself in disputes between the other two branches.
Actually, I don’t think the issue has come up — at least not in Bush’s term.
22. Kahn | November 16th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Cambridge Officials Put a Stop to Boy Scout Drive to Aid Troops in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311908,00.html
23. Psycheout | November 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
He, excuse my language, damn sure is, Harry Reidtard. He’s the President. You’re a loon. Drink a tall cool glass of shut the heck up.
24. neocon | November 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
My point exactly. Disputes. Not unconstitutional.
25. KCJ | November 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I love reading liberals accuse Bush of doing something they say is bad then someone else points out that Clinton did the same thing of worse, then the liberals whines that conservatives are falling back on thr “Clinton did it too” line. They don’t get that it is not about what Clinton did. It is about their hypocrisy in criticising Bush for something they had or still have no problem with when Clinton did it. already we’ve seen libs here defend something only because Clinton did it. It’s sad really.
26. liberalT | November 17th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Here is the relevant statement from the signing statement they issued on the McCain torture act which specifically outlaws cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees :
“The executive branch shall construe… the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power….”
he specifically invokes the “unitary executive theory” - google that. Its a legal theory which argues that the President does not have to be bound by any law or by congress. He is effect saying - he has the right to ignore the law if he wants to.
Unfortunately its shrouded in technical language but thats the essence of his statement. That is to say he believes he doesn’t have to obey the act.
27. Allce | November 17th, 2007 at 12:46 am
He might appoint diplomats to work in Iraq. He might change the law so that more volunteers can be FSOs.
28. neocon | November 17th, 2007 at 8:59 am
libT,
But also clearly stated his Bushs intent to act “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President” and “consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power….”
So what’s the problem? You don’t like the constitution?
29. liberalT | November 17th, 2007 at 9:25 am
of course i like the constitution. Read it again. He states:
“the executive branch shall construe… the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch”
its a complicated statement. Its the “constitutional authority of the president to supervise the unitary executive branch”. Not that he will act according to the constitution with regards to torture (the constitution says nothing about torture). But rather that he is arguing that he has the constitutional right to supervise the unitary executive branch.
my problem is two fold:
(1) he is arguing that president isn’t bound by acts of congress or the judiciary system (thats the theory of the unitary executive branch)
(2) they also issued a statement on the definition of torture which attempts to redefine it from the way the world court, the geneva conventions, and indeed our own military define torture.
Google those. Under the Mccain act anything that is :
“”cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” is defined as torture. It is hard to see how waterboarding isn’t all three of these by any reasonable definition of any of those three words.
However under Bush - they say its not because it doesn’t lead to “death or permanent physical damage ” The Bush legal team defends the use of waterboarding under his signing statement - and who knows what else - they won’t tell us because supposedly its a national security issue.
My problem with the use of signing statements is precisely this sort of thing. He will sign one thing into law but add something on the end which says - by the way I don’t know have to do anything this says if I don’t personally believe it is against my authority.
Its kind of like looking through the looking glass - at the same time when we are suppose to believe he is so interested in democracy - he tries everything he can to ignore it when it suits him (ignore law by signing statements, ignore public opinion when the public disagrees with him).
30. neocon | November 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
libT,
Well you’ve gone from accusing Bush of blantantly re-writing laws and circumventing the constitution (which was a lie), to now stating that since Bush is using his Presidential authority (which every President has), he is “violating” the will of the people.
What a joke. Next.
31. liberalT | November 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am
but
(1) you didn’t respond to my comment that he is deciding to ignore the McCain act by attaching a signing statement which says in effect that he doesn’t have to adhere to it since he is the president
(2) there are several issues (the Iraq war, health care, torture) where there is a clear majority against his positions which he ignores
I am not interested in insults - just arguments
32. phnx | November 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
By this the President is clearly stating that he will follow the law, but will not surrender constitutionally granted authority of the executive brach to the legislative.
Abd you problem with this is?? (other than the fact that its President Bush)
33. liberalT | November 17th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
no - he is clearly not stating this. Look - if all he was going to do was to say ” i will follow this law but also i assume the powers of the execute branch” then there would be no need to state that. Thats just dumb - he obviously wants the ability to ignore it.
Its simple actually:
by any reasonable definition of “inhumane, cruel, or degrading” the McCain act would outlaw waterboarding. However, we continue to waterboard. He has his own definition of torture which is different than is under us law by the McCain act, by the geneva conventions and by our own military standards specifically so he can do this “legally” how more obvious can it be?
34. neocon | November 17th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
You’re BDS delusional french. Sorry.
35. DougH | November 18th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Tractatus
I’m sure you can provide one example of Bush vetoing a war funding bill but can you give an example of where Bush vetoed a war funding bill, where congress did not over-extend their authourity.
You realize that only the President has authourity to determine troops deployment and any other conditions when he has recieved congressinonal approavel to go to war.
Congress has only one of two choice.
1. Choose not to fund the military
2. Rescend the war authourization.
Democrats in congress are attempting to set a dangerous precedent, which will never happen.
All to appease the anti-war and anti-Bush who voted for them in the last election.
36. liberalT | November 18th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Actually - if you would bother to read the constitution you would see quite clearly that only congress has the authority to declare war.
37. DougH | November 18th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Only Congress has the authority to declare war and only the President has the right to manage the war.
38. liberalT | November 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
and congress has never declared war on Iraq.
39. Blogs For Victory »&hellip | November 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
[…] week, Harry Reid complained that President Bush was acting like a “bully” right before he decided to keep the Senate in session during the Thanksgiving break to avoid any […]
40. uizezoeo&hellip | December 26th, 2007 at 5:12 am
uizezoeo
uizezoeo
41. Health Insurance Californ&hellip | March 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Health Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
42. Cash Loan Advance&hellip | March 27th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Cash Loan Advance
Largest cash program offering quick cash advance nationwide.