Jump to content

Bush in 2016??


Recommended Posts

So is Jeb Bush silly enough to think that he can run, win the primary and then the general election? Does he really think he can overcome his Brother's lousy presidency and the disdain that exists for George the younger? That he can separate himself from that politically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So is Jeb Bush silly enough to think that he can run, win the primary and then the general election? Does he really think he can overcome his Brother's lousy presidency and the disdain that exists for George the younger? That he can separate himself from that politically?

 

Depends on what Independents think in the end. It will have been 8 years since his brother signed off, not exactly the most stellar 8 years.... Ironically, Obama, the anti-Bush, will probably provide the best constrast for him- since GWB and BHO were earily similar with regards to expansion of power and spying. People have short memories, don't be suprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what Independents think in the end. It will have been 8 years since his brother signed off, not exactly the most stellar 8 years.... Ironically, Obama, the anti-Bush, will probably provide the best constrast for him- since GWB and BHO were earily similar with regards to expansion of power and spying. People have short memories, don't be suprised.

 

Bush's expansion of power came with the backing of Congress, while Obama's has come from him grabbing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is Jeb Bush silly enough to think that he can run, win the primary and then the general election? Does he really think he can overcome his Brother's lousy presidency and the disdain that exists for George the younger? That he can separate himself from that politically?

 

Romney has a horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... what?

 

The concept of the Unitary Executive was backed by Congress?

 

No, but Congress has been progressively, willfully granting the executive more and more power at their own expense. If Obama's unilateral "rewrite by press conference" changes to the ACA are the most blatant examples, it's only because he stands on the shoulders of the giant pinheads preceding him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but Congress has been progressively, willfully granting the executive more and more power at their own expense. If Obama's unilateral "rewrite by press conference" changes to the ACA are the most blatant examples, it's only because he stands on the shoulders of the giant pinheads preceding him.

Framing it that way, then yes; however, that stance also acknowledges that President Obama's grabs have been made with the same passive approval.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Framing it that way, then yes; however, that stance also acknowledges that President Obama's grabs have been made with the same passive approval.

 

I agree.

 

I'm also not sure which is worse. Congress under the Bush Administration willfully handed over authority. Congress under Obama has effectively refused to admit they even have any authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I agree.

 

I'm also not sure which is worse. Congress under the Bush Administration willfully handed over authority. Congress under Obama has effectively refused to admit they even have any authority.

Different phases on the same time-line, the former inexorably leading to the latter.

 

Neither is better or worse; both are just symptoms of the actual problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different phases on the same time-line, the former inexorably leading to the latter.

 

Neither is better or worse; both are just symptoms of the actual problem.

 

One of them, however you might dislike it, follows the Constitution while the other one sticks a big middle finger at the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

One of them, however you might dislike it, follows the Constitution while the other one sticks a big middle finger at the Constitution.

The Constitution permits Congress to authorize the Executive to do whatever it desires?

 

What Constitution?

 

Certainly not the United States Constitution.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution permits Congress to authorize the Executive to do whatever it desires?

 

What Constitution?

 

Certainly not the United States Constitution.

 

The Constitution permits Congress to pass laws; should those laws cede Congressional powers to the President, then effectively the Constitution does do so. See the War Powers Act.

 

(Yes, I know that's a really slippery example.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution permits Congress to authorize the Executive to do whatever it desires?

 

What Constitution?

 

Certainly not the United States Constitution.

 

Congress can rescind those powers that it granted Bush if it chooses. They can't rescind the powers Obama grabbed. We would hope that the SCOTUS would step in but Obama still has another middle finger. Comparing Bush to Obama is idiotic. As much as some might despise Bush he governed the way he thought was the best for the country. Obama governs for what he thinks is best for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Congress can rescind those powers that it granted Bush if it chooses. They can't rescind the powers Obama grabbed. We would hope that the SCOTUS would step in but Obama still has another middle finger. Comparing Bush to Obama is idiotic. As much as some might despise Bush he governed the way he thought was the best for the country. Obama governs for what he thinks is best for him.

That's quite the liberal interpretation of the Document; one of the most liberal I've ever seen, in fact.

 

The Constitution outlines the powers of the executive. The Constitution outlines the powers of the Legislative. The Constitution instructs us, in very specific language, what those powers are. No where does it grant the Legislative the authority to vest the Executive with it's own powers.

 

 

 

The Constitution permits Congress to pass laws; should those laws cede Congressional powers to the President, then effectively the Constitution does do so. See the War Powers Act.

 

(Yes, I know that's a really slippery example.)

The Constitution defines each brach narrowly, encasing their authority.

 

The Congress does not have the authority to create new powers for the Executive, outside of the Amendment process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite the liberal interpretation of the Document; one of the most liberal I've ever seen, in fact.

 

The Constitution outlines the powers of the executive. The Constitution outlines the powers of the Legislative. The Constitution instructs us, in very specific language, what those powers are. No where does it grant the Legislative the authority to vest the Executive with it's own powers.

 

 

The Constitution defines each brach narrowly, encasing their authority.

 

The Congress does not have the authority to create new powers for the Executive, outside of the Amendment process.

 

Specifically, what powers did Congress grant to Bush that were unconstitutional? And remember that little War Powers Act that Tom brought up. If you come up with some, explain why SCOTUS hasn't declared it unconstitutional.

 

You know we probably are not very far apart on the vast majority of issues. You Libertarians are generally very conservative except for the social issues. As a Conservative I'm obviously conservative about the economic/defense issues, but only somewhat that way about the social issues. I consider myself pragmatic and realistic, thus one of the conservative "worker bees". I consider you Libertarians as the soul of our side of the wall, but you are also the dreamers. Both are needed, but dammit, pick up a shovel once in awhile!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...