Chump Change Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I'm interested to hear a Democrat's take on this. Regardless of the party, this is a bit troubling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072902624.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I'm interested to hear a Democrat's take on this. Regardless of the party, this is a bit troubling. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9072902624.html Bush screwed a lot of things up, but to be honest (and I won't lower myself to being a dummycrat or re-puke-lickin), I don't care who did what- we have to fix the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Just like the complaints about federal spending, the Republicans would have credibility if they had complained about this when Bush was in office and they were in the majority. To do it now is just sour grapes. In general, I do believe that the Congress sat back and let Bush overreach with this and signing statements, because they were afraid of being labeled anti-American in the "War on Terror", and I would like the Congress to provide more of a real check to the executive branch, regardless of who's in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Just like the complaints about federal spending, the Republicans would have credibility if they had complained about this when Bush was in office and they were in the majority. To do it now is just sour grapes. In general, I do believe that the Congress sat back and let Bush overreach with this and signing statements, because they were afraid of being labeled anti-American in the "War on Terror", and I would like the Congress to provide more of a real check to the executive branch, regardless of who's in office. I don't disagree with you. By my count GW either created or appointed a total of 12 "czar" type positions during his administration. In seven short months Obama has racheted this up to 32 special appointments! That to me is more than a bit troubling. Especially when he ran on a platform of transparency and openess in government. And don't forget, two wrongs do not make a right. I don't often agree with Sen. Byrd, but in this case I think he is spot on with his objection to all these unvetted aides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Just like the complaints about federal spending, the Republicans would have credibility if they had complained about this when Bush was in office and they were in the majority. To do it now is just sour grapes. In general, I do believe that the Congress sat back and let Bush overreach with this and signing statements, because they were afraid of being labeled anti-American in the "War on Terror", and I would like the Congress to provide more of a real check to the executive branch, regardless of who's in office. I think at the point when Bush started making signing statements akin to "It is my belief I don't have to follow this law," it was the courts' responsibility to apply the check, not Congress. Otherwise, I agree with you in principle. It's important to note, though, that the strengthening of the executive branch's powers at the expense of the legislature didn't start with Bush. One could argue that in modern times it started with LBJ...although I could just as easily argue Roosevelt or Lincoln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts