POINT 3: I guess that’s why we’re better than you.

georgej on March 22, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Thanks. I was wondering why.

Point 1: Leftists intend to try to impeach the President anyway. They don’t need a reason.

Point 2: Only stupid liberals believe that rating numbers should determine the actions of the President. They call that “triangulation.” That’s what serial sexual predators like a former President did, and why he wouldn’t pull the trigger on Osama when he had the chance.

Real men act from principle. Girlymen liberals (and serial sexual predators) act from popularity ratings.

POINT 3: I guess that’s why we’re better than you.

You really think a president with a 30-35% approval rating wants to be the first to defy a SCOTUS ruling? You want to give the far left a reason to impeach Bush?

I’m not a politician, but I’d say that there are a couple of reasons that Bush’s numbers are sagging: MSM has accentuated the negative for 4+ straight years; calling American workers lazy good-for-nothings who need to be replaced by criminals. . .uh, I mean “undocumented workers”; the long, drawn out war against terror, militant Islam, Islamofacism. Two reasons that get little attention, in my non-political opinion, are that he communicates ideas poorly and he only fights hard for a couple of things (e.g., tax cuts, the War in Iraq and for illegal aliens).

If Bush actually took a strong, principled stand on the Constitutional privileges and responsibilities of the Executive Branch, his own base might come back to him (forget about the nutroots, they’re lost). Reagan took bold stands (just ask the air traffic controllers, Gorbachev and the Libyans), communicated ideas and earned the love and respect of the American people.

Bin Laden was right when he said that when people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they automatically want the strong horse. Right now, Bush is the weak horse and it’s his own fault. Make a stand, fight the Dems and your own party will come back.

This is calculated. Give the Leader of the Free World a little credit. His silence while this whole thing went on was clearly a trap for the hordes. I’m sure Rove had him in a full nelson for the past week to keep him from speaking up. He wanted America to see them in full shrill before Bush laid the smack down.

Great vengeance and furious anger….

unamused on March 21, 2007 at 11:35 AM

I see. So the plan is wait til Bush’s ratings are in the tank, the Rs lose both houses of Congress, Libby is convicted and Gonzo critically wounded.

Cue the Guinness guys: BRILLIANT!!!!

Great vengeance and furious anger….

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is helping lead the Senate-side investigation, was quick to fire back at the president’s offer.

“When we learned what he has proposed, it can only be called very disappointing,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “When you look at it closely, the cooperation is minimal … The offer made by the president is not going to get the truth.”

“Dissapointing” because Schumer will be denied the political fodder he wants. “Minimal” because the President wont help Schumer with his witch hunt. “The truth” that Schumer wants to ignore just to get someone on record that can be charged with purjury and by association, weaken the president and the GOP.

You really think a president with a 30-35% approval rating wants to be the first to defy a SCOTUS ruling? You want to give the far left a reason to impeach Bush?

I don’t buy the approval rating as worth any consideration, but I certainly don’t see the connection between one’s presidential approval rating and how it relates to a sitting President’s aim of preserving the powers of the office and of the Executive branch.
The far Left doesn’t have a reason to impeach Bush, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try, SCOTUS or no SCOTUS.
But they are not endearing themselves with the electorate with this witch hunt and show trial (BTW, that’s what the American people heard the President say, too).
99% of the public is either bored out of their minds by this mess or doesn’t understand it and don’t won’t to.
So charge on, Democrats! Nancy’s already blown that first 100 hours thing, so why not waste time doing this?

If this goes to the Supreme Court, nobody can predict what they will divine. And even if they decide that Executive privelege doesn’t apply here, what’s to stop Bush from telling them to shove it? In the end, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the Executive or Legislative branches. The only way they’ve exercised this power in the past has been through the unwillingness of the other branches to defy the oligarchy.

cmay on March 21, 2007 at 10:09 AM

You really think a president with a 30-35% approval rating wants to be the first to defy a SCOTUS ruling? You want to give the far left a reason to impeach Bush?

My prediction: they’ll be a deal made before it comes to this.

I’m glad Bush isn’t going to knuckle under to the Democraps.

As for executive privilege, Bush is on solid grounds on this one. This isn’t involving the coverup of a crime, nor is it involving an impeachable offence. Hence, I don’t think Nixon applies.
In any event, the ability of the Supreme Court to enforce a Senatorial subpoena runs up against the doctrine of separation of powers and the 3 equal branches of government.

On the strategy, The Apologist has it right, I think: “Give ‘em just enough rope to hang themselves.”

georgej on March 20, 2007 at 7:02 PM

I don’t really know, but don’t think this is right. The notion of exec priv covering all the President’s aides was pretty much invented by Nixon. Up until then, the Congress would subpeona Presidential staff and aides and they would come and testify–famously Louie Howe.

For all that, I think this is a tempest in a teapot, more bread and circuses. What a bunch.

How much more effective might he be if not under constant attack?

Buck, you have it correct and until he takes a stand and fights our enemy’s within (the media and the democrats) the constant attacks will continue.

Precedent is not on his side . . . .

Agreed, but that assumes that the Supreme Court actually cares about precedent. There are countless examples of reversals (can you say, “Separate but equal”) and “clarifications.” The bottom line is that this Supreme Court is different than the one Nixon had to endure. And, unfortunately, the court does not seem to be constrained by any document or principle.

If this goes to the Supreme Court, nobody can predict what they will divine. And even if they decide that Executive privelege doesn’t apply here, what’s to stop Bush from telling them to shove it? In the end, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the Executive or Legislative branches. The only way they’ve exercised this power in the past has been through the unwillingness of the other branches to defy the oligarchy.

Anyone remember the firestorm over that Senator from Louisiana who went into the flooded New Orleans to retrieve bribe cash, stuffed said cash in his office and the FBI served search warrants? Whoa! Separation of Powers! You can’t investigate the Congress with the Executive branch’s police force!!!!! Where was the outrage over the non-compliant Congress in the media then?

I hear what you all are saying about Bush taking it to the democrats, (or not). He’s busy fighting the greatest threat to western civilization since the dawn of man…

No offense to my HA brethren, but I wish everybody would get off his ass.

Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 10:02 PM

Bush is the POTUS. If he is not capible of doing more than one thing at a time then all of us need to be on his ass.

He can not sit ‘on his ass’ while other important issues happen in this country viz immigration education healthcare social security etc.

I back the president on the war but want him to find the balls he lost since the “Wanted Dead or Alive” and “”either you are with us or against” days. If that means ‘get on his ass’ then ‘on his ass’ I shall be.

I read that and it made me sick because it is so true.

Not that interested? Neither is Dave@GR, but he took the time to give us a little history–Andrew Johnson had much more serious troubles– and even find a little legal precedent (whether it’s controlling or not I have no idea): A……

The case was US v. Nixon and it was Sirica’s court that wanted the tapes not Congress.

This is an excellent outline of privilege as it has been used since the end of WW II.

The only response to this idiocy is ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!

And do it FAST!

If you do not call the accusers out, and mock their partisan, time-wasting silliness -while the security of the nation is being dithered away- then they gain the advantage.

Is what they are talking about (the right of the President to fire anyone from these positions he wishes) is utterly irrelevant to the pressing needs of the nation’s survival, then they are merely frivolous, fatuous fools.

ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!

It’s never to late to regain your testicular fortitude

Housekeeping first – If you are having problems with trackbacks for The Pink Flamingo, the problem lies with BlogHarbor.  They ……