And the System just keeps on working!
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, August 3, 2006 21:59
VIEWED: 7375
PAGE 6 of 10
Democracy is powered by citizen participation. The minute that stops, it all becomes a sham.
The problem in the US is there is no 'loyal opposition'. NO opposition is allowed because, according to Bush, you are either with him or you are with the terrorists.
That seems to be your take, Slick. You have to be perfect to criticize, patient not vocal, and a watcher rather than participant. Your misplaced notion of Democracy is as a structure of government rather than an active process.
That aside, John Dean said in an interview yesterday that when people become afraid, they turn to authoritarian governments like Bush's. So I was wondering, what are you afraid of?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Democracy is powered by citizen participation. The minute that stops, it all becomes a sham.
True. And to save both my typing fingers, I'll quote again.
Quote:
Dead" or "Settled" issues are in fact dead and settled as far as the law is concerned. Only if the people can convince their representatives to attempt to make changes to the law, or the representatives themselves see a reason to try and change them, do they become active again... Just because something is settled law doesn't mean people can't, or shouldn't, debate, argue, politic, petition, or otherwise act on it; but until a request for change hits either the legislative or the legal system, it's the law of the land.
----------
If the people can convince someone to take that action (impeaching the president), that's fine. That's the way it works, and I think it's a pretty good idea.
----------
Sure it matters, if the people act through their elected representatives. If enough of them act to get change moving. If the idea takes hold. If they vote the rascals out. If they give their congressperson the word that they'll be looking for a lobbying job after the next election of they don't toe the line.
----------
How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.
If you can do this and get Bush impeached, or convicted, or whatever, more power to you. The system worked. If you and those who think like you can't convince enough people to convince their reps to do it, then you fought the good fight and lost, and the system worked.
----------
I'm trying to say that in the real world of the American system it doesn't matter a damn what you as an individual think. It matters what you and enough other people who'll bug their congresspeople to do something think. Majority rules, unless it's unconstitutional. This applies even if the majority decide to sit on their butts and do nothing.
I don't doubt that you passionately believe you are right. You may be right. But if enough other people don't agree with you to move the legislative process forward, you're not going to accomplish anything for a while. Maybe later they'll come around to your point of view. It's happened before. How long did it take for women to get the vote? You don't have to give up, but you must realize that the system takes time. Wishing doesn't make it so. You have to sell your ideas. Think long-term. Maybe Bush is good for your eventual goals, as others have noted above.
What part of "I support citizens' participation in government" don't you get?
Quote:
The problem in the US is there is no 'loyal opposition'. NO opposition is allowed because, according to Bush, you are either with him or you are with the terrorists.
And you think everyone kowtows to Bush's opinion why?
Quote:
That seems to be your take, Slick. You have to be perfect to criticize, patient not vocal, and a watcher rather than participant. Your misplaced notion of Democracy is as a structure of government rather than an active process.
I quote myself yet again.
Quote:
How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.
Quote:
That aside, John Dean said in an interview yesterday that when people become afraid, they turn to authoritarian governments like Bush's. So I was wondering, what are you afraid of?
Well, apparently Mr. Dean would be glad to be the "Loyal Opposition".
And what am I afraid of? I'm afraid of a country run by the SignyMs and Rues, who don't care what the people decide, because they're
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wanted to pull some statements out from this thread and elaborate on them.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Democracy is powered by citizen participation. The minute that stops, it all becomes a sham.
Our bathroom reading this week is Helen Thomas' latest book. In the forward she echoes those who wrote the Federalist Papers (and countless other authors):
Quote:
from Watchdogs of Democracy? by Helen Thomas (page xiii)
"Journalists, as the purveyors of information, are the watch-dogs of democracy. Without an informed people, there can be no democracy. It is the job of reporters and editors to ask the tough questions of those in power and to act on the answers with trust, integrity, and honesty guiding their judgement. These ethical tenets have never changed, but jornalism has changed over time - most would say not necessarily for the better."
We all do our jobs. We should be able to read the morning paper and watch the evening news and be reliably informed about the state of our government. But, thanks in part to the decades long war against journalists waged by conservatives, we have an industry that would rather repeat claim and counter-claim without any verification. If you want to be reliably informed you have to do the work yourself. Because journalists don't do their jobs the only way for us to have an informed citizenry is for the rest of us to take on another job (I'm reminded of Stewart's plea to Carlson).
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer
But that's the thing. The system usually does work, although sometimes more slowly than we'd like. If Bush stepped out of line on prisoner treatment, the system brought him back in line. If someone can prove his actions were criminal, instead of just in a grey area of law, fine and good.
You're assuming that Bush believes the Supreme Court should be allowed to have an opinion different from his own. I think it's more likely that he holds the belief, as articulated by the acting Deputy Attorney General yesterday in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "The President is always right." By implication, the Supreme Court is wrong when they disagree with him. And until he gets another Supreme Court justice on the bench (who will, like Alito and Roberts, be a believer in the unitary executive theory) he will treat them the same way he treats Congress. I think it's a safe bet that two years ago the Hamdan decision would have been more like 7-2 rather than 5-3 (and really, 5-4).
I hope John Paul Stevens is eating his Wheaties. And I also hope that the prominent conservative pundits who are calling for violence and death for the 5 in the majority on Hamdan don't get their way.
After the 2000 election, my girlfriend was depressed at the thought of another Bush in the White House. I told her that he couldn't do that much damage in four years. Man, was I wrong on that one. And no way did I think it was going to be eight years. And now, based on all of his decisions to simply ignore the rule of law and the checks and balances, I'm starting to wonder if it ends at eight years.
Who says he is ready to leave in 2009? Remember, "The President is always right."
* edit (on account of brain farting) to change 2001 to 2000 and correctly spell Hamdan.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
..And now, based on all of his decisions to simply ignore the rule of law and the checks and balances, I'm starting to wonder if it ends at eight years.
ayup. It isn't too hard to imagine. How about this, as the 2008 elections roll around, Rove goads Democrats in to pre-emptive protests against the corrupt election process. Accusations fly, conspiracies are 'uncovered', denied, covered back up etc., etc.... Legal challenges are mounted in several states questioning the validity of computerized voting. Prominent leaders announce their intention to ignore election results unless the problems are resolved. Dogs and cats, living together! How could we possibly hold an election in the midst of such chaos?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer- I don't know what's "right". But I DO know that unless people get involved their interests will get drowned out. Shutting up, not bitching, and trusting "the system" is a sure-fire recipe for getting screwed. It's happened so often in the past that it's the one thing I CAN say for sure about "the system".
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
You're assuming that Bush believes the Supreme Court should be allowed to have an opinion different from his own. I think it's more likely that he holds the belief, as articulated by the acting Deputy Attorney General yesterday in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "The President is always right." By implication, the Supreme Court is wrong when they disagree with him.
I'm assuming that the government(not the Bush Administration, but the Government as a whole) believes that if the President and the Supreme Court have differing opinions, the Supremes win. I assume that the people would agree.
I also figure that Bush's lawyers' position at the Senate hearings is, amusingly enough, pretty much like the North Koreans always use at the beginning of any negotiation, and that they expect to get talked way down.
Quote:
And I also hope that the prominent conservative pundits who are calling for violence and death for the 5 in the majority on Hamden don't get their way.
Me too. Just because they have freedom of speech doesn't mean they should talk like idiots.
Quote:
Who says he is ready to leave in 2009? Remember, "The President is always right."
If that happens in an unconstitutional way, I'll be right there on the barricades with you to take our country back.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- I don't know what's "right". But I DO know that unless people get involved their interests will get drowned out. Shutting up, not bitching, and trusting "the system" is a sure-fire recipe for getting screwed. It's happened so often in the past that it's the one thing I CAN say for sure about "the system".
Quote:
How many ways do I have to say it? The people drive the process, but they have to do it within the process. People who want change have to convince enough other people, by whatever legal means, to get their representatives off their asses and start the legal process that makes change happen.
I'm really not clear what part of this you think you disagree with. "...by whatever legal means..." includes bitching, although other alternatives might be more effective.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigh. I'm not one of those people who can't take "yes" for an answer. I'll dig up your old posts.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sigh. I'm not one of those people who can't take "yes" for an answer. I'll dig up your old posts.
Please look at the totality of what I've been saying here. Don't pick through the whole mass just to find one sentence.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm assuming that the government(not the Bush Administration, but the Government as a whole) believes that if the President and the Supreme Court have differing opinions, the Supremes win. I assume that the people would agree.
Fair enough. If we look at the government as a whole, the Executive branch has been stacked with unitary executive believers, the Congress has not substantively challenged the application of the unitary executive theory, and the Supreme Court is within one vote of being dominated by unitary executive believers.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I also figure that Bush's lawyers' position at the Senate hearings is, amusingly enough, pretty much like the North Koreans always use at the beginning of any negotiation, and that they expect to get talked way down.
In reading the transcript, the statement came after repeated questioning by Senator Leahy on whether the President was right or wrong in stating that the Hamdan decision supported his position on Guantanamo (it did not). It seemed to me more like a conversation ender rather than a conversation starter.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
And I also hope that the prominent conservative pundits who are calling for violence and death for the 5 in the majority on Hamden don't get their way.
Me too. Just because they have freedom of speech doesn't mean they should talk like idiots.
One of the things I like about freedom of speech is that it lets you know who the scary people are.
However, I expect widespread condemnation of statements such as the one I referenced.
edited to add: When someone who has little or no platform makes ludicrous statements, the best policy is to ignore them (IMHO). When someone who has a big platform makes ludicrous statements, the best thing is for their peers and allies to condemn them (also, IMHO). edited one more time: I should've said condemn the statements.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If that happens in an unconstitutional way, I'll be right there on the barricades with you to take our country back.
Amen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME