Subpoenas, Karl Rove, and our democracy, So what?

#1
OrangeEmpire

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
I know some of you, coughs OWB and DAVOL, would love to see Rove break down and blow his own brains out live on CSPAN.

But you know as well as I do that Rove would do it on pay-per-view.

Would you pay 48.99 to see it?

Then again this is a "safe" scandal for the Dems to take on.

Yes, sir. It is safe...

Observers can be forgiven for wondering why the US Congress, following years of spineless acquiescence to the Bush agenda, has suddenly developed a backbone in the case of the fired US attorneys. Mere days after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ripped even the pretense of resostance to Bush's war on Iran from a military spending bill, in obvious defience of the voter mandate which brought her to her present station, we see Congress as a whole sprouting large amounts of gonadal tissue and charging full-tilt boogie head-to-ghead with the White House.

Why the change? Why after years of pretending that our nation wasn;t lied into a war, years of ignoring the warrentless spying on American citizens, years of pretending that it really was necessary to torture totally innocent people to win ther war on terror, why has the firing of the US attorneys and the White House defiance of Congressional Subpoenas ignited such a political firestorm?

The reason is a simple one. We are heading into an election year and Dempocrats need an issue they can run on. But neither they nor the Republicans can dare allow any real issues to enter the public mind for this coming election.

You see, there are two kinds of scandals.

There are the real big scandals, the kind that can bring down the entire government. Scandals like the lies used to trick the nation into supporting wars of aggression. Warrentless spying. Torture. Stolen national elections. Whether the income tax is really legal. The extent to which a foreign nation influences out government. These are scandals that cannot be pegged to just a few officials or just one party. Scandals such as these delegitimize the government as a whole, and this is why nobody in the government will never address these scandals.

But then there are the small scandals, scandals which CAN be planted onto a few individuals, like Randy Cunningham, or Jack Abramoff, or onto one political party, such as New Hampshire phone jamming.

These scandals are "safe" to play politics with because while individual players may win or lose, the system as a whole is kept safe.
Click to expand...

Or you can......

Cut through all the crap…

The Beltway is now abuzz with talk of a "Constitutional crisis." We'd put it another way: What's at stake here is whether George W. Bush is going to let Congress roll up his Presidency two years early. Democrats are trying to use the manufactured outrage over the entirely legal sacking of Presidential appointees to insert themselves into private White House deliberations. Mr. Bush needs to draw a line somewhere, and fast, or Democrats will keep driving until the White House staff is all but working for Democratic Senate campaign chief Chuck Schumer.
Click to expand...

Congress's real goal is crippling the Bush Presidency.

I doubt any one will argue against that....probably 6 years too late but you know.....

Don't hate the playa; hate the game!

Thoughts?
 
#3
#3
I don't know, I think I'd rather see Rove remain attached to the Republican party.
 
#4
#4
wanted-george-bush.gif
 
#6
#6
Congrats, you have posted the biggest picture ever on Volnation.
 
#9
#9
DAVOL said:
You cannot have an electoral college and a true democratic election it is not possible.:salute:
Click to expand...

You really do not want to discuss the electoral college do you?

Yeah that is why we live in a constitutional republic. :eek:k:
 
#10
#10
DAVOL said:
You cannot have an electoral college and a true democratic election it is not possible.:salute:
Click to expand...

We don't have democratic federal elections. We have 50 separate state elections that occur on the same day.
 
#18
#18
Who cares what the reason is? It's a blatant abuse of power. They could have a personal vendetta for all I care. Does that negate the fact that prosecutors were used as political pawns thus crippling the effectiveness of the office? Motivation didn't matter for getting rid of the prosecutors so why should it be a big deal for looking into this whole move?

This whole notion of them talking but off the record is completely bogus. They want no record and nothing to use as proof that they did something wrong. This is the biggest red flag to only encourage the Dems to pursue even more. I'm just glad they've changed that insane Patriot Act to take away the power to appoint prosecutors without the consent of the Senate. In a move designed to speedily put back prosecutors that were assassinated, etc. by terrorist actions, the WH used this to get rid of those they did not like.
 
#19
#19
And I think we've seen enough 'spectacles'. If it is for the 'noble' purpose of saving the American people from a spectacle, W should have thought about that long ago. We've had quite a few already.
 
#21
#21
CSpindizzy said:
Motivation didn't matter for getting rid of the prosecutors so why should it be a big deal for looking into this whole move?
Click to expand...
The problem is that elections matter and the guy pulling the trigger is the President. It's a dangerous road to go down IMO hauling Presidential advisors before Congress.
 
#22
#22
CSpindizzy said:
I'm just glad they've changed that insane Patriot Act to take away the power to appoint prosecutors without the consent of the Senate. In a move designed to speedily put back prosecutors that were assassinated, etc. by terrorist actions, the WH used this to get rid of those they did not like.
Click to expand...

He didn't need it (the provision) to get rid of them.

Many of the seats haven't been filled, so it's not entirely clear that they were removed so that this provision could be utilized.
 
#23
#23
VolunteerHillbilly said:
Help me out here. Were the fired prosecutors executive service employees? If they were civil service then I see the problem. If not, then the whole shebang is pure grandstanding.
Click to expand...

So you have no issue with being able to fire prosecutors for reasons such as they probed Republicans, didn't probe issues favored by Senators, etc? You want prosecutors to be limited by politics rather than having them do their job of prosecuting the most pressing criminal cases in their district?
 
#24
#24
GAVol said:
The problem is that elections matter and the guy pulling the trigger is the President. It's a dangerous road to go down IMO hauling Presidential advisors before Congress.
Click to expand...

Dangerous to whom? So there is no checks and balances here? No accountability? Let a branch do whatever they want without being able to look into potential wrongdoing or ethics issues?

Where was this attitude during the 90's?
 
#25
#25
volinbham said:
He didn't need it (the provision) to get rid of them.

Many of the seats haven't been filled, so it's not entirely clear that they were removed so that this provision could be utilized.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. But he used a pathetic reason to get rid of them. It sure does harm to the whole field.

It's not entirely clear. Wow. Reason to look deeper is it not? Something that could be on the shady side but it's grandstanding so why bother, right?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top