home

Separating the President From His Imagined Powers

By TChris, Section Constitution
Posted on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 07:23:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The "unitary executive theory" is conservative codespeak for "all powerful president," a notion readily embraced by President Bush. In practice, our unitary executive is a government of one (or a few, if you count Cheney, Rove, and Condi), a supreme decider whose power is subject to no constitutional or statutory limits. After all, he couldn't protect us from all the suiciders while freeing the world from Islamic fascist tyranny if he yielded to the unpatriotic demands of lawmakers or judges.

To counter the academic and think tank writing that promoted (with startling success) the unitary executive theory, the American Constitution Society co-sponsored a symposium, "War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century," last October. Three papers that grew out of the symposium were released this week:

Unitariness and Myopia: The Executive Branch, Legal Process, and Torture by Cornelia Pillard views torture as indicative of a more general problem: an executive branch tendency during times of national security crises to view legal constraints as annoying, even harmful, obstacles to effective executive action. Pillard explores reform aimed at promoting executive branch respect for the law, even in trying times.

In Finding Effective Constraints on Executive Power: Interrogation, Detention, and Torture, Deborah Pearlstein finds the most promise for future constraints on executive abuse in less classically democratic sources: the professional military and intelligence community, the media, nongovernmental organizations, and the courts.
Finally, in Lost Constitutional Moorings: Recovering the War Power, Louis Fisher poses the question: does the President possess the constitutional authority to send American troops into war without authorization from Congress?

< ACLU Supports Watada's Right to Dissent | Staying a Disastrous Course >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Separating the President From His Imagined Powers | 62 comments (62 topical)
    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#1)
    by Bill Arnett on Tue Aug 22, 2006 at 11:42:27 PM EST
    Presidents often send soldiers into combat without a declaration of war from Congress, but Congress has the ultimate say-so: Not only can they refuse to declare war, they can refuse to fund it, as Congress has absolute control over how American tax dollars are spent. Even the Boy King George cannot wage war without money. If democrats recover control of Congress this November they can bring this war in Iraq to a screeching halt AND refuse to fund any preemptive wars against Iran. Someone needs to do what is right for this country, as it sure as heck doesn't look like Fearful Leader has any interest in doing what is good for America. It mystifies me why Republican's think they are so good on defense. Democratic Presidents won WWI, WWII, settled the Korean War, and won in Kosovo (to name a few). Can someone remind me of ANY wars, other than the Civil War, that were won by Republicans? And the Cold War doesn't count - Reagan simply outspent Russia, something any teenager with an unlimited credit card backed by the U.S. Treasury could have done.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 04:15:38 AM EST
    Mr. Arnett: Is it at all possible for you to post without being smarmy. Terms like "Fearful Leader," and "Boy King George," reduce your arguments to playground name-calling. Most of us outgrow this by the time we reach puberty. To the point of the thread - irrespective of the source, challenges to Constitutional authority are healthy - both in times of peace and war. The process of resolving these challenges whether through congressional action, supreme court decisons, or public sentiment inherently prevents long term abuses of power. Power grabs in a democracy are glaringly transparent - a simple utterance like "As of now, I am in control here in the White House," destroyed Alexander Haig following President Reagan's asassination attempt. Americans are too sophistcated to allow "unitary executive theory" to trump their fundamental freedoms but are also smart enough to know when it is in their best interest.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 04:25:47 AM EST
    Americans are too sophistcated to allow
    Talking of such qualities. Your President, the visonary genius.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 04:45:19 AM EST
    OW: Bob Harris' piece is disconcerting but I wonder how the rest of us would fare if we were placed under a microscope and the results used for an anecdotal piece in the Huffington Post.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#5)
    by soccerdad on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 05:44:57 AM EST
    urright Is it possible for you to post without being condescending? Didn't think so. BTW your naviete although charming lacks any sense of reality.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 05:57:35 AM EST
    soccerdad: Ask a question and then answer it yourself - now that's what I call a person who is open to discussion - with themself. Oops - is that being condescending again? BTW what are your thoughts regarding the thread's topic of "unitary executive theory?"

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 06:20:31 AM EST
    Bill Arnett; World War I was started under a Democratic President, World War II was started under a Democratic President (and included putting 120,000 Americans in concentration camps - including children), Korean War was started under a Democratic President and finished under a Republican President. Vietnam was started under a Democratic President. And you mention how easy it was for a Republican and a teenager with a credit card to beat the Soviets in the Cold War - but it didn't end with a Democratic President. So to sum up, using your logic, Democrats start larger wars which cost hundreds of thousands of American lives. Republicans have started two wars during this time (Gulf War I and Gulf War II) First one was easy, second a disaster in the making. Democrats have started 5 (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia/Kosovo). One was an unmitigated disaster that dwarfs this war, one is technically a cease fire. Your point again? Of course, your forgetting the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Context.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 06:25:13 AM EST
    Americans are too sophistcated to allow "unitary executive theory" to trump their fundamental freedoms but are also smart enough to know when it is in their best interest.
    Naive and self-serving at best. The average person is too busy trying to keep their personal life together to have the time to plow through the nonsense being spewed by the MSM to find out whats really going on. Although possibly self-correcting in the long term such blatent power grabs under the cover of such psuedo-intellectual drivel can and are having major effects on the operation of the country. This is particularly true when one part of the government abdicates its responsiblity. The other major role of stink tanks and other propaganda machines is to cause so much confusion, doubt, and fear that the average person, who sadly depends on the integrity of their local news sources, doesn't know what to think. It will become clear to most only after the effects of a policy impact their daily life, by that time its too late.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 06:39:43 AM EST
    soccerdad: Fortunately the "average person," you know is not the same "average person," I know - but thank you for remaining on thread.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:16:35 AM EST
    bocajeff: Well stated! And let's not forget the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 - President Clinton, I believe.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:25:38 AM EST
    I know - but thank you for remaining on thread.
    Thank you for your continued condescension. It obviously defines you.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:30:40 AM EST
    soccerdad: Your welcome.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:42:25 AM EST
    urright, your grasp of history is as poor as bocajeff's. wwI: u.s. entered after it's citizens and merchant vessels were attacked/killed by unrestricted german u-boat warfare. lusitania, though not u.s. flagged, had hundreds of u.s. citizens on board. we finally entered the war in 1917, 3 years after it started. wwII: u.s. entered the war (which had been raging for several years by that time)after being attacked at pearl harbor. korea: u.s. entered, as part of U.N. force after n. korea launched an invasion of s. korea. we were treaty bound to engage. vietnam: first u.s. military casualties occured during the eisenhower admin. (1957). again, we were treaty bound to engage, as part of U.N. forces. as i recall, eisenhower was a republican. of course, he also warned us to be wary of the growing power of the military/industrial complex. bay of pigs: not a war, a cia conceived fiasco, brought to you by the gang that still can't shoot straight. mogadishu: not a war. urright, not only are you condescending, you aren't very bright. the average person in this country thinks rush limbaugh is a journalist. so much for the average person's intellect.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:54:13 AM EST
    i now return to our regularly scheduled thread topic. the
    unitary executive theory
    has as much basis in history and fact as the lower taxes, by themselves, generate greater revenues theory of economics. that is to say, none. even lyndon johnson, possibly the greatest presidential ego of all time, never had the nerve to espouse it, and he certainly had more smarts and political savvy than the current occupant of the oval office, the "would-be king, boy george". there is a compelling reason for having three separate, equal branches of gov't: it keeps all three honest. ultimately, congress holds the purse strings, but can be overridden by the courts. while i'm sure the FF's probably envisioned a compliant congress, they probably (a guess, since there's no contemporaneous notes available) figured that the supremes would weigh in, and put a stop to utter foolishness. let's all hope their confidence wasn't misguided.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 08:02:58 AM EST
    Regarding Americans being too sophisticated to allow "unitary executive theory" to trump their fundamental freedoms. Many Americans, I would say most, do not know what their "fundamental freedoms" are or how the Supreme Court can alter these things. I just learned something myself yesterday at a continuing legal education seminar I was attending. I heard a prominent criminal defense lawyer present a very compelling analysis of Justice Scalia's views on the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause and right to counsel clauses. His message was that Scalia now holds a majority on the Court to require Sixth Amendment violations to be treated as "structural" errors meaning they are not subject to "harmless error" treatment. I was surprised to hear about the fire breathing Scalia taking a rather hard line view in favor of defendant's right to choose his/her own lawyer and to be opposed to the trend allowing convictions where the accused is unable to confront the accusing witness (often a child). I must say I have rather divided thought about this as did the lawyer making this presentation. He mnentioned for example, that Scalia is also has a majority (given the right case) to overrule the incorporation theory (I assume he meant Mapp v. Ohio) applying the first nine amendments to the states through the 14th Amendment. My point here is that our "fundamental freedoms" or at least what many of us tale for granted as "fundamental freedoms" are often on the line and up for grabs every day in courts around the country. The reason we have the Bill of Rights (remember they were not originaly in the Constitution when it was drafted but were added later) is because the founders really did not even trust the separation of powers of keep centralized government in check but thought they needed to be spelt out. The "unitary executive theory" is basically the "doctrine of external sovereignty" which holds that when the "United States" was formed by the several states, the states surrendered their sovereignty to the federal government for "internal affairs" only and that they intended to grant the President the same authority and sovereignty over external i.e. foreign, affairs previously held by the crown in Great Britain or the prince in other countries. This doctrine was expressed by the US Supreme Court in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. in 1936 and referred to an expression of the doctrine in 1812 by Rufus King. The unitary executive theory would seem to follow from the President's claim that we are at war with a hidden enemy, terrorists, and that the wall separating external (foreign) affairs and internal (domestic) affairs, has been broken down. The president's claim to have the authority to wiretap without a warrant follows from this. The Courts have been buying this logic to some extent also (except in Hamdi). The logical conclusion of the unitary executive theory is that our "fundamental freedoms" are really not so fundamental but held at the suffrance of the executive who may suspend them in the larger interests of national security and the preservation of the state.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 08:26:53 AM EST
    If you will allow me a periphial last comment. Urright,let me put a little scenario to you. A carpenter, with the help of his buddies, applies and bluffs his way into an appointment as a brain surgeon. The carpenter knows full well he has niether skills, experience or intellect that the position requires, yet monday morning he rolls up to work and starts opperating. The carpenter is so far out of his depth the inevitable occurs, every patient he touches dies, yet still he carries on trying the same procedures that have resulted in the deaths of many. So now having got this far what are we to do, say he's a good old boy and he'll get it right eventually, or to see the situation as it is and say, Why did this carpenter apply to be a brain surgeon knowing the job was so far beyond his very limited capabilliies that it borders on the criminal. Whereas your faith in your President is quite touching, I cannot help but feel it is based on some hazy ideal rather than the reality of the situation. The man has the welfare of hundreds of millions of people in his hands. Are they the hands of a skilled surgeon or a third rate carpenter?

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 08:55:34 AM EST
    U.S Democrats "started" WWI and II; now there's a history lesson for ya. I see what you mean now about highly sophisticated Americans urright. The world may have, in the long run, been better off if the U.S had stayed out of WWI, but it wasn't likely to happen after that bastion of left wing liberalism, The House of Morgan floated tens-of-millions of dollars in loans to the Allies and intertwined American finance to the outcome of the war to the extent that the question became not if America would get involved but when. And are you suggesting that the U.S should have, (or could have), stayed out of WWII, or that U.S democrats some how enabled Hitler's rise to power?

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 09:06:57 AM EST
    U.S democrats some how enabled Hitler's rise to power?
    nope, that would have been prescott bush.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    Basil certainly knew who started the war.
    Basil then proceeds to mention the war at every opportunity, upsetting the German guests more and more as he rapidly descends into a fit of xenophobic ranting about everything and everyone that most Germans would rather forget. When the fed up German asks Basil to stop going on about the war, Basil kindly reminds him that they started it. "We did not start it," protests the German. "Yes you did, you invaded Poland", replies Basil!
    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    Soccerdad:
    urright, Is it possible for you to post without being condescending?
    You beat me to it Soc! Well put too. urright - Bill Arnett has been postting here for years and is very well respected by neaarly everyone here - the only exceptions to that respect have come from the most extreme wingnuts that occassionally show up for no other reason than to troll and be disruptive, condescending and insulting for its own sake. If you have no more to add to the discussions than condescension and insults you'll soon find no one paying you any mind or respect.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 09:45:05 AM EST
    Urright does not have much too offer. He is troll. I offer this as evidence: here, here, here, and here.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 09:49:43 AM EST
    urright- You express your opinion any way you wish and I shall do the same. Descriptive phrases like "Boy King George" and "Fearful Leader" are simply shortcuts for: Bush believes he is omnipotent as a unitary executive with plenary powers as exercised by kings and tyrants; and Fearful leader is short for: instead of keeping the country safe by inspiring leadership (You have nothing to fear but fear itself) he is nothing more than a fear/war-monger. Besides, you still ignore that you can argue FACTS all day long, but a person's opinion is inarguably their own unique opinion, and that freedom of speech permits them to express as they desire. It is not subject to your review, approval of content, or lectures from you, who obviously either does not recognize this right or that just presumes he can arrogate himself to the arbiter of what opinions may be expressed and in what manner. If you don't like my comments DON'T READ THEM, for I shall certainly never allow my opinion to be subjugated to the will of anyone else. Why do you come here at all? With your expressed attitude you aren't likely to find much agreement here.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 09:58:22 AM EST
    cpinva - while I agree with your assessment of urright my post was in response to the ridiculous notion that Dem's know how to win wars and Repubs don't. First of all, it's not the same people in either party. They are all long gone. Secondly, parties tend to morph over long periods of time. Remember that many Dems were southern Dixiecrats who bear no resemblence to today's Dems. To say Repubs don't know how to win wars - well Eisenhower would be an example. Sailor, I'm sure you wouldn't support Ted Kennedy because his father also had financial interests with 1930's Germany? And now, resume the thread re: King George.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 09:59:32 AM EST
    Why do you come here at all?
    Cause he's a troll.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#25)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    edger- Thank you for your kind words. It has always been my intent and hope to add to the conversations here, even when, amongst us, there may be vigorous disagreements. urright has come "into the game" very late, but believes in his "unitary commenter with plenary power to mandate opinions" attitude, something which I'm sure this community will disabuse him of in short order. Hey, soccerdad, Sailor, Peaches, Oscar Wilde and fellow TLers, urright will flame out sooner or later; I for one do not intend to try and teach him anything more of rights and manners. Peace, guys and gals.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    I'm sure you wouldn't support Ted Kennedy because his father also had financial interests with 1930's Germany?
    My answer is on the tuesday open thread.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    Bill, Your'e welcome... the respect you command has come not from anything I said or could say, but from your own thoughts and comments here, and from your war record as well. urright, like many others before him, will probably end up banned at some point, since he continues the way he has, his frustration will grow and his comments will get more insulting.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    Jondee writes:
    The world may have, in the long run, been better off if the U.S had stayed out of WWI
    May have? In the long run? Can you explain this? I mean certainly Jews would not have been.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:48:00 AM EST
    Bill Arnett - You confuse Democrats with anti-war Left wingers.. There are NO Democrats left. Oscar Wilde:
    Are they the hands of a skilled surgeon or a third rate carpenter?
    Using England as an example and Chamberlain to be specific, I would say take the carpenter. You can fire him without having to let a war start to do it.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#30)
    by orionATL on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    "seperating the president from his imagined powers" what a great headline, t chris!

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    Peaches- I am impressed with your linking above. I still somehow lack the necessary skills to do that. Would you consider posting a brief lesson on how to do that for us dummies? PPJ- Through one of peaches links I came across your vigorous defense of me and all military men. It was well-written and inspiring. Like you, however, I do not use my service as a "crutch" and a way to express hostility towards the government as urright suggests. I wouldn't change any single aspect of my life and if I did it all over again I would still volunteer to serve in Vietnam. No, it is the instant topic, the "unitary executive with plenary powers", along with Bush causing directly the deaths and wounding of thousands of American military men in pursuit of a neocon fantasy of dominating the world with our military might and threats of nuclear war that cause me to despise this thoroughly despicable president. He and the neocon sycophants have so badly managed this war that we can expect many, many more deaths and casualties just because our "wartime prez" debases our country, destroys our reputation, exhausts our treasury, and, thanks to spending money like a crack addict in Bolivia, leaves a debt of over $80-thousand dollars for every child born in America. But, hey, some people will never understand war, what it does to the country and its citizens, and will always accuse an honorable veteran of "using" that status as an "excuse" of some kind to criticize the government. To them I say: GO ENLIST, FIGHT IN IRAQ IF YOU HAVE THE GUTS, AND THEN YOU MAY BE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN THERE, DONE THAT! So c'mon, urright, become something more than being just a "KEYBOARD KOMMANDO", and go fight for the president in whom you repose so much trust. Or is it bad form to remind you that you have obligations as a citizen that you willfully ignore? Not afraid of getting shot at, are you?

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 10:59:06 AM EST
    You confuse Democrats with anti-war Left wingers.. There are NO Democrats left.
    about 61% of Americans disagree with ppj and bush on the iraq war. Yep, the majority of the country is "anti-war Left wingers" 100% agree that ppj can't stay on topic. bush needs to be put in his place by the congress and the courts, his unconstitutional assumption of powers needs to be check and he should stand trial for his war crimes.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#33)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:02:36 AM EST
    PPJ_ You may be entirely right that there are no more TRUE DEMOCRATS. This soulless pack of cowards, to paraphrase the words of Howard Cosell, "...[they] are a mere shadowm of their former selves."

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#34)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    ...and I can't spell, sometimes. Must be the morphine. ;-)

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:13:09 AM EST
    Hey Bill? If you 'right-click' on the blue date-time stamp on any comment and choose 'proprties' you can then cut and paste the URL of that comment, and make a link to it.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peaches on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:20:45 AM EST
    Bill, What Edger said. I get worried when people ask me how to do something on the computer. It means I spend way too much time on it. I liked it better when I had to ask all those questions.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    Using England as an example and Chamberlain to be specific, I would say take the carpenter. You can fire him without having to let a war start to do it.
    You already have Jim.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    ppj, as usual, blows hard an ill defined wind. i'm a democrat, i am not philosophically opposed to a "just" war. nor, i suspect, are most democrats, though mostly we are opposed to war as the only viable solution. war is a last resort, since it requires a considerable expenditure of scarce allocable resources. exactly what did wwI have to do with the jews in germany? you have the wrong war, though i'm not surprised, you get so many basic facts wrong. bill, care to define what a "true democrat" is? you and ppj have both asserted a lack of them, with no basis in fact. absent factual data supporting this specious claim, i have to assume neither of you have a clue what you're talking about. prove me wrong.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    It must be as reassuring as a mother's womb for each of you to know that you have a place to seek refuge from reality - a place for you to congregate and stumble along your virtual sidewalk, complain and wallow in your self pity and pontificate as if you were the Dumbledore's of the universe. Indeed many of you sound quite intelligent - the world is full of educated derelicts and as groupies, solace is derived from a special site like this that attracts the down-trodden. Mr. Arnett, as the annointed Grand Wizard, you are quite correct to suggest that I found my way into your conclave purely by accident like a country boy wandering into an inner city ghetto. And it is by no accident that I shall depart freely and on my own accord. To think you and your minions might bully me out is the same brute force mentatlity you use to lose elections across America and you folks seem to do that especially well. You are now all free to move around the cabin.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    Don't let the door catch your arse.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peaches on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:33:47 AM EST
    Applause!!

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    Was that a speech, or was it just vomiting?

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    Too bad, urright. You would have been, and still are, welcome, if you'd just lose the insults, and condescension. Sadly that seems too much of a stretch.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#44)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    cpinva- What I mean by "true democrat" are the Democrats of old who fought for social justice, created Social Security that raised millions of elderly out of poverty, feared nothing but fear itself, who fought for equal rights, asked people not to ask what their country could do for them but what they could do for their country, and those who fought for and achieved a balanced budget that Bush not only squandered, but blew up beyond all reason. The Democrats we currently have, with exceptions of course, seem to lack that can-do spirit, that fervent desire to lead this country out of our current morass and institute programs to benefit the poor, the infirm, and the elderly here in America instead of seeking world domination by abusing and misusing the resources of this country. It was, however, a rather blanket statement that begged for qualification. What I really want to know is where do I go to collect my "Grand Wizard" pay and if the position includes vacation and health benefits. It is also fun to be compared to fictional characters! As jon Stewart said to Tucker Carlson on Crossfire, "Hey, if you want to compare yourselves to a fake newsman on a comedy show, go ahead!" And to be topical, the unitary executive with plenary powers position of Bush still sucks. Oh, and urright, are you leaving to enlist and go fight in Bush's War or merely being puerile? Don't leave on my account; you have every right to your opinion, but you must also expect that most here do not agree with you. If you just can't handle that, oh, well...

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bill Arnett on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 12:24:07 PM EST
    P.S. - There will be a "minions" meeting in an as yet undisclosed location on the tropical isle of Oahu. Of course transportation and meals will be provided, as well as surfboards on a first come, first served basis. Shark bites are optional. There we will dance drunkenly under the moonlight, take turns reciting voodoo spells and criticisms of the "unitary executive with plenary powers", and learn the art of making funny hats from palm leaves. Kindly RSVP to GrandWizard@dumbledore.com

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    What I really want to know is where do I go to collect my "Grand Wizard" pay
    And what kind of wizard is that ye are, for wouldn't it be the natural thing to be doing and having a wee peek in the old crystal ball.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#47)
    by desertswine on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    Wizard of Oz

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    ppj - Hitler never would have come to power without the revival of "never again" militarism, romantic nationalism (two sentiments you seem to know well), and scapegoating anyone who wud'nt wid us but agin' us; including German communists (the Germany hating, "anti-war left"), and those that didnt put Ameri..er, Germany first and were blamed for being more interested in the Balfour Declaration by that two-bit paper hanger with a big warchest.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    If they had just been left wing Jews, you'd still be making snide "snap, crackle, pop" jokes the way you did about the Rosenbergs.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    sted by JimakaPPJ August 23, 2006 11:20 AM Jondee writes:
    The world may have, in the long run, been better off if the U.S had stayed out of WWI
    PPJ regurgitates:
    May have? In the long run? Can you explain this? I mean certainly Jews would not have been.
    Uh, what happened to Jews in WW I that we changed?

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#51)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 05:15:27 PM EST
    @#$%&* formatting! Only the last line is mine.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 05:18:50 PM EST
    Sailor - To people like Prescott, Hitlers money (and his Judophobia), will always be green.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:05:37 PM EST
    I'd much rather see him separated from all his powers.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    Jondee - You lie. I have never made a joke about the Rosenbers. As for Hitler, many learned historians believe that a the after effects of WWII, runaway inflation and a collapsing economy had a wee but to do with it. But what do they know? The Jondee Has Spoken. Ahhh - I see. You meant WWI.. Actually that is a thought. But really. Hitler was a rabid racist, not a judophobe.... How could he have been? The country didn't exist. RePack -- Point to you, too. uuright - Stick around. They haven't suggested you kill yourself, yet.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:27:36 PM EST
    Jim - "Snap, crackle, pop": I remember it well. Of course when I link to it, you'll claim you were refering to your high fibre diet. And Mission Accomplished was about a successful ocean voyage. And you never say "Swimmer" Kennedy. Or defended Delay.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:32:53 PM EST
    How could you kill yourself when softening us up with b.s is so much more fun?

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 07:33:17 PM EST
    How about separating them all from their imagined powers? Cracks in a Republican Base Hard-Line Immigration Stance Angers Some Business Groups By SARAH LUECK August 24, 2006 Wall Street Journal 32 Minutes Ago
    Dennis Nixon, a bank executive from Laredo, Texas, has long supported Republican politicians. He is in frequent contact with his state's congressional delegation and has been a generous donor to the party, contributing thousands of dollars each year to help elect Republicans to Congress and ranking as one of President Bush's fund-raising "Rangers" in 2004. But recently Mr. Nixon, chairman of International Bancshares Corp., has found himself at odds with Republicans on one issue: immigration. He opposes the enforcement-focused approach favored by most House Republicans and instead wants an immigration overhaul that "recognizes that illegal immigration is filling a gigantic need" in the labor market.
    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#59)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 08:44:50 PM EST
    Interesting. This is my first visit to this thread after the Urright speech. I'm glad I caught that, sad as it was. I noticed how effectively he was, as Bill Arnett would say, "dispatched" without profane insults, direct threats to his family, or theories about his ancestry. I doubt any of us would have been treated as lightly if we went to the RW sites with that kind of criticism.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 23, 2006 at 08:48:53 PM EST
    D.A - He said the Rosenbers , not the Rosenbergs. Prove where he joked about the Rosenbers. You cant.

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 05:52:04 AM EST
    The world may have, in the long run, been better off if the U.S had stayed out of WWI The world may have been beter if the US had stayd out of every war!

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#62)
    by Sailor on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    judophobe is not a word, but a concept that can be shifted for any rhetorical poiont the author wishes it to mean at the time.
    Posted by Jondee August 23, 2006 09:48 PM D.A - He said the Rosenbers , not the Rosenbergs. Prove where he joked about the Rosenbers. You cant.
    LMAO!!!

    Re: Separating the President From His Imagined Pow (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    a place for you to congregate and stumble along your virtual sidewalk, complain and wallow in your self pity and pontificate as if you were the Dumbledore's of the universe. Whew! I gess i've ended up at the right intesection. Let me grab my brown papper bag. urright-urwrong.

    Separating the President From His Imagined Powers | 62 comments (62 topical)