Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (695096)	8/3/2005 3:42:50 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I see. You resort to personal attacks, lame ridicule & vicious smears when your Talking Points get thoroughly trashed with credible, independently verifiable evidence. What exactly do you think that proves?

To: JBTFD who wrote (695096)	8/3/2005 10:18:55 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

BY JAMES TARANTO Tuesday, August 2, 2005 4:02 p.m. Test of Strength Whom will history come to regard as a better president, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush? On one important measure of presidential success--strengthening the office of the presidency--a Washington Post article suggests it will be Bush. The Post notes that his administration has waged a "largely successful . . . campaign to reassert executive prerogatives lost under his predecessor." In particular, the White House has refused to hand over documents Senate Democrats demanded about U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and Justice-designate John Roberts: The principle at stake is one that has been a source of friction over the limits of presidential power since George Washington. Under President Bill Clinton, multiple clashes with Congress, the judiciary and independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr chipped away at attorney-client and executive privileges on sensitive documents and conversations. But since coming to power, Bush has doggedly reclaimed turf that eroded under Clinton, asserting the power of his office to shield everything from energy policy deliberations to the papers of past presidents. "For better or worse, the Bush administration has done a much more effective job than we did of protecting privileges," said Ronald A. Klain, a lawyer who served as chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore. Clinton waged many battles over privileges but lost some of them in court and surrendered others in the interest of damage control. In a showdown with the Senate opposition over something like the Roberts papers, Klain recalled, a politically and legally weakened Clinton White House often would find a compromise to end the dispute. "I have no doubt that if that had been us, we would have turned over the papers," Klain said. "I'm not saying that's a good thing; I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But whenever we walked up to the brink, we blinked. And these guys don't, and they're prepared to pay the price for it." The Post has an amusing quote from Jane Sherburne, a lawyer in the Clinton White House: "Although I agree the pendulum should swing back some, I find it ironic that the Republicans who caused the erosion are now trying to use the result that their tactics created as a weapon." But of course it's not ironic at all: Whichever party holds the White House at any given time is going to defend executive privilege more strongly than the other. Bush just seems to be doing a better job of it than Clinton did. (Though The Wall Street Journal argued in an editorial last week that Bush could do better.) Clinton can be backhandedly credited with one contribution to strengthening the office: the demise of the independent counsel statute. This required no action on the president's part, as the law expired in 2000, and Democrats, who had championed it as a post-Watergate reform, changed their minds after it vexed one of their own--another nonironic turnabout. Post 1, Times 0 Some conservatives think of the "liberal mainstream media" as a monolith, but there are distinctions to be made. Today's editorials about John Bolton's recess appointment remind us why we like the Washington Post much better than the New York Times. Neither paper approves of Bolton as U.N. ambassador, but the Post is honest about the procedural kerfuffle: Under the Constitution, the president has the power to appoint officers during congressional recesses without seeking Senate confirmation and to have those officers serve through the end of the Congress--which in this case means until January 2007. Using that power to circumvent the normal advice-and-consent process is politically provocative and should be quite rare. But having thwarted the usual process under which the Senate gets to vote on a president's nominee, it takes a bit of chutzpah for Democrats now to cry foul at Mr. Bush's decision to exercise his other option. The Times, on the other hand, blames Bolton for being the victim of a smear campaign: The president has not just sent the United Nations what Senator Christopher Dodd accurately termed "damaged goods." In Mr. Bolton, he has selected goods that weren't appropriate for the task even before the Senate began to hold hearings--when Mr. Bolton's reputation was still in one piece. The Chicago Tribune, meanwhile, stakes out an amusing middle ground: The end-run appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is sure to create a nasty embarrassment. The question is who will be embarrassed--those who support Bolton or those who loathe him. . . . If Bolton behaves like the bullying hothead his critics say he is, he will alienate the diplomats of other nations and signal to the world that the Bush administration doesn't care a whit if the UN headquarters campus flops into New York's East River. . . . If Bolton emerges as a force for a more accountable and ambitious UN, it is his critics who'll have to eat the crow. Of course, there's a third possibility: that Bolton will do a perfectly creditable job, but the U.N. is unreformable. The Times editorial does include a bit of comic relief: Senator George Voinovich, the Ohio Republican who became one of Mr. Bolton's strongest critics, said yesterday that he planned to send the new ambassador a book on how to be an effective manager. It couldn't hurt, but this may be the first time a world superpower has used its top United Nations post as a spot for the remedial training of a troublesome government employee. That's right, George Voinovich, who cries like a baby over the U.N. ambassadorship, is a world superpower!

To: JBTFD who wrote (695096)	8/3/2005 10:21:01 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769670

Slate's Christopher Hitchens offers a sort-of defense of Dick Durbin's notorious statement about Guantanamo Bay: The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Hitchens writes in Slate, was "unfairly misquoted recently as having made a direct comparison between Guantanamo, Hitler, and Stalin when he had only mentioned them in the same breath." We must admit we're surprised to see Hitchens, who is no admirer of Bill Clinton, employing the "he didn't inhale" defense. Richard Hofstadter, Call Your Office Last month Paul Begala showed up at the Campus Progress National Student Conference, a left-wing gathering in Washington, where he participated in a panel discussion called "Winning the War of Ideas," CNSNews reports (asterisks in original): Begala's presence on the panel created a stir when he declared that Republicans had "done a p*-poor job of defending" the U.S. Republicans, he said, "want to kill us. "I was driving past the Pentagon when that plane hit" on Sept. 11, 2001. "I had friends on that plane; this is deadly serious to me," Begala said. "They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted--that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit," Begala said. "That is bulls* national defense, and we should say that." Echoing the claim is one Annie Lamott, who writes on TPMCafe.com: I am able to believe, about half the time, that Bush and Rove would be capable of orchestrating a second terrorist attack on America, if and when they deem it necessary to instill martial law, which they will. Hat tip: Sherri Annis. These are not fringe figures: Begala, an erstwhile Clinton aide, is a CNN commentator, and TPMCafe, where Lamott holds forth, is run by Josh Marshall, a bright young liberal who once seemed to be on amiable terms with reality. The paranoid style of American politics is alive even on the "respectable" left, and getting stronger all the time. Spot the Idiot Today's San Francisco Chronicle has a hilarious pair of letters (Nos. 4 and 5) in response to a Sunday article on Hamas: Editor -- Regarding the article, "Hamas camp: Sun, fun . . . indoctrination" (July 31): The Hamas-sponsored youth camps are a double-edged sword. These kids, like any, deserve the chance to enjoy the the camaraderie of youth while exploring their athletic, social and artistic abilities. Hamas, by providing what would otherwise be a luxury for these kids, is getting away with feeding them a poison way of thought that will inevitably bring further sickness to the region. Palestinian children as young as 11 have tried attacking Israelis. It makes me wonder: What would it take to get these kids to sing songs like "Kumbaya" around the campfire and put their bomb-making equipment away? Dassi Shusterman South San Francisco -- -- -- Editor -- Yes, it is disturbing that Palestinian children are being taught to chant "Rifle fire! Raise it up!" in Hamas summer camps. But, hey, we've got militaristic chants going in this country for our kiddies, too. On Sunday, President Bush met with the Boy Scouts, a gathering of 50,000, at their National Jamboree at an Army base in Virginia. Among other things, he went on about patriotism and military service. Bush's audience had been warmed up by a man wearing an Army T-shirt who, as balloons with military emblems floated about, led the children in chants of "OO-rah" and "U.S.A.!" Looks like we've got some of our own sun, fun and indoctrination. Judith Ross San Francisco Patriotism, murdering Jews--hey really, what's the diff?