Folding, spindeling, and mutilating lauguage for fun since Aug, 2004
Friday, 03 August 2007


This is great and all...I just wish that I could believe that their fervor has nothing to do with the upcoming election.  Then again, THIS is the checks and balances in action.  The legislature putting the check on the Executive.  Perhaps too little, perhaps too late...but it's something we need.  Finally!

Newt Gingrich apparently finds all of these calls for transparency, scruitiny, and accountability too be tedious, however.  And partisan.  Shamefully, shamefully partizan.  Imagine!  Democrats using the machinery of government to represent their interests! It's unAmerican.  Chortle.  Somehow, people seem to forgeth that the framers KNEW that it is difficult, if not impossible to get people to act altruistically in a manner consistant enough to run a government.  So they gave us a government where everyone could get involved and use the tools of government to represent their own interests and nobody could (in theory) get the other over a barrel.

[update:  I had to leave this entry for a while to go run a kid to a class]

One problem is, too many people are abstaining from government and politics because for some reason they think it should be pure and nobel and altruistic and idealistic and the fact that it is not alienates them.  Hey, I'd like that too.  And when someone is being partizan or merely looking after themselves it's appropriate to point that out, but come on, it IS good for the country to have Gonzales questioned.




Doesn't it seem that Newt is saying that Gonzales merely has the APPERANCE of being a big lying cheat...and that it is the unhinged Democrats CREATING that perception completely unfairly?  I read Newts statement as being "It's too bad that the Democrats have ruined this man's reputation, but since they have, he should step down for the good of the country and the party."

Yeah.  So they can put in some other guy to pull the same dirty tricks and we have to go through this whole process again while nothing changes?

Yes, American politics require the constant struggle for accountability...but I'd like the efforts to cause the corruption to at least miss a beat.

(Double Hat Tip:  Frecklescassie)


Friday, 03 August 2007 06:48:27 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [6] | #
Friday, 03 August 2007 07:10:23 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
What a piece of work this Gonzales is! It's so easy to get exasperated and exhausted with all the crap that's been going on in Washington over the last 20-25 years (even longer). How... WHY do we put up with it?

I began voting for 3rd party candidates many many years ago because I just can't bring myself to vote for the "same-ole same-ole" anymore.

This time, I may vote for a main party person if he can get through the primaries. Ron Paul seems to be truly different from the rest of the pack - on both sides. For only the second time in my life I will be voting in the primaries to get Ron Paul on the ticket. If that fails, I guess it's back to the 3rd parties again...

Friday, 03 August 2007 08:14:10 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Let me guess...Constitution party?
Friday, 03 August 2007 09:47:54 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Not necessarily... But that was a very good guess based on my prior postings. I certainly couldn't cast a vote for the Green party. Wow - don't get me started...

I honestly don't pay as much attention to the party as much as the person. However, the party they belong to must come into play when making a decision. The point is then enough of us MUST vote for a 3rd party to get the attention of the two main players. A 3rd party doesn't necessarily have to win to make a point.

If, for example, someone manages to run on the platform of less government, less spending (not just removing waste, but actual spending less), removal of unnecessary (unconstitutional) federal departments, passing laws based on the constitution, repeal of laws that are unconstitutional, etc... - AND they garner a big percentage of the vote - then the two parties must pay attention to that.

Of course, Ross Perot did just that. Which is why the Republicans took power in 1994. Then, of course, the Republicans did not follow through on their promises. They said one thing and did another. It's the norm for Washington, say one thing and do another. Well we, the public, are sick and darn tired of the norm in Washington. If you aren't then you are part of the problem.

So - I will pick a 3rd party candidate (if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination) that most closely follows my beliefs on how the government should be run, and vote for them.

It might be the Constitution party. Let me ask you this. Would getting the Constitution party in the White House be any worse than another Clinton or Bush clone?
Friday, 03 August 2007 12:38:09 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark, sorry, I changed my screen name to "kemaris" to address a friend, and then forgot to turn it back to "Teresa" Whoops. Some of my friends have known me longer as "kemaris"


I would say, that given their close ties to the Dominionist/Theocracy moevement, they would somewhat worse than Bush (the opposition to corporate domination of government policy would be a plus, but the dedication to a government subordinated to the church is a bigger minus to I think that even though corporations are often slow to conform to reality, they eventually do...whereas a religious nut can keep on believeing what he believes no batter HOW it affects his bottom line.)

I'd say that a constitution party take-over of the White house would be a little worse than Bush, and a LOT worse than Clinton. (Given the rampant homophobia and general sexual repression of the group, they probably wouldn't be getting blow-jobs from 21-year-old interns, but would probably subject us to excesses more on the scale of Mr. Haggard or Mr.Tester.)

Also, they probably wouldn't be content to simply throw a huge number of welfare mother off the roles like Clinton and into minimum-wage jobs with no benefits...but would advocate something more like forced labor or something like that (R.J. Rushdoony, a supporter of the Constitution party and before that the U.S. Taxpayers Party, advocated the Biblical desirablility of slavery, for instance.)
Friday, 03 August 2007 12:52:00 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Let's be a tad more realistic, Kem- uh.. Teresa. Even IF someone that extreme made it to the White House - and that's a very VERY BIG IF - neither congress nor the senate would allow anything on the scale you mention to become a reality.

Is the Constitution party really that regligious? I'll have to look that up (thanks - now I have something to do tonight). If that's the case then I'd never be able to vote for any of their members. How can they call themselves the "Constitution Party" if that's the case. Religion is strictly forbidden from government (HA - I can't say that with a straight face anymore). You know, 1st amendment stuff - "...shall make no law..."

:::snicker::: You're probably right about the 21-year-old interns, though. Instead it would be 7-year-old boys! :::snort:::

I lean more towards the Libertarian party. They have their drawbacks, too - like total legalization of illicit drugs. But, then again, they would have a very hard time getting that passed into law.
Friday, 03 August 2007 13:29:44 (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

You raise some very good points about what has been historically the roles of the President and the congresses ability and duty to act as a check, but I think it's been made amply clear over the past couple years that the ability of congress to check the Executive branch has basically been gutted.

You say that it seems unrealistic for forced labor or other policies to get a hold...and I agree and yet I can't shake the nagging thought that I would have thought the Patriot Act to be unlikely to pull off ten years ago.

What I find interesting about the places where the Dominionist movement and the Constitutional parties agendas mesh...and there are quite a few of that they both want to shrink the government to fit into the Anti-Federalist interpretation of the Constitution post-bill-of-rights.

Interesting in that there were SOME concessions to the anti-federalists to get them to ratify the constitution...but the Federalists in no way gave over to them when someone says "What the founders intended" and they are referring to the anti-federalists, this has to be taken with a grain of salt. Even certain anti-federalists like Paine and Jefferson would not have agreed to many of the points put forward by the Constitution party as they actually supported many of the humanitarian functions of government that the constitution party wants to eliminate.

But when it comes to shrinking the government, both the constitutional party and the Dominionists want to define the family, want to legislate traditional morality, and want the church to take over the functions that the government will be eliminating.

Backers such as Alan Keys, Roy Moore, R.J.Rushdoony, Christian Exodus (those wackos staring the "Christian colony" n South Carolina) ETc value the stances of the constitution party just because of such extreme views.

The ultra-religious backers of the Constitution party and other conservative parties view the "libertarian" goal of a weak and ineffective government as the best possible thing for their groups. They are organized, have tons of money and thousands and thousands of followers who will do what they are told. They don't have to run the government to run the country...but in the end they will effectivly do both.
Comments are closed.
Admin Login
Sign In
Pick a theme: