> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:59 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: VP not part of Executive Branch? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 2:26 PM > Subject: RE: VP not part of Executive Branch? > > > > Heh! I don't think anyone who is feeling reasonable would cast this as > anything other than a polemic. But I think it is important because of > the growing numbers of people who are coming to believe in this and > similar polemics and abandoning belief in polemics that would support > VP Dick.
It's interesting, though, that the support for Bush's terrorist policy is at, roughly, 50-50, while his overall approval is down to approximately 1/3rd. >> When this theory becomes problematic is when Congress authorizes >> agencies to do specific things, the law is signed, but the POTUS is > > Bush's stand on signing statements is very controversial and is fodder > for the potential constitutional crisis I am suggesting may be > occuring. I'm not so sure about that. Signing statements have never been seen to have any more influence than the debate during passage of a bill, and have often been seen to have somewhat less (since the debate was not informed by a signing statement after the bill was passed). > > > > There is a balance point, which is usually found in the tug of war > > between > > the executive and legislative branches. When push comes to shove, > > the > > courts step in, but they tend to let the elected branches of > > government > > fight it out for a while first. This kinda makes sense, since both > > of these > > branches of government are strongly influenced by what will get them > > re-elected. > > I think that is just good sense on the part of the courts. Yup....and we see it playing out now. Republican Senators are leaving Bush in droves. > To some degree those challanges are what is weakening the Bush > presidency. Other factors include increased public opposition, > increased congressional opposition, and a dwindling of the ranks of > the "true believers" within the Executive. > Circling the wagons results in smaller and smaller circles. It's a reasonable and natural reaction to widespread failures. > > > There may well be signs of Bush weakness in that arena, but I think > events show that Bush is simply out of step with his own party. > Rather, he is in opposition to his own party. > In this particular instance, it is like the head of the snake has been > cut off and the head then proceeds to attack the tail. But, he pulled only a handful of Republicans with him on the last vote. Think about the welfare reform and free trade initiatives of Clinton. He pulled many more Democrats with him, although the liberal wing of the Democratic party was against welfare reform and labor was against free trade. I would think that a strong Bush, basking in the glory of a successful Iraq policy, would have been able to get many more Republicans behind a grand immigration compromise. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
