Tuesday, November 11, 2008

This is why a lot of us have been opposing George W. Bush all these years...

President-Elect Barack Obama is likely going to overturn a lot of Bush's policies via the use of executive order and "signing statements".

And here's why Bush's most stubborn supporters had darned well better start worrying up a sweat...

George W. Bush set a horrible precedent with his abuse of executive orders and signing statements (which are how he got around the letter of the law a lot of times, by "interpreting" legislation according to his own whims and declaring that it was his executive privilege to do so). And for most of the past decade, the "Bush-bots" have cheered him on... even when he's grievously violated the Constitution in the process.

And now that very same power is going to land in the hands of Barack Obama.

Can you people who have thought Bush could do no wrong these eight years, possibly be capable of understanding what that means?

I've said it since last week: Barack Obama will not be a good President. But he would not have the potential to wreck so much havoc if George W. Bush had not shown him how to do so in the first place.

In the end, if Obama's tenure as President is a disaster, it will be, quite sincerely, Bush's fault.

And I'm gonna go ahead and tell y'all that beforehand.


Anonymous said...

I dont understand. Are you a republican or a democrat?

Anonymous said...

On the issues of government funded stem cell research and drilling in Utah, Obama is just talking about returning the status to pre-Bush days, thus undoing the Bush executive orders. I don't see where he is doing anything particularly alarming. We'll just have to wait and see how he does before we proclaim him power hungry. He's not even president yet. His transition efforts are interesting though. Talk about hitting the ground running.

Matt said...

Well Chris, I don't think it is definite that Obama won't be a good president.

It is very possible that he can be a good president. In fact, I am very much hopeful that will be the case.

It is just a feeling in my gut... but I think change is in the air. :)

With all due seriousness, me and Obama don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, but we do agree on our fair share as well. And sure he is a little bit arrogant - a President can't change the world alone. Yes, he is also inexperienced.

But, maybe, just maybe, things could be different. Things *can* change, Chris.

But just to be safe, I am not "hyping" up Mr. Obama. I know that any man can make mistakes, and as much as we would ALL love to think otherwise, Barack Obama is %100 immortal.

So, I'll wait and see, and keep my fingers crossed for the best.

Chris Knight said...

"Are you a republican or a democrat?"


Chris Knight (Hotcat) said...

Historically, in times of crisis (9/11, economic crisis) the power of the presidency rises. But I certainly agree with you, W (more importantly, Cheney and the conservatives believing in the "Unitary Presidency") illustrated the way to push all of the boundaries (and probably push beyond them, in the hopes of any attempt to stop the executive branch will be moot or foiled along the way.)

Signing statements are likely illegal, but that requires a case against the President that the courts hear (surely the Supreme Court).

Executive orders, on the other hand, have been around for a long while, and are the foundation behind our tripartite government. Their whole point is to enable the President to act quickly in times of crisis, and it's up to the Congress and Courts to clean up the mess later.

Eric Wilson said...

Upon reading some of Bush's executive orders, I'm amazed they haven't garnered more attention. Seizure of property for supporting certain foreign countries' political movements??? Look in the archives for the last 3 years. You could lose your property if you're caught supporting opposition movements in countries like Lebanon, Zimbabwe, Burma...and Iraq. Note that it's worded to infer violent opposition, but it's vague enough to enforce otherwise. It's dangerously close to anti-protest laws...
In the case of Iraq, it seeks to punish those who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq." Wow. That's really subjective, isn't it?

Brittany said...

If and when Obama is a horrible president like I suspect, it will have nothing to do with George W. Bush. Bush has done the best with what he's been given, 9/11 and the war. Is he perfect? No. Is he doing his best? Yes.

sm said...






Admit it: You WANT this to be a real game...

The game that really lets you battle Hell on Earth!  Guaranteed to send Dianne Feinstein into a frothing frenzy, make Chuck Schumer&#...