Bush uses the exact same language nominating Hayden to be CIA chief as he did Porter Goss.

"He's the right man--at this critical moment--in our nation's history."

I guess we blew that previous critical moment.  

Are Bush's speech-writers merely lazy or fed up with their dumb despot?

shoot somethings not linking right ... you need to scroll down and click the video link on the site for it ... sorry.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Hayden-Goss-endorsement.wmv


-- Modified on 5/9/2006 2:41:48 PM

fixed the ballot boxes to insure themselves a servile puppet. I wonder if they realized this one REALLY had a wooden head?

Why would he care about saying the same thing?  It sounds good, and 75% of the public doesn't pay attention to things like that, including 90% of those who would likely vote for him, so why should he care?  I mean, it sounds good for the unwashed masses.  Please...like they can think for themselves.

...it continues to illustrate how little thought he is giving to governance.  Can't he think of a good reason that he nominated this guy?  I mean, one that he doesn't want to hide?  

Really, he should care more, as he is fighting to stay out of the 20s in approval ratings.  Apparently, people have begun to pay attention, at a rate of about 1 percent per week.

George W.'s 'unitary' theory of government, in which all power flows from the executive branch, really doesn't depend upon the checks and balances provided by the other two branches (congress and judiciary) of government.

One point not widely publicised is that George W. makes extensive use of 'signing' statements on key bills. These signing statements have indicated those parts of bills that the executive branch will simply not obey. Which, of course, explains why he hasn't vetoed a single bill as President - no need to veto anything, when you can simply pick and choose which laws apply to you.

and personally probably shouldn't give a shit.  If there's anything he has at stake personally, it's his position among his peers - that and the administration machinery will decide how this is handled.

It's not about Bush or even the family dynasty, it's about the GOP stranglehold on the country, and the damage that (or any stranglehold) does.

He doesn't need to and probably doesn't care that much about his ratings.  The RNC should, and does to some extent.  OTOH, they also understand that power is not a lot of good if you can't abuse it.

So they lie.  It's cheaper than beating people into compliance, and we're just experimenting with drugging people into compliance.

(1) some frivolous trial lawyer and liberal judge might sue them into legal compliance, and (2) who knows, the next administration might choose to follow the law.

Much better to load the deck, both in Congress and the courts.  Since that's not yet practical, lying at will is the interim plan.  Works very well for a drunk - ya never have to remember the truth, or even learn it to begin with.

I believe Richard Nixon was being charged for just such an offense (one of many) when he was about to be impeached.  He would "withhold funds" from money that Congress had appropriated but that he didn't want to enforce.  He would then re-direct them to things he thought more worthwhile.  

Dick and Bush get away with fucking government because Congress rubber-stamps it for them.  All bets are off once they have a Congress that might impeach them when they get out of line, and will if approval ratings are somewhere in the 20s when Congress changes hands.  

Ironically, the executive is not too unitary.  Dick is mostly in charge.  This is as close to a co-presidency as the US has ever been, with Dick  having the bigger "co" than Bush.  

I guess nature meant it that way.

The process that you describe of "withholding funds" for Congressionally-authorized program was called impoundment.

I would suppose what we have going for us is that this Republican gang is virtually incompetent. Oh, they steal elections and divvy up their ill-gotten booty well enough, but fall-down (way down) on actual day-to-day governance. Where we would be in real trouble is if they had truly competent people like Reich Ministers Speer or Goebbels.

Also, these GOPers are just too enamored of stealing money. If they had to choose between graft and adhering to their 'principles', I think they would line their pockets everytime. They're reminiscent of those monkeys, who when presented a problem of reaching into a narrow-neck bottle to seize some fruit, refuse to release the fruit even though they can remove their hand only by doing so.

Poor little Republicans...so little time, so much fruit.

Why shouldn't Jeb run? Having so much experience with hanging chads he should be able to "fix" the national voting system..... we may just have to increase our daily prosac intake.

the best cure is activity, especially do something productive, sweat-producing, and/or enjoyable.  

OTOH, moping causes depression.  There are lots of things not practically within our control, and we have to accept that.

I don't think a party approach is good - we have to think for ourselves, and act accordingly.

I know the Bush admin is behind the "mental health" screening for kids, which translated means dope the little buggers as a teacher may want.   Much less controversial than actually dealing with kids as individuals.