<p>“That might be true if we had a reasonable balance of powers, but we don’t. We have a complicit Republican congress,a nd an increasingly powerful SCOTUS. This extension of executive power, which is illegal, is well documented”</p>
<p>Is that why key Republicans recently sharply and publicly challenged the legality of the President’s policies concerning the rights of detainees, and what constitues “torture”? Is that why his hand-picked SCOTUS sent him back to the drawing board over these same issues, instead of rubberstamping his actions?</p>
<p>At this point, I wouldn’t likely vote for Condi because, as yet, we know virtually nothing about her stance on key domestic and world issues. Sure she’s the President’s “yes woman”. As Secretary of State, that’s her job, like it or not. But after W goes back to Crawford, she should be free to step forward and be more forthcoming about her personal stance on the issues. Whether or not she’ll do that remains to be seen. In any case, has there been any indication whatsoever that she would consider running for President? If not, the whole question may be moot. </p>
<p>Hilary is an interesting option. Is there any doubt that she’s got her eye on the White House? She’s certainly a shrewd politician (a fact that earns her zero points on my respect meter, given my distain for that species of animal). But, she’s certainly intelligent, articulate, and hardworking. </p>
<p>My biggest problem with her is that I suspect, at any given time, she’s careful to tailor her rhetoric and stance on the issues to conform to the comfort zone of whatever majority might be willing to elect her in the upcoming election. I sure hope I’m wrong on this, though…</p>
<p>The prospect that Bill might once again end up as a full time resident of the White House doesn’t bother me. It might give Rush a coronary—and would that necessarily be a bad thing? (just kidding ;))</p>
<p>Allmusic, I hope your time with biology is swift and bearable. My wife went through it early due to other reasons. She’s fine now; and I don’t have many scars from it either (lol).</p>
<p>This stuff is all cyclical. D’s ran Congress for 46 years and people got tired of them and voted them out. R’s have been running it awhile and they will get voted out eventually as well.</p>
<p>The other thing is everybody hates Congress, but everybody seems to love their Congresscritter. Why else would R and D incumbents get reelected at such high rates.</p>
<p>Even if one or both of the Houses switch, over 90% of incumbents in both parties will win.</p>
<p>Zoos, we aboslutely do have an elected Congress. And the GOP congresspeople are still complicit, letting Bush get away with more an more violations of executive power!</p>
<p>LF: I don’t know that complaining is all that much fun, but it does seem to be par for the course at the moment.</p>
<p>This Republican Congress has been the most robotic, complying with executive desires to a rare degree experienced in American politics, and extremely negligent in exercising either oversight or due diligence. It has also been extremely partisan. (Check the percentages of party vote on votes that break by party line…Republicans vote together on a 95-96 percent rate.) Under this administration, “bi-partisan” has come to mean “capitulate,” to the point where some under-30 activists see it as a dirty word.</p>
<p>The Democratic fractiousness, akin in the legislative process to herding stray cats, may have its down sides in winning elections but has its plusses in producing legislation incorporating a wider point of view.</p>
<p>Oh, nothing is going to get passed when Speaker Pelosi takes over. That won’t be much of a change. And that’s why I don’t think it is necessary for the Democrats to propose anything about anything before the election that puts Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair.</p>
<p>You sound like that’s a bad thing. A government that fights all it’s battles on subjects BEFORE they become laws is the best thing to happen to us! </p>
<p>That’s the problem we have now, crap is coming out without a good fight to make sure it’s best for everybody. I’d just as soon nothing came out if it couldn’t get both sides to agree. This administration has damaged america because they field test their ideas on the public and not all of them are good for america, no matter what they say. IN the old days some agreement was reached before we got it, now we just bend over.</p>
<p>Someone up the thread didn’t think Condi dealt with ‘aspects of poverty’. Just to be clear, being a black American in Alabama in the 1950s and 60s, and being in the black middle class, was no where the same as being white and in the white middle class in Alabama in the same period. I think this is noteworthy.</p>