One of the jobs of government is to protect its citizens and they're property. Sometimes a nation has to go to war inorder to accomplish that goal. You may argue that Iraq was not a threat but one legitimate use of government is millitary/war expenses.

I will assume that Medicare/Medicade are two social programs whose existence you think is justified.

Sometimes our governemnt has to protect those citizens that cannot protect themselves, or cannot afford to help themselves. Its the same thing, just turned a different way

Back on Track:



Um. I think I know why its never happened. Not because of personal concepts of morality as much as the Court doesn't want to rule itself out of the power position. Hoenstly, they just struch down 505 in the PATRIOT Act a month ago, and I thik its more so because the Act renders them easily by-passable. I think as "constructionist" a person as he thinks he's putting up there, if they're worth anything they'll relegate tricky issues to state courts, but they won't pass a final ruling on something like Roe vs. Wade. If they did, they'de put their own authoritative position behind in the future. I only wonder about this mostly because of all the Terrorism Acts being passed and their constitutional validity.

I understand that someone Bush puts up their might be in support of the acts but perhaps still rule against them because the acts aren't exactly in support of the court. This is far less about anyone's ideological stance and might come down to the three branches jokeying for power. That's one of the reasons I was pissed when Congress voted away their own say after 9/11. The three are meant for "checks and balances" and i think the court is invested in keeping their third of it.

-Dolce

You could be right. The Court has a tendency to promote shared powers/checks and balances. That was the same rationale the court used when it struck down the Line-Item Veto. They have a tendency to not like one branch gaining/losing more power then the other branches.

Colin Powell Stepping Down!

I did not see that one coming at all.



I kind of always noticed there was a big rift there. It came to the forfront with the Michigna Case, but that's a different story. I do think for a long time he's been a bit too quiet to indicate ideological comfort with what's going on. So anyone know who could potentially replace him? Does Condi step down next? I don't remember previous re-elections, but do President's usually have this big of a turn-over?

-Dolce

ha! I called it BEFORE the election.

Ain't I clever?

There's no room for moderates in this second faze of the Bush League coup d'etat. :wink:

And besides, Powell might be thinking about 2008?

BTW: This turnover is typical of most admins. (LBJ's was the exception, I guess. Weren't they "the best and the brightest," or am I thinking of the JFK team?

Presidents usually do have a bit of turnover in their cabinets come second term. Madeline Albirhgt and Robert Rubin were both second term replacements in the Clinton Administration. Also Donald Regan and James Baker switched spots in the Reagan Administration.

I am suprised Powell lasted through the whole of Bush's first term, but I knew he'd be gone very soon after Bush got re-elected. Iraq left the Bush Adminstration with soem egg on their face, and Powell was made to wear alot of it. I don't see Powell getting the support for the GOP for 2008, and his wife has said she doesn't support him running.

Are you calling Ashcroft a moderate and Gonzales a hard core conservative?

Didn't Maidelaine ALbright replace an aging, and sick Warren Christopher?

Not qute the same as Powel resigning, and I mean their has been alot of turn over in Bush cabinet, though I am damn happy to see Ashcroft go.

He was certainly healthy enough to go to Florida and help Al Gore.
Anyway, turnover happens in all administrations, some more so than others.

Umm yeah, good job wertham, especially considering that Powell said he would only serve one term way back when he was first appointed.

Gonzales IS about as hard core as they come, based on what I've read in the NYT. He's a bad choice, because he LOOKS like a crony (because he IS a crony).

Dubya could do himself a LOT of good by taking a page from Clinton and appointed a Dem to a MAJOR post (just as Bill appointed a GOP like Cohen).

But there's no way in hell that's gonna happen.

Lieberman's name is floating around for Secretary of State, actually.

But I guess Lieberman will be dismissed as a DINO.

Actually, Powell originally intended to resign in the summer of 2001, as you might recall... because absolutely nothing was happening and he was bored to death.

and no one ever really knows how long they're going to commit themselves to anything. There's been talk about this coming, but some are still surprised because it creates the perception of some sort of shake-up withing the Bush League. It's beginning to look like a Nixon-style turnover, only that was the result of All the President's Men going to jail

Not gonna happen. He's Jewish and everyone would be a bit too distrustful of his investment in the mid-east. So lets kill that rumor right there. And yeah, DINO sounds about right.

-Dolce

Umm yeah, so Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger were not secretaries of state?

Not when the primary focus us where it is today. It didn't matter if Kissinger was Jewish when we were dealing with Vietnam. IMO, it doesn't matter even now, I'm just saying I think it will to some people.

-Dolce

Clinton's main focus for the second term was peace in the Middle East.

I doubt Bush's concern is whether somebody is Jewish or not; his top policy-makers as well as the high-ranking administration members are Jewish. That's no secret to anyone.

Bush is widely regarded to be wrapped around Ariel Sharon's little finger, so he will probably avoid nominating anyone who will reinforce that image, even if it unfairly removes some good candidates from consideration. The most likely pick for State will be John Danforth, who was the next in line to get the Veep job behind Cheney in 2000.

MSNBC has a good story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6492238/

Spencer Abraham [Energy] is also stepping down.John Breaux might be the helpful Democrat; he supports drilling in ANWR. I really hope it's not McSlarrow -- he ran Dan Quayle's campaign for President. My money is on Kuhn. Bush loves industry insiders.

Another possible Democrat. But again, Bush loves promotion from within, or industry groups.

Article

::this message has been edited by dolcevita to add url tags. the content has not been changed::

Can people PLEASE wrap the links with [url] tag, and not make the page so friggin wide?

Looks like it will be Rice.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, one of President Bush's closest confidantes, is the likely successor to replace resigning Secretary of State Colin Powell, senior administration officials said on Monday.

I guess not too surprising after her slip the other day:

A pressing issue of dinner-party etiquette is vexing Washington, according to a story now making the D.C. rounds: How should you react when your guest, in this case national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice, makes a poignant faux pas? At a recent dinner party hosted by New York Times D.C. bureau chief Philip Taubman and his wife, Times reporter Felicity Barringer, and attended by Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Maureen Dowd, Steven Weisman, and Elisabeth Bumiller, Rice was reportedly overheard saying, “As I was telling my husb—” and then stopping herself abruptly, before saying, “As I was telling President Bush.”

And no, I don't think they are sleeping together. But she obviously feels really close to him. And no she's not married and doesn't have a husband.

Uh oh. Condi and Bushie are SEXORING each other.