For GOP only

[YASNY]

Which is up to her husband and a rival Pres to jointly release. So pro and con get blocked. Sounds like a nice cozy relationship. I've pretty much discounted any claim of experience from being First Lady, so it doesn't mean much to me. Well perhaps she knows where to tell Bill to stand at state functions and which spouses are fun to hang with.

 

If she wasn't claiming to have been more involved, then it wouldn't be an issue. That fact is, she's using her supposed influence during Bill's time as a reason she should be considered qualified for the presidency, yet won't let the record become public.

[Texsox]

If she wasn't claiming to have been more involved, then it wouldn't be an issue. That fact is, she's using her supposed influence during Bill's time as a reason she should be considered qualified for the presidency, yet won't let the record become public.

 

I understand that and I also read it is up to President Bush and President Clinton. So if it is pro, Bush can block and if it is con, Bill can block. Seems like a nice cozy situation to just release nothing.

 

And I rejected her claim, believing that First Spouse, no matter how "involved", is not a qualifier for President.

[YASNY]

I understand that and I also read it is up to President Bush and President Clinton. So if it is pro, Bush can block and if it is con, Bill can block. Seems like a nice cozy situation to just release nothing.

 

And I rejected her claim, believing that First Spouse, no matter how "involved", is not a qualifier for President.

 

Yes YOU rejected her claim. That doesn't mean the mindless throngs will do the same. If she's going to throw that out there, she needs to back it up.

[Texsox]

Yes YOU rejected her claim. That doesn't mean the mindless throngs will do the same. If she's going to throw that out there, she needs to back it up.

 

No, people need to decide if she should back it up. They have the choice to accept or reject the statement. Some people will reject it regardless of "proof". Witness Edwards and his financial returns and donations to charity. That "proof" clearly didn't change minds of hardcore Republicans. And we all know no matter what "proof" she produces, attendance lists for meetings, memos, etc. the hard core Republicans will reject it and the hard core Dems will slurp it up.

 

I would suggest that if the candidate requires proof of everything, then they do not have the credibility with *you* for you to vote for him/her and it is a mute point. There is nothing that Hillary could ever produce that would get yours and Kap's votes.

[Balta1701]

So, on this topic...while that Newsweek article is correct that it isn't at all the Bush Administration blocking the release of the Clinton era documents, the background about their stonewalling is that it's only possible thanks to legal battles being fought by the Bush Administration.

The Bush White House has drafted an executive order that would usher in a new era of secrecy for presidential records and allow an incumbent president to withhold a former president's papers even if the former president wanted to make them public.

 

The five-page draft would also require members of the public seeking particular documents to show "at least a 'demonstrated, specific need' " for them before they would be considered for release.

 

Historians and others who have seen the proposed order called it unprecedented and said it would turn the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by allowing such materials to be kept secret "in perpetuity."

 

Under the order, incumbent and former presidents "could keep their records locked up for as long as they want," said Bruce Craig, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. "It reverses the very premise of the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a systematic release of presidential records after 12 years."

That was from 2001. Just 2 weeks ago, portions of that order were overturned, but because there is no other procedure yet set in place, after the Bush Admin. threw out the old rules, right now everything appears to be in limbo.

One of the groups that brought the lawsuit, the National Security Archive, suggested in a statement posted on its Web site yesterday that there was a need for legislation rescinding the executive order, as Congress is considering.

 

"The court is enforcing procedural standards, but has avoided the hard questions about the role former presidents, former vice presidents, and their heirs can play when it comes to disclosure of presidential records," said Meredith Fuchs, the group's general counsel. "Unless the Executive Order is reversed or withdrawn, decisions about the release of records from this administration may ultimately be made by the Bush daughters."

Some of us out there have been saying for a long time that everyone, not just the Democrats, would regret allowing the Bush administration to so dramatically expand Presidential powers in the past 7 years, because eventually, there was going to be another Democratic president. Here, you simply have one of the soon to be many cases of that.

[YASNY]

No, people need to decide if she should back it up. They have the choice to accept or reject the statement. Some people will reject it regardless of "proof". Witness Edwards and his financial returns and donations to charity. That "proof" clearly didn't change minds of hardcore Republicans. And we all know no matter what "proof" she produces, attendance lists for meetings, memos, etc. the hard core Republicans will reject it and the hard core Dems will slurp it up.

 

I would suggest that if the candidate requires proof of everything, then they do not have the credibility with *you* for you to vote for him/her and it is a mute point. There is nothing that Hillary could ever produce that would get yours and Kap's votes.

 

The hard core Republicans and the hard core Democrats are not going to decide who is our next president. And yes, you are correct. I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I may vote for a democrat, but not if it's her.

[Texsox]

The hard core Republicans and the hard core Democrats are not going to decide who is our next president. And yes, you are correct. I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I may vote for a democrat, but not if it's her.

 

I was mixing groups in that post. For any voter, if they require "proof", I doubt they will vote for that candidate.

[kapkomet]

So, on this topic...while that Newsweek article is correct that it isn't at all the Bush Administration blocking the release of the Clinton era documents, the background about their stonewalling is that it's only possible thanks to legal battles being fought by the Bush Administration.

That was from 2001. Just 2 weeks ago, portions of that order were overturned, but because there is no other procedure yet set in place, after the Bush Admin. threw out the old rules, right now everything appears to be in limbo.

Some of us out there have been saying for a long time that everyone, not just the Democrats, would regret allowing the Bush administration to so dramatically expand Presidential powers in the past 7 years, because eventually, there was going to be another Democratic president. Here, you simply have one of the soon to be many cases of that.

And you're naive enough to think that they are going to "turn back over" that power? Please.

 

[YASNY]

I was mixing groups in that post. For any voter, if they require "proof", I doubt they will vote for that candidate.

 

The record is extant. It's just a matter of her backing up what she says. If what she claims is fact, this should be a no-brainer.

[southsider2k5]

I was mixing groups in that post. For any voter, if they require "proof", I doubt they will vote for that candidate.

 

You don't require proof to decide what candidate to vote for? What do you use then? The biggest smile? The best commericials? The biggest promises made?

[Balta1701]

And you're naive enough to think that they are going to "turn back over" that power? Please.

No, I wasn't that naive, and that's the point. It should never have been allowed to get to this point at all, but with that classic combination of the Republicans controlling every house of Congress for 4 years and the constant calling of anyone who spoke out against their actions some version of the word "Traitor", this is where we wound up.

 

You think that those warrantless wiretaps and that surveillance apparatus that winds up with people who speak out against the war unable to get onto airplanes isn't going to wind up hurting pro-GOP folks someday? We're going to be stuck in the mess GWBush created for a long, long time, and I'm not just talking about Iraq.

[Texsox]

The record is extant. It's just a matter of her backing up what she says. If what she claims is fact, this should be a no-brainer.

 

But it is not a no brainer. They are Presidential records that Bush and Clinton have to approve to be released and both parties have agendas and reasons for not wanting that stuff released.

[YASNY]

But it is not a no brainer. They are Presidential records that Bush and Clinton have to approve to be released and both parties have agendas and reasons for not wanting that stuff released.

 

Okay ... I'll give you that point. But this is exactly what's wrong with the nation right now. Too many secrets that are strictly for reasons of agenda. National security is one thing, political agenda is something entirely different ... and unacceptable imho.

[Texsox]

You don't require proof to decide what candidate to vote for? What do you use then? The biggest smile? The best commericials? The biggest promises made?

Again, look at Edwards and his charitable donations. Kap still calls him a hypocrite, others claim it proved he is as good as he claims. The people that are pro-anybody and the people that are anti-someone look at the same "proof" and believe it supports their point of view.

 

And we do this on a personal basis as well. Do you make your spouse prove every statement they make? We accept people as being honest or not, and make judgments based on that. If Kap tells you something, do you ask him for proof? No, you have decided he is credible, honest, and you accept that statement.

[Texsox]

Okay ... I'll give you that point. But this is exactly what's wrong with the nation right now. Too many secrets that are strictly for reasons of agenda. National security is one thing, political agenda is something entirely different ... and unacceptable imho.

Agreed.

[southsider2k5]

No, I wasn't that naive, and that's the point. It should never have been allowed to get to this point at all, but with that classic combination of the Republicans controlling every house of Congress for 4 years and the constant calling of anyone who spoke out against their actions some version of the word "Traitor", this is where we wound up.

 

You think that those warrantless wiretaps and that surveillance apparatus that winds up with people who speak out against the war unable to get onto airplanes isn't going to wind up hurting pro-GOP folks someday? We're going to be stuck in the mess GWBush created for a long, long time, and I'm not just talking about Iraq.

 

Oh puh-lease. Acting like GW is the first President to do this is naive all by itself. Presidents have been one-upping each other for a long time, and if the promises/preformance of Congress is any indication of what a Democratic Presidency would be like, I really don't see that changing.

[Balta1701]

Oh puh-lease. Acting like GW is the first President to do this is naive all by itself. Presidents have been one-upping each other for a long time, and if the promises/preformance of Congress is any indication of what a Democratic Presidency would be like, I really don't see that changing.

Yes, presidents have been one-upping each other for a long time. In other words, you just admitted my exact point; the Bush Administration has one-upped the Clinton administration. In fact, I'd say that the last time it went the other way was back in the 70's right after Watergate when we realized how big of a disaster we'd had. From that point, we've gone through Reagan with Iran Contra, Bush the 1 following it up, Clinton with another step, and then Bush just topping it off.

 

Just because Clinton did it too doesn't make what GW Has done ok. Nor does the fact that GW did it too make what Clinton did in cutting off access to documents and cutting openness good either. But until we actually demand things from the Congress regarding openness, and not just cower in fear and completely capitulate to the President every time he says terror, no one is ever going to see those documents or ever learn a damn thing about how this government is running.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, presidents have been one-upping each other for a long time. In other words, you just admitted my exact point; the Bush Administration has one-upped the Clinton administration. In fact, I'd say that the last time it went the other way was back in the 70's right after Watergate when we realized how big of a disaster we'd had. From that point, we've gone through Reagan with Iran Contra, Bush the 1 following it up, Clinton with another step, and then Bush just topping it off.

 

Just because Clinton did it too doesn't make what GW Has done ok. Nor does the fact that GW did it too make what Clinton did in cutting off access to documents and cutting openness good either. But until we actually demand things from the Congress regarding openness, and not just cower in fear and completely capitulate to the President every time he says terror, no one is ever going to see those documents or ever learn a damn thing about how this government is running.

 

Now that would be a much better post. I also have no doubt that we will either get 4 more years of either the samething, or 4 years of "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" after every time they get caught doing something wrong, or streching their power. Its not going to change.

[kapkomet]

Now that would be a much better post. I also have no doubt that we will either get 4 more years of either the samething, or 4 years of "VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY" after every time they get caught doing something wrong, or streching their power. Its not going to change.

Ding.

 

[southsideirish71]

Dick Durbin, the great Senator from IllegalaliaIllinois.

 

Tancredo said yesterday, “I call on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to detain any illegal aliens at this press conference. Just because these illegal aliens are being used for political gain doesn’t mean they get immunity from the law.”

 

“If we can’t enforce our laws inside the building where American laws are made, where can we enforce them?”

 

Today Tom Tancredo stepped up the rhetoric “Dick Durbin, by his own admission, brought in students who benefit from the DREAM Act for political gain,” said Tancredo. “Dick can split all the hairs he wants, but we all know the DREAM Act is designed to do one thing: benefit illegal aliens.”

 

“Of course, I don’t expect Dick Durbin to be able to tell the difference between legal residents and illegal aliens – after all, this is a man who has already demonstrated that he can’t differentiate between American servicemen and the genocidal foot soldiers of the Khmer Rouge,” Tancredo said.

 

 

Thanks for supporting americans Dick.

Edited October 24, 2007 by southsideirish71

[kapkomet]

Ahhh, yes. Little Dick Durbin.

 

Can politics stoop any lower then using illegal aliens under our capital roof to sway for policy and votes? What a disgusting act.

[Balta1701]

Ahhh, yes. Little Dick Durbin.

 

Can politics stoop any lower then using illegal aliens under our capital roof to sway for policy and votes? What a disgusting act.

Durbin fired back saying that the immigration status of everyone involved had in fact been resolved, and accused Sen. Tancredo of not bothering to take the time to find that out.

[kapkomet]

Durbin fired back saying that the immigration status of everyone involved had in fact been resolved, and accused Sen. Tancredo of not bothering to take the time to find that out.

What does "resolved" mean?

[EvilMonkey]

Durbin fired back saying that the immigration status of everyone involved had in fact been resolved, and accused Sen. Tancredo of not bothering to take the time to find that out.

oooo, very scathing retort there, Dickie. So where did the notion that Dick was gonna have illegals there come from in the first place? Dick himself, or an aid? And if that is the case, and it turns out none WERE illegal, then did Dick lie?

[Rex Kickass]

Not necessarily, the people at the hearing could have been there on a valid working visa, student visa, or could have been parents of undocumented children, etc.