GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush targets contract oversight provisions

• 45418
  

  Psst! Dan! Let's just pretend the rest of them aren't here so we won't have to deal with original thought and actual discourse. I'll just spout buzzwords toward you and you can vent to your trite and mean-spirited spleen's content.

  Contract Geek Posted March 7, 2008 1:15 PM
• 44826
  

  ROTFLMAO!! Did I hear "I'm rubber, you're glue. Insults bounce off me and stick to you!"?

  I'm sorry. I just constantly hear Skeeter taking snipes at everyone who expressed their disappointment with the Executive Branch performance over the past eight years; regardless of their incompetence. And should anyone try to inject a modicum of intelligence into the discussion, he fires back with his rapier wit, like "Valley girl".

  Carol, you obviously hit a sore spot. Thank you for pointing out the irony of the Party Pacaderm's stance on minimal government conflicts with giving the current POTUS the keys to our collective castles. The radical right has followed this Pied Piper (Ham) like children to a position indefensible from governmental observation and oppression; should it decide to do so. The Constitution has been thrown out with the bath water and the baby.

  Jeff, congratulations; at least you had him responding with a bit of intelligence. Often I can't even answer his diatribes because I can't understand his rantings. I've even seen a number of folks try to set him straight, only to hear a blanket "I call 'em as I see 'em.", some "gulf metafore", or petty taunts. Still, I must admit amazement to hear the "R" card being used by such an obvious bigot.

  Politics will always be an irritant to us common folk. Bills will always carry good and bad within and the Executive Branch will deal with what Congress hands them as they feel best. But such statements as Dubya's make me agree with JT. Why do we keep hearing about fights over that line-item-veto? Obviously, there is no need since Shrub will do as he pleases. When Congress solicits the Executive Branch's participation, the POTUS may not decide to come out and play. The only way to push the collective will over the ignorance and will of one man is for a common consensus and veto proof vote or to finally charge him with failure to uphold his oath of office and defend the Constitution.

  Still, M. Smith said it best: Do any of us, INCLUDING the Shrub-ites, believe him anything but a face-man for the radical right lurking in the stage wings? Hey, the dude hardly reads.

  Tip off Posted March 3, 2008 10:58 AM
• 44818
  

  Sorry Dan, not everybody worships the robber barons of yesteryear, and not everyone feels the purpose of life is to live as a capitalist. And here is another revelation for you; freedom and democracy are far more important strengths of the country than are the strengths of individualism and capitalism. But I think I understand your hatred of public servants. Because their decisions are usually based on the concept of a broader public good, your experience has probably been that they are a barrier to the fulfillment of your own self interests.

  Rick Posted March 3, 2008 10:23 AM
• 44630
  

  Jeff, " I know your type" sounds racist to me. You must work for another country if you believe that CS are dedicated, loyal and hardworking. My experience and it is based on fact that for the most part they are whiners, complainers and will do anything to avoid working. Are there good people in CS sure there are, but it doesn't belay the fact that they are in government because they want to avoid risk, lack creativity and look for the easy way out. This countries strength is its individualism and captalism not a large federal bureaucracy. Guys like you take from society and contribute little or nothing

  dan m ketter Posted February 28, 2008 1:38 PM
• 44563
  

  This one goes out to Dan Ketter. I really feel sorry for you and hope that you get professional help soon before this bile and hatred of public service continues to harm your mental and physical health. It is my experience that people who work for civil service (similar to their military counterparts) are dedicated, loyal, and hardworking. They knew that government service would never make them wealthy, in contrast to your multi-millionaire illusionary "friends" that populate AM Talk Radio. Yes, I know your type, you despise people who are employed by others. You think that they are suckers for working for anyone in general and working for public service in particular. In your mind, if someone was really intelligent they wouldn't be working for the government in the first place. What you want is to punish people for their career choice. In your mind the only proper salary for civil service employees is zero. No matter how effective the government operates you would still be at the sidelines throwing stones. Have you ever thought that part of government inefficiency is due to competing and conflicting directives emanating from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government? This article is a prime example of the conflicting messages within government. We could have a much more efficient government, but it wouldn't be American. Adolph Hitler's government was a good example of a very efficient government. To discover the source of your hatred of civil service you need look no further than in the mirror. Please get help for yourself before it is too late.

  Jeff Singletary Posted February 27, 2008 10:24 PM
• 44548
  

  Ohhh Carol, whatever.... You sound like a Valley girl with and IQ to match

  dan m ketter Posted February 27, 2008 3:32 PM
• 44504
  

  Seriously Dan Ketter - those silly labels are so 1990's.

  Backbone? really - The individuals who wear the flag on their label and bumber are the first to support the basic undermining of our laws and constitution. And they do it strictly because "it's their guy".

  When you actually come out in support of the American system and way of life - then you can wear a flag.

  Carol Anderson Posted February 27, 2008 9:26 AM
• 44470
  

  Does anyone really believe that this President takes time or even has the intellectual interest in actually reading or even has the ability to thoroughly understand legislation before signing it and/or that he actually drafts these so-called 'signing statements'? It it not obvious that he only speaks and acts as a mouthpiece and enabler for others in elected offices and elsewhere?

  Michael Smith Posted February 26, 2008 6:54 PM
• 44442
  

  Well at least we have a predident that has a backbone, for 8 years previously the government was run by the poll of the hour. Osama is a clone in waiting big government and big taxes

  dan m ketter Posted February 26, 2008 2:15 PM
• 44412
  

  Don, the Speaker of the House was not in violation of the Constitution in the Massachusetts case you mention. However, I believe if you read the U.S. Constitution, you will find that the President is REQUIRED to enforce and uphold the laws, NOT just the parts of the laws he agrees with.

  Larry R. Doane Posted February 26, 2008 10:09 AM
• 44388
  

  This is different than "politics as usual". It undermines the entire process of Government as described in the Constitution. If a President objects to a provision of law he doesn't sign the bill - it's called a veto. If two thirds of the Congress disagrees with him, the law gets passed anyway, if not it is dead. There's no provision in the Constitution for line item vetos, which is functionally what our President thinks he can get away with here. If he refuses to enforce part of a passed law that he thinks he doesn't have to follow, it could be grounds for impeachment. This is serious stuff. He should follow the process like every other president has in the past - the Executive Branch is not above the law.

  JT Posted February 26, 2008 7:45 AM
• 44363
  

  This president is going to end up behind bars if he keeps this up. Abusing a written law in such a way is actually breaking the law. We cannot simply ignore one part of a law because it is easier to get our way. This administration will have to pay for its crimes against our Constitution in the following years. That is unless the shredders beat us to the evidence.

  Wynter Posted February 25, 2008 5:50 PM
• 44330
  

  Bush may technically be within his rights as president, but the proper channel for determining if he can refuse to enforce aspects of the law would be to submit the issue to the Supreme Court. As far as sueing the new Iraq government for actions of the Saddam government, my questions: (1) is it the same body politic as the one who committed the crimes, or an entirely new entity; (2) assuming the American courts have the authority to process suits against a soveriegn government, if that government does not choose to let itself be sued, will the payments made simply come out of American (taxpayer)aid to Iraq? Finally, with respect to the comment on "democracy at work", it is no worse than the Speaker of the House putting pressure on the legislators here in Massachusetts to ignore the petition of 176,000 citizens of this state to put the Marriage Amendment on the next state ballot so that ALL THE CITIZENS of this state could decide if homosexual "marriage" would be permitted in Massachusetts.

  Don Posted February 25, 2008 11:23 AM
• 44328
  

  No one seemed to care when Slick Willy Clinton did the same thing on legislation that he signed. Watch, the same people will complain about the people that Bush pardons before he leaves office forgetting about the people that Clinton pardon. Hypocrites! No doubt, the same people will attack me for writing this. Long live King George and NSPS.

  VET Posted February 25, 2008 11:09 AM
• 44314
  

  Here is the Imperial Presidency at work. Bush just thinks he is supreme over all ... no matter what is passed, he disregards it and marginalizes the Congress.

  Charles Hobbs Posted February 25, 2008 9:41 AM
• 44227
  

  President George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents we've had since James Buchanan. As a Webb Democrat I have the great expectation the next election cycle will not only replace Republican leadership on Capitol Hill across the board, but will usher in ACCOUNTABILITY for what has been a Corrupt and Arrogant 8 years. With any luck Mr. Bush & Cheney will be held accountable too, sans "executive privilege" ..... Pretty Clever Politics ... from the Great Decider, er Dictator.

  Tony Mastalski Posted February 23, 2008 9:18 AM
• 44189
  

  Way to go, Mr. President. Your actions of arbitrarily implementing the 2008 NDAA were the last straw for this registered Republican. Mr. Obama, you and your party just earned another vote!

  Private Citizen Posted February 22, 2008 9:38 PM
• 44174
  

  Woolley, fascinated by the politicking involved with the Defense bill, the president's signing statements, and the constitutional implications, said that Bush's stance is "pretty clever politics, but it's not clear that it's good democracy."

  Since when did Bush care about Democracy!!! How many days left till he is out?

  Thanks Bushies Posted February 22, 2008 5:35 PM