NYT: Frightening To Think What Bush Would Concoct If His Party Maintains Power

[kpete]

Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made

Published: November 5, 2006

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.

That is why things are different this year.

.............

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.

.............

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[peanutbrittle]

1. It would be another "mandate" God help us n/t

[durtee librul]

2. I agree

and I think that if we do get both houses, he will lose it mentally and then his 'handlers' will have to control him....if that's possible. He's already over the edge - watching his body language, listening to him slurring his words and shushing all his 's'....he's losing it and I think the party knows it.

Support Small Paws Bichon Rescue - visit their annual auction site at http://www.sprauction.org/

[cassiepriam]

3. Equally frightening is what he will do if they lose. nt

[shance]

4. Does the NY Times have amnesia? The Administration has already destroyed.2 countries

their people, their people's culture, their infrastructure, their pride, their hopes, and the land of those countries has in many cases been permanently toxified through so much toxic weaponry fired upon it and more importantly, depleted uranium.

And may we never ever forget Katrina - although the white racist media which controls all our networks and cable, has quickly wisked that genocidal reality away from our television observing eyes.

It is unfathomable that this Administration has gotten away with our taxpayer money and so much. And sadly the New York Times, has in many cases the past six years been complicit.

[Danascot]

5. This editorial is one of the most scathing

I've seen from the NYT. They have been too little too late many times in recent years but this is about as articulate and unflinching as it gets. I'll take it.

[kpete]

6. I thought so too

although, you are right - they have to take responsibility for waiting SO long.

[cali]

15. That's just not true.

The NYT is culpable for the Miller crap and for holding the story about NSA evesdropping for almost a year, but their anti-Bush, anti-repuke editorials over the last 6 years far, far outnumber anything they've published on the editiorial page that's even tepidly pro-bush.

[seemslikeadream]

7. Is there no one left to carry the water?

[earth mom]

8. Too bad that it had to get this bad for the media to DO something.

Hope it's not to late. Recommended because it's a start.

[Rose Siding]

9. Republican majority's "burned-out, brain-dead status"

:wow:

"...Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards."

[Straight Shooter]

10. In their attempt to destroy Democrats, the GOP is killing democracy.

I wonder how all those God-fearin' Repubs will enjoy living under a dictatorship when bush/cheney decides to take their guns away.

[Jo March]

11. I imagine one of the first things to be *'ed would be the Times

Perhaps the leadership at the Times is a bit frightened of being labelled terrorists and carted off to Gitmo. After all, * can do whatever the hell he wants and he could easily shut down the Times with a stroke of the pen, I'm sure.

[smartknowledgeu]

12. unfortunately new world order is already under way

Just google the the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, signed in 2005 by President Bush, Canadian PM Stephen Harper, and Mexico President Vicente Fox. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[HuffleClaw]

13. its a vast liberal media conspiracy!!!!

though i did see a fellow buying four asssorted financial newspapers yesterday and all four had pro-republican headlines...

[FernBell]

14. k&r

[Oleladylib]

16. He would fall faster with his own party in control than with a loss. n/t