That is the BIG difference between a Neo-Republican and a Democratic President.

Neo-Republicans believe that a Republican President IS the State. They believe that a Democratic President is a sans culottes who will have the tumbrils rolling and Versailles sacked.

Democrats believe that the President is a proportionately-representative-elected head of the Executive Branch of the government. Any power of the President should be balanced and checked by the other two branches.

These Neo-Republicans believe that the State is one man. Democrats believe that the State is a document.

As far as I understand it, NCLB institutes standards in English, Math, and Science. There are no Federal standards for Social Studies (history, civics, government, etc.).

This is a common misconception. There are no Federal standards for any subject. Each state sets its own standards, many based on standards developed by national subject-area groups, several of which were funded by the government in the late 80s-early 90s.

NCLB requires that all states have standards in reading, math & science and test students in those subjects. It doesn't require that state have social studies standards, but all states do now have them. The problem is that because states have to devote the majority of their resources to those three subjects in order to receive federal funding, other subjects take a back seat. That's the biggest problem with this unfunded mandate and I don't expect it to last much longer in its current form.

It's that he's terrified of the "left-wing". And the terrorists. And the progressives. And all the others that are different from his way of thinking. He's closed to new ideas and ridicules, or tries to, that which hasn't been sanctioned by his preferred authority figures. In all his time commenting here, I have yet to read one comment where he says something to the effect of "hey, good point". Some people really don't deal with change and uncertainty and the result is anxiety and reflexive attacks against any challenge to the authority that is supposed to protect them.

Ignorant? Sure. Stupid? Might seem like it, but I doubt it. Scared? Always.

The left-wing understanding of Government....

Is that compared to Bush, Robert Mugabe, (you know the guy that grabbed the wife of an opposition party member, had her feet hacked off, and then set her on fire) is not so bad.

http://tinyurl.com/46fou5

Aw, shucks, going after the wife of the opposition sure sounds more like a right-wing political technique.

You know, like revealing she's a undercover CIA operative (treason?), just because her husband had the nerve to question your highly questionable "evidence" for war. Just so you could invade another country and give your buddies lots of money to "rebuild" it...

I was watching Abrams during this discussion, and actually shouted at my TV when he didn't correct Blakeman, on his statement of the AG being the Presidents lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer, to know that the AG is supposed to represent all Americans, a fact either unknown, or more probably, ignored by the creeps currently in power.

Good lord, no one here supports Mugabe, okay?

I think Putin is worse than Bush, too. Okay? That doesn't mean I can't have problems with Bush (or in the past, with Clinton).

The military junta in Burma is unspeakable, and propped up by China. I don't want either of their systems either...but I can still advocate for change here.

I can't wait to see a murderer claim that he is being unfairly criticised because he isn't as bad as Ted Bundy.

Shooter, you can do better than this.

The left-wing understanding of Government....

Is that compared to Bush, Robert Mugabe, (you know the guy that grabbed the wife of an opposition party member, had her feet hacked off, and then set her on fire) is not so bad.

I try not to be insulting, but there is no polite way to answer something this stupid and dishonest.

The best defense for Bush that you can manage is to say that he isn't as bad as Mugabe.

And the best attack on everyone else you can manage is the pathetic, cheap lying implication that people who read a Greenwald column would support mutilation and torture.

There simply is no non-contemptuous way to respond to something like that.

One Quick Point:

It should be clear that the matter of Karl Rove and Don Siegelman is a question of law breaking. Whether laws were broken or not of course we don't know, but it is clearly an issue of criminality, and not a matter of state, or the execution of the office and duties of any member of the executive branch from the president on down and certainly including the ex-White House chief of staff Karl Rove.

For the President to invoke executive privilege in this matter is thus clearly one of two things: 1) impeding a criminal investigation -- executive privilege has NEVER been interpreted to allow this. or 2) An admission of complicity and involvement in the matter of wrongfully prosecuting a member of the opposition party during an election. That thar would be banana republic level politics.

For the president to invoke executive privilege in this matter, it must be the case that the president in fact discussed this matter with Karl Rove. That makes the president an accomplice and hence liable himself for prosecution.

It seems to me that any other way of talking about this executive privilege claim is basically spineless. All these democrats and frankly even constitutional civil libertarians, who fail to contextualize this properly are doing us a disservice. This isnt some matter we can sit around and debate and get differing opinions about whether it is or isn't traditional to invoke executive privilege or whether it should or shouldn't apply in this case.

This is obstruction of justice AND prima facie evidence of complicity in a criminal matter.

If the talking heads and the politicians won't call it what it is...

We Will

(*Tom Haden representing the Godfather.) ...lest there might be a conflict of interest.

This ain't the half-of-it, Glenn. John Ashcroft said the exact same thing (last night on c-pan) to the full Judiciary committee. Nary a peep out of any of them. (*So, if any body needs some constitutional remedial education, I'd start with them.)

Also Glenn, did you see the Yoo/Addington ...hearing! I tell you whut, I think Addington thought it was a parole hearing. And he's not going easily.

bah.

~bop o. no bacon, I'm still eating crow after Barack turned on me! ...it's good see you are living high on the hog at least./.

~Arne. congrats.~ ...if thats your real name, Leon.