|
This is the first, comprehensive MSM coverage on this issue, and only recently did the MSM even mention signing statements at all, and then only in conjunction with a specific bill, i.e. torture. Let's hope this gets picked up by other papers/net sites. This could/should become THE issue for the 2006 elections, as it encompasses all the others- the constitution, secrecy/transparency, oversight, war powers, even domestic policy, as listed in the article. If the Dems don't capitalize on this, we're sunk.
Think of the ad possibilities ("...in addition to taking money from Jack Abramoff, Congressman X allowed George Bush to ignore a law passed by Congress banning torture; Democrat Y will hold Bush accountable for following and enforcing all laws passed by Congress. We have a President, not a King")
"We have a President, not a King" hmmm, maybe that should be a tagline for all Dem ads in the fall?
The Globe article is great;the only thing I would change is the consistent use of the term "challenge"; it's not a challenge if Congress doesn't push back; By issuing a signing statement, Bush is at least IGNORING the law; if he acts on the signing statement, he is BREAKING THE LAW ...
Judas Priest anyone?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
