Today I discovered that I have a choice in the 2008 election

[UpInArms]

for president of the USofA.

The last time I went to vote for a president, I didn't have a choice. I had to vote for ABBB (anybody but bush).

This time, Bush is not on the ticket. Can't be. Term limits and all that.

So.

I have a choice.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate - only if he/she is a Democrat and not in name only.

Or, I

will

vote

for

a Republican.

If I am going to have a Republican as President, I will vote for one.

That is not my preference.

But...

[Rhythm and Blue]

1. There are no Republicans running for the Democratic ticket.

Hillary is a Democrat, and a pretty good one at that.

Here, read up on her actual positions:

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[UpInArms]

7. Hillary on "unitary executive"

The term "unitary government" has two different meanings: one simply refers to the president's control of the executive branch, including the supposedly independent regulatory agencies such as the SEC and the FDA. The other, much broader concept, which is used by Bush, gives the executive power superior to that of Congress and the courts. Previous presidents have asserted the right not to carry out parts of a bill, arguing that it impinged on their constitutional authority; but they were specific both in their objections and in the ways they proposed to execute the law. Clinton, for example, objected to provisions in a bill establishing a semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration, which set out the reasons for removing the director. Clinton objected that that impinged on his presidential prerogatives. Bush asserts broad powers without being specific in his objections or saying how he plans to implement the law. His interpretations of the law, as in his "signing statement" on the McCain amendment, often construe the bill to mean something different from—and at times almost the opposite of—what everyone knows it means.

The concept of the unitary executive, which has been put forward in conservative circles for several years, has been advocated mainly by the Federalist Society, a group of conservative lawyers who also campaign for the nomination of conservative judges. The idea was seriously considered in the Reagan administration's Justice Department. One of its major supporters was Samuel Alito, then a lawyer in the Justice Department. In his confirmation hearing, Alito said that the memorandum he wrote saying that the president's interpretation of a bill "should be just as important as that of Congress" was "theoretical." But no president until Bush explicitly claimed that the concept of a unitary executive was a basis for overruling a bill.

The theory was formulated by John Yoo, a mid-level but highly influential attorney in the Justice Department between 2001 and 2003, who took the view that the president had the power to do pretty much whatever he wanted to do. (He also wrote the infamous memorandum defending what amounted to torture.<1> ) As White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, now attorney general, also publicly supported the theory of the unitary executive.

The theory rests on the Oath of Office, in which, according to the Constitution, the newly elected president promises to "faithfully execute the office of President," and also on the section of Article II that states that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The administration has put forward unprecedented interpretations of both clauses, claiming that they give the president independent authority, unchecked by the other branches of government, to decide what the law means. This theory overlooks the fact that the framers were particularly wary of executive power. A number of constitutional scholars I have spoken with describe the administration's theory of the unitary executive as no more than a convenient fig leaf for enlarging presidential power.

[Rhythm and Blue]

9. Does that have anything to do with HRC?

Survey says: no!

[Buzz Clik]

2. You had that choice in 2000 and 2004, too.

There are at least three current GOP candidates as ridiculous as Bush.

[Solar_Power]

3. You lost me

What are you trying to say? You won't vote for Hillary?

[UpInArms]

24. why Hillary - how about "love ya man" Biden?

why did Hillary first come to your fingers?

:)

[Bucky]

4. This is your DU. Crack, sizzle. This is your DU on drugs.

I'm hungry.

[demnan]

5. If you believe in the Republican platform

vote for a Republican. That is an anti-choice, stay in Iraq, no benefits for seniors, children or working poor platform.

And what the hell are you doing on Democratic Underground?

[UpInArms]

12. And what the hell are you doing on Democratic Underground?

answer: the same thing I have been doing for the past 7 years.

Waking people up.

Giving them the truth.

Don't fall for the bullshit - just because someone is on the Democratic ticket does not mean they are Democratic.

Remember Phil Gramm. Ran as a Democrat in Texas - switched to Republican as soon as he won the office.

(just one example - but you catch the drift).

Don't let them put the albatross of the Republican mantra around the necks of the Democratic party.

I feel it in the air - I see it in the signs - I hear it in the "polls".

We are about to be swamped by the lies and obsfuscations once more.

Just think about it.

I refuse to wear the stink of another Republican mole being sold to us.

I am where I belong.

[mondo joe]

14. Oooh, you're giving us "the truth". Aren't we lucky to have youe enlightened self there

to deliver us.

[UpInArms]

17. sorry,

I am just tired of being sold the bill of goods.

I did get an opportunity yesterday and I took it.

John Edwards was nearby (within 45 miles) and I went and saw and listened.

And I asked him a question - well, actually two.

There were about 100 people (give or take 5-10) present and there was not obvious security detail that was about to "take any one down" - especially this 5'2" 105 lb 50 year old female.

So I took my chance at asking Edwards:

(holding up my hand and waiting patiently like a 6 year old needing to go to the bathroom)

Edwards: that lady standing in the back

Me: I actually have a two-part question.

Edwards: Okay.

Me: Do you believe in the unitary executive and if not, will you denounce all of Bush's signing statements if you are elected?

Edwards: What is a "unitary executive"?

Me: Well, it's rather like a dictatorship.

Edwards: A dictatorship? Well, NO! and of course, I absolutely denounce all of Bush's signing statements. And, I'll go one further here - If I am elected President, I will make this the most transparent government in all of history.
===========================================

No. I don't bring you the "truth".

I just bring my perspective. If that makes me wrong, so be it.

[renie408]

18. I am really sorry. This whole thread has me SO lost.

Ok, let me get this straight...you don't like Hillary and the unitary executive, but you do like Edwards, right? Or do you think Edwards is full of shit? (I don't, but I can't really tell exactly where you are coming from with this story)

I sort of read the 'unitary executive' thing you posted, but couldn't really connect it to your original post, so lost interest. Did Hillary say she wants to be a dictator?

[UpInArms]

22. I don't know if Hillary wants to be a "dictator"

but do know that no one is asking her in the venues that she appears in the question.

I got a press release yesterday telling me that she was about 120 miles from me speaking to some christian group.

As for - am I supporting Edwards?

Well, I'm not really certain, but I did like that he believes our government should be transparent, that those signing statements are wrong and we should not even consider living in a dictatorship.

Everyone really needs to make up their own minds - but they definitely need to do it based on the facts.

[desi]

21. Remember Phil Gramm.

Remember Phil Gramm. Ran as a Democrat in Texas - switched to Republican as soon as he won the office.

Yeah I remember the turncoat. I see some mimicking him here on a daily basis. However he resigned his seat then ran as a Publican after consorting with the enemy. A real LOUT.

From wiki..

"In 1981, Gramm attended Democratic Caucus budget meetings and then secretly shared their strategy with Republicans to help pass newly inaugurated President Ronald Reagan's budget. In response, the House Democratic leadership stripped him of his seat on the committee. Following this action, Gramm resigned his House seat, forcing a mid-term special election. Gramm ran in that election to fill the vacancy that he had created, but as a Republican. Winning, he became the first Republican to represent the district since its creation. He won re-election to the seat again in 1982, and after he left the House, the seat remained in Republican hands (first under Joe Barton and later John Carter).

[sufrommich]

6. What an absurd thing to post.

I'm embarrassed for you.

[UpInArms]

8. don't be -

my face is not red.

(edit - typo)

[renie408]

10. You go, Big Boy. Make that incoherent statement!! n/t

[renie408]

13. Sorry...'Big Girl'...n/t

[UpInArms]

15. Thanks for that correction -

am used to the sexism btw.

:shrug:

[renie408]

16. It occurred to me I should check the profile. n/t

[mondo joe]

11. Who decides if a candidate is a real Democrat? You?

Or the party?

Maybe the person who is a Democrat in name only is you.

[Lucinda]

19. SCOTUS

[NoPasaran]

20. Worst. Poem. Ever.

[TwilightZone]

23. Perhaps tomorrow you can discover our candidates' records.

Here's a start: http://ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[UpInArms]

25. or then

there's this

www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

which has a very interesting way of screwing with one's head

:)