White House defending Al Gonzalez against no confidence motion by describing no confidence motions as un-American.
« Demand-Side Solutions | Main | Life in the Hood »
Best. Counterargument. Ever.
20 May 2007 08:57 pm
Comments (16)
But suspension of habeas corpus is like baseball, hot dogs, and mom's apple pie.
There's a very small part of me that loves this Administration. So glibly stupid, so sure that their patter and a strong jaw will be enough to move the electorate, and so often right. If we didn't have thermonuclear weapons, it would be like living in a sitcom.
Well, we all know the mess that was caused when Queen Amidala held a vote of no confidence in the Galactic Senate, don't we? Thankfully, patriotic Americans do not engage in parliamentary maneuvers used by primitive shitholes like the Old Republic.
"the American system of government"
That's rich, coming from the Bush White House. As if.
It's Gonzales; the distinction is important. I've heard that it's an Old World/ New world divide (old world= s, new world= z), but that doesn't seem to be very consistent. Someone explain this orthographic oddity por supuesto.
Why does the Administration hate America?
Is Arlen Phil's Dutch uncle or something? Remarkable resemblance.
Blair's scarcely out the door, and the limey-bashing begins.
Censure votes? unAmerican.
Absolute monarchy? Apple pie & the flag.
But yeah, there's something that would be admirable about that capacity to bullshit if it weren't in real life. Perhaps telling Tony Fratto to fuck right off and clear some brush is unAmerican, too?
You would almost think that the administration wasn't aware of the clause in the Constitution that describes congressional authority to remove cabinet officers by a no confidence motion. I mean, its right there in article . . . never mind.
Shorter White House press flunkie:
Parliamentary-style votes of "no confidence"? Gay.
Weird. I would've thought they *wouldn't* want to leave Democrats no option but impeachment.
On the other hand, we *are* talking about the Democrats here, so I suppose it's a little early to get our hopes up for impeachment, much less the mass/simultaneous impeachments that *some* parties, in *some* circumstances (e.g., certain shoes being on certain other feet), would have fewer compunctions about pursuing...
In the interest of fairness, democrats used the exact same argument against passing any motions to censure president Clinton.
Let's skip the no confidence and go right to impeachment. Its right there in the Constition and precedent exists (see Belknap and the Grant Administration). The impeachment trial and its edifying effect could go on even if Gonzales resigns.
I think their point is that the ONLY check that Congress has on the Executive is impeachment. Congress, unless it's removing someone, is strictly for show.
Comments closed June 03, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
well, i would call alberto gonzalez' behavior unamerican, so there's a nice resonance to that argument....
Posted by howard | May 20, 2007 9:06 PM