The Republic is dead, Long live the King!

Dragging out the investigations into wrong-doing
wont get votes next election.
On the contrary, it will turn off the voters.
Voter burnout is why the GOP is delaying the investigations.

The Unitary Executive started by Nixon and continued
thru today by key members of his staff that has served in every administration since then will continue.

flipside

From Wiki Nixon

The Nixon Administration comprised an impressive array of talent both in the cabinet and in the White House staff. Among the many people who came to Washington to serve in the administration were one future President (George H. W. Bush); a future Vice President (Dick Cheney); six future secretaries of state (Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell); five future secretaries of defense (James Schlesinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Casper Weinberger, Frank Carlucci and Cheney again); a future chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (Powell again), two future secretaries of the treasury (William Simon and Baker again); a future secretary of energy (Schlesinger again); and three future chiefs of staff (Rumsfeld, Cheney and Baker again). Indeed a member of the Nixon Administration has held a cabinet post or been a senior advisor within the subsequent six presidential administrations. That so many key figures of the Ford, Reagan, George H. W. Bush (41) and Bush (43) Administrations first entered government service in the Nixon White House is arguably the most profound and long-lasting legacy of Richard Nixon.

A cancer on this government has been allowed to grow unchecked.
It has permeated every branch of the government and trickled down to just about every minor office.
With the current President the effort to subvert the government was stepped up.
Some of the most notable lately include FEMA, FDA, DoD, DoJ, NSA, and CIA, but many others havent hit the radar.
An ad on this site lists mine safety,the energy commision, and Bush's latest nomination for the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
To keep up with all the corruption you would end up running in circles.To end it? Stop running and ask the question
Who stands to gain the most from these actions.

Aprox 2000 years ago another famous Republic died from within,it took almost 3 centuries for the citizens to realize they were no longer a Republic.

It's past time to hold the people responsible for the taint in Washington accountable.
Every day this administration is allowed to continue subverting the constitution, violating laws and disrespecting its citizens is one day too many.

•  How Long?

  Must we wait for an accounting?

  by betterdeadthanred on Sat May 12, 2007 at 04:57:19 AM PDT

  •  Political power is the ability to persuade

    Fearmongering can be very persuasive but if you lie often enough nobody believes anything you say.

    Eventually you get to where if you make a statement people begin investingating the possibility that the exact opposite is true.

    by rktect on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:02:00 AM PDT

    •  at some point

      its time to wrap up the investigating
      and begin
      Prosecuting

      by betterdeadthanred on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:06:27 AM PDT

    •  Not true. We believe so many lies

      about American history.  The American dream of upper mobility, Lincoln, Manifest Destinty, Slavery, Racism, and so much else.

      We can not care about the public.  We prosecute criminals.  If we don't, the criminals stay in charge and continue the lies.  Oliver North comes to mind.

      There is not enough outrage on this site about the 11 moderate republicans that went to the White House and talked bluntly with the President about the War.  They were upset about their prospects not about the soldiers or the cost.  How can that go unpunished in the MSM?  Why only one diary here!

      by boji on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:21:13 AM PDT

      •  it was 14

        rethugs that went to chimpy, why that hasnt been reported widely is unknown.Even the Minority leader Boehoner(SP) was there.

        by betterdeadthanred on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:25:18 AM PDT

      •  Even if their motivation was pure

        it was still far too fucking late!

        by lgrooney on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:58:55 AM PDT

•  I'm not interested in any DC taint

  .

  by fitzov rules on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:17:18 AM PDT

  •  Why?

    its like a cancer that grows, not limited to just DC

    by betterdeadthanred on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:26:15 AM PDT

•  The impeached are unpardonable.

  http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/...

  by wigwam on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:17:27 AM PDT

  •  Not true...

    Only the Impeachment cannot be pardoned. All other crimes adjudicated by courts can be pardoned.

    by Jimdotz on Sat May 12, 2007 at 09:53:10 AM PDT

•  Would a 2008 Iran War change everything?

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by aaraujo on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:30:24 AM PDT

•  Do you have any solutions to offer?

  Man, I'm willing to grasp any straw at this point in time.

  Gasoline at $3.25 a gallon and not a wimper from the consumers.  

  Investigations into the corruption of our government doesn't even get heard by 90% of the general public.

  The list goes on and on and nobody is at that place where they're not going to take it anymore.

  by nupstateny on Sat May 12, 2007 at 06:01:45 AM PDT

  •  a start would be

    trust busting
    breaking up the big corps that have a stranglehold
    on the press and the legislators in congress

    by betterdeadthanred on Sat May 12, 2007 at 06:07:54 AM PDT

    •  I know I said I'd grab at any straw, but

      that's not a straw, that's an anchor.

      Any candidate who suggests that they would do away with corporations running this country would have those corporations unite to defeat them.  

      That's a course of action that will have to be decided upon after a candidate wins.

      by nupstateny on Sat May 12, 2007 at 06:35:57 AM PDT

  •  Actually

    plenty of people "quit taking it" long, long ago.  Government statistics barely notice the huge number of genuine "drop-outs" from mainstream society.  Many of them, it's true, live on Social Security Disability payments, which are costing the government an arm and a leg, toooo bad.  Others deal drugs quietly to small clienteles, or participate in other crimes victimless or basically harmless to individuals but collectively sapping the common economy.  From what I've seen moving around the country, I'd reckon no more than 50% of the population in America actually participates enough in the mainstream economy to "pull their own weight".  Many, of course, end up on the fringes from no choice of their own, with corporate buy-outs and layoffs and outsourcing and "free" trade which is only free for the wealthy and costs everyone else.  But a good many people just washed their hands and left.

    Take me, for instance.  I quit my job in February, but I'm not bothering to tell the company until next week <lol>.  At some point, you decide that you just don't give a damn.  You go through the motions, but you couldn't care less if the country rides itself to hell on a motorscooter, because you no longer identify yourself or your interests with that country.  When the country no longer does anything for you, why should you do anything for the country?

    by cynndara on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:18:41 PM PDT

•  Which is why I don't like

  the idea of Hillary in the WH.  Sorry, this cheeses off a lot of folks, I know.  But, she is part of the same high-finance, corporate-bigwig, beltway-pundit, beltway-bandit, big-military, Israel-uber-alles group that her husband and every other president since Eisenhower or Kennedy has been a part of.  I'll even include Carter in that group because he was too concerned about 'healing' at a time when we needed severe punishment.

  It is for this reason that the only good coming out of a Clinton administration that I can see is if she seeks severe punitive actions against those who so vilified her and her husband for so many years, even if I don't think Bill was such a saint.

  But, that is not enough because we not only need to cut out the cancer and incinerate (incarcerate) it, we need to change the diet, change the activity level, and change the environmental factors that allowed the cancer in the first place.

  It's a sad fact that after 230 years we need to return the whole system to its original premise in order to move forward, i.e., the quantum rule of democracy.

  by lgrooney on Sat May 12, 2007 at 06:07:02 AM PDT

  •  Are the other two top tier

    Democratic candidates much different from HRC?

    The other day we find out that Obama has outraised Hillary and the Republicans on Wall Street. His economic advisors favor continuation of Rubinomics. Edwards, who is least tainted by corporate/Wall Street money, has worked for a private equity fund in 2005. Do we really have any good choices?

    by dmnyct on Sat May 12, 2007 at 07:26:26 AM PDT

    •  I don't know

      The fact that Edwards worked at a private equity fund is certainly not disqualifying.  The fact that Obama raised so much from Wall Street is not disqualifying.  What are their records in terms of favoring small business over big business?  Even Obama's hiring of Rubinomics advisors is not necessarily disqualifying with its emphasis on deficit reduction.  The problem with Rubinomics was the other emphasis on lower interest rates although this is more a function of the Fed Chairman than the SecTreasury in spite of the promotion of said policy - it is this emphasis that led to the incredibly liquidity at the top that enabled so much concentration of wealth and hence the advancement of big business, i.e., I blame Greenspan more than Rubin.  Hillary has split the issue a bit but has certainly shown her 'insider-ism' and willingness to kowtow to big business.

      So, I don't know.  We need Teddy Roosevelt.

      by lgrooney on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:57:39 AM PDT

      •  We take three sets

        of corporatist data that impute Edwards, Obama, and Clinton.  With Edwards, we give him a pass, because, well, gee, he is just damned sincere.  And Obama, well, golly, you have to hand it to him, he's not Hillary, so we'll give a pass, too.  

        Now Hillary: absolutely inexcusable.  What is that woman thinking about?  How dare she darken our doorstep.  I never.  I mean.

        Froth, foam, froth and foam, and teeth, and froth, and foam.

        by DCDemocrat on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:15:11 PM PDT

        •  Maybe

          it's just that with Hillary, we know pretty well what she is and who she works for, and we know we don't want that.

          With Obama and Edwards, we don't know (although frankly, I suspect Obama a lot more, just because all the wrong people fell in love with him too fast).  I guess sometimes the devil you know is bad enough, that you prefer taking the risks of one you don't know so well.  I'm not saying it always works out ... Ahmad Chalabi chose the United States, after all, to get rid of Saddam Hussein.  Most Iraqis now agree that was a very bad deal.

          by cynndara on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:26:33 PM PDT

          •  And one of the reasons why I support

            Hillary is that we do know everything about her.  The Republicans have picked her apart for 15 years.  There will be no surprises.  We know exactly what they will argue and how they will argue it.  We also know that Hillary recognized there was a vast right wing conspiracy when all of us thought that was just paranoia.  She was right, and she among the candidates alone knows not only what they will say but has the experience to respond immediately and correctly.  I would like to point to the debate as evidence of this.

            by DCDemocrat on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:37:50 PM PDT

        •  How does that data impute

          all three?

          What are their records in terms of favoring small business over big business?

          Edwards working at a private equity fund does not impute him in any way.  I know many, many people who work/have worked as analysts and they are, by a rather strong majority, extremely sympathetic with most economic and social liberal causes.  Why?  Because they understand the models and economic history since they are the ones who work and work with the data.  They build the models.  They know whose policies are better for the economy, they understand that trickle down is horse shit, they know very well that concentrated wealth is dangerous, they aren't fearful of government and taxes (as I have said for many years already, it is not how much one pays but what one gets for the payment, i.e., cost-benefit analysis), they've seen the data from the past century and more that shows how easy credit and excessive liquidity always turn out badly, and they generally prefer stability and slow growth to mad variability and bubbles.

          Right now, in any event, of course the moneymen are giving to the Dems because they see the extreme change in tide and either they want a piece of what comes next and think the Dems will be just as easily bought as the GOP or they want to engender goodwill thinking the Dems are too stupid to see through their attempts.  I hope the Dems do prove to be more ethical, smarter, and stronger.

          I think Hillary is strong, smart and capable enough but I also think she is too close to big business, didn't stand up to Bill's chumminess with big business (if she did feel the way I do or perhaps it was a function of Bill's handlers shunting her out of the limelight after the health care fiasco - a fiasco that I hope she resurrects because it is more desperately needed now than even then), has shown to be a bit too friendly with them herself, has bent to the sway of AIPAC a bit too much, etc. We know her record and she has been part of the limelight for quite some time.  She is less an unknown entity than the others.  The two biggest issues for me with her right now, however, are: 1) we are not far enough removed from the first Clinton presidency and going Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is going to turn America so cynical about a cabal at the top if she doesn't succeed immediately government will completely cease to function for all and only base supporters will ever turn out to vote and 2) the right wing idiots did such a good job of completely demonizing her through the years that she will be extremely divisive, especially if she does what needs to be done in shining light on the GOP atrocities of the past (how many) years (this leads off to another point that although she is certainly strong enough and smart enough, having weathered what she has, she either is not what many of us believed or has changed, moving to a not conservative/not so liberal politics in order to dampen some of the rhetoric about her).

          I think Obama is too wishy washy, seems to want to cater to everyone and I fear he may be too Carterish in this respect, i.e., let's not spend our time prosecuting the past, let's move forward.  His voice doesn't have the strength to move me and he often seems to lack passion which is so desperately needed.

          I think Edwards is still too light.  Although his economic message is damned close to what we need, I think his international policy experience is not strong enough or not proved enough to deal with all the repair and maintenance so desperately needed right now.

          My preferred candidates are not even in the game, unfortunately.  I was both a Dean and a Clark supporter in 2003-04.  I still think either would be fantastic but they aren't in it.

          So, I don't know.

          by lgrooney on Sat May 12, 2007 at 04:22:22 PM PDT

          •  Edwards is an attorney

            with a vast amount of corporate experience.  Obama is the darling of Wall Street.  Hillary has the same set of problems.  Yes, I know there is a different set of facts on the ground, but anyone in politics will have something we can focus on.  But it's Hillary that does not get the pass at daily kos.  There are a thousand excuses to explain away the foibles of other candidates, but she gets held to a standard that the other candidates don't get.  It is constant and it is consistent.

            by DCDemocrat on Sun May 13, 2007 at 03:22:27 AM PDT