I did major in Political Science and I was a research assistant for three years, so I can state to a certainty that I have never seen Congress referred to as "the people" (and by the way, the Senate is a part of Congress, so mentioning them seperately is redundant). Clarifiction is a wonderful thing, but you're trying to clarify between two uses of a word, one of which doesn't exist.

I'm also familiar with our electoral system and the reasoning behind it hence my previous posts which explain pretty well that frequent elections are intended to hold representatives accountable. Why is it insulting to my intelligence that you are saying the same thing?

What I'm saying that is different from what you are saying is that elected officials don't just do whatever "the people" or public opinion want them to. Yes, we put them there to represent us, but we also put them there to make decisions based on their expertise as legislators and decisions that might require more thoughtful deliberation than groups of citizens can give. There are actually numerous safeguards to make sure that the decisions of Congress aren't so easily swayed by popular opinion, which has a tendency to be inconsistent and fickle. That's why there are seperated powers and why the two legislative chambers function so differently: so that "popular" measures can't be rushed through the process without appropriate deliberation.

In fact, that is exactly why two of the most important decisions (the ratification of treaties and the decision to impeach presidents) are left in the hands of the Senate and not the House: Senators who serve six-year terms are significantly less subject to the whims of popular opinion than Representatives who serve two-year terms and are constantly concerned with an upcoming election.

If the people don't like Bush and Bush hasn't committed any impeachable offenses (which he hasn't), it isn't up to Congress to remove him from office, it is up to us to vote him out. The politicians in Congress may want to safeguard their own jobs, but getting an unpopular president out of office isn't a part of that job.

quote:

---

Please don't act as though when you said "the people" you meant senators. When we talk about the people (as in "We the people" or "9 out of 10 people") we are refering to general populations, not specific groups. Are senators people? Sure they are. But would anyone ever refer to them as "the people?" Probably not. Nice try.

---

Actually, Congress, the Senate, politics are reffered to as "the people." In specific terminology, they can be separated by calling YOUR definition of "the people" the general public, which states those citizens who aren't politics. Clarification is a wonderful thing.

quote:

---

Granted in the case of impeachment public opinion can be a factor, but it certainly isn't the only factor, or even the most important one. There is the political climate (both at home and abroad), the preponderence of evidence of wrongdoing, the politcal capital that would be spent by all those involved, the politcal fallout...these things are all more important to Senators than public opinion which is a fickle beast.

---

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but WHO do you think elects officials to represent the peole for issues which they're unable to vote for? We live in a democratic republic. Since the public can't possibly vote on everything, they elect representatives to vote for them. Those politicians can decide whether or not they want another politician or the president to be taken out of office. Do you think that if the people wanted Bush out and those politicians ignored the people's wishes that those politicians would be in office later? Obviously not. They learn towards the choice of the people to save their own jobs.

Please don't act as though when you said "the people" you meant senators. When we talk about the people (as in "We the people" or "9 out of 10 people") we are refering to general populations, not specific groups. Are senators people? Sure they are. But would anyone ever refer to them as "the people?" Probably not. Nice try.

And in my previous post, I made it clear that our system of continuous elections is how we hold representatives accountable; but that doesn't mean that "we the people" can very easily just make suggestions about how to legislate. Granted in the case of impeachment public opinion can be a factor, but it certainly isn't the only factor, or even the most important one. There is the political climate (both at home and abroad), the preponderence of evidence of wrongdoing, the politcal capital that would be spent by all those involved, the politcal fallout...these things are all more important to Senators than public opinion which is a fickle beast.

And once again let me say it isn't just doing "something wrong" that might get one impeached. It is a specific list of offenses which are pretty obvious most of the time; that is to say, there is rarely and issue of "finding" something--it's either there or it isn't.

Politics is just a system of connections in governance, connections based on individuals; it is therefore as imperfect as those individuals. Politics isn't perfect, but the Constitution is pretty close.

Oops, sorry brooke. I forgot that the people in the Senate don't constitute as human beings.. I apologize, heh

And you assume that the people have no say in what the Senate does? Like I said: if the general public dislikes Bush, they will FIND something wrong with him in order to have him impeached. Politics aren't perfect

slick willie was a terrible president. and you, mister 'new world hippie', need to realize that occasional war is a part of life.
( evident throughout history)

The people can't just impeach a president because they don't like him. In fact "the people" can't ever impeach the president (The Constitution, Article I, Section 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"). There also can't be just "something" he's done, the Constitution is pretty specific about that. He hasn't broken any laws and probably won't have to, given his war powers.

And for the record, I like Bush roughly 73% of the time.

Uhm.. the people could impeach Bush if they wanted. Someone would find -something- wrong he's done or turn around something he said which violates standards..

And.. ewww, Clinton..

I HATE the presedent!!!!!!!! he is a F-ing @$$ idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i wish he would risign the prsedency and have someone like Bill Clinton, or another of his party, run it!!!!

At least where I live they do... I've been accused of treason for something as simple as ridiculing him on my website. And that came from a member of the state legislature too (he got the URL from one of his two kids who go to my school). Here in the Deep South, being an opponent of the GOP is equated with being a terrorist by many. My family seems to have experienced a political schism that leads to occasional hostility. My grandmother's a conservative Republican, my mother is a liberal Democrat and a former ACLU activist, and I'm a Democratic Socialist (emphatically non-Marxist) actively involved in organizing the Socialist Party here. I'd say my school is about 70% Republican, and probably representative of the general East Tennessee region.

there are a lot of people out there. You can please some of them all of the time, or all of them some of the time but you can't please all of them all of the time.

I know a lot of people who like bush. Myself and everyone in my family included, so I guess if you don't know anyone who likes bush it's cause you tend to associate with people who don't like him.

You can't really impeach an elected representative because you don't like them. That's why we have elections. Impeachment is really only for violations of the law (namely treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors which is vague at best) and the presidential powers of war are of course also vague enough that he can manage to avoid breaking the law and still unleash all kinds of horrible foreign policy. But the point of our system is that leaders are accountable for their actions by fear of removal from office by the electoral system, not so much by impeachment.

Obviously not.

It's no the most convenient time to think about impeaching him.. He's planning his campaign for upcomming elections already.

If people didn't like Shrub, don't you think they'd have him impeached?

That's the case for me, too, Geminiangel. I'm wondering exactly where those pollers got their statistics from these past few years. Even out of those acquantences of mine that voted for Bush or at least supported him in the 2000 election, only one of them still has a favorable opinion of him now. Some people that I know who believe that Reagan was one of our greatest presidents despise Bush. I've had many class discussions that were complete attacks on Bush's policies, from Iraq to the environment to the war on terrorism to civil liberties... and this isn't even a very liberal university! I have liberal friends, moderate conservative friends, libertarian friends, Marxist friends, and none of them care at all for Bush. ::shrugs::

quote:

---

So to answer your question, yes there are people who atually like him. If you haven't found them you've got a small or select group of aquaintences.

---

Actually, Dante, the whole purpose of this article was partially prompted because I only know a few individuals who support our president, but I know many people who absolutely despise him..

Well I for one do like the majority of his policies. I've stated my position on the war in Iraq, so it's a given i support Bush on that. On taxes, i also support Bush for the most part. Large tax cuts are needed, especially in a stagnant economy like the one we have now. True, I think he could shift a little more towards the middle class on that one, but over all it's a good concept that, once through congressional debate and amendment, will be succesful.

One of the greatest things I like about Bush though, is his intrest in the space program. Even before the Columbia disaster, Bush was planning on increasing NASA's budget and calling for the agency to go for higher goals. My favorite would be the funding for Project Prometheus. And NASA needs A LOT more cash, i mean we're sending twice as much money to Africa to fight AIDS (only one aspect of forgein aid) as we give NASA annually. Personally, I put our exploration and development of space above some of these forgein aid/ pork barrel projects.

Both are investments, Space will just pay off a lot more.

Bush is funny...

And to answer your question, there are about 150 milion people who at least don't mind him or don't care. On YN there are such people as marine16, ItalianStallion and Bushsupporter, who, if you don't recognize the names (or dont get the rather blunt nature of "bushsupporter" (bs)) are fond of our current president.

If you open it up to who agrees with his points of view then you get most of the republican party, some libertarians, and many of the religious right. On individual issues, like Affirmative Action you'll find an even greater percentage agree with him (although the percentage is inversely proportional to how much they know about the issue).

So to answer your question, yes there are people who atually like him. If you haven't found them you've got a small or select group of aquaintences.

As for Clinton. I would advise agianst a can of worms like Clinton or Gore. Without actaul history to prove otherwise, we could never know or even correctly postulate what anyone would have done. I personally think a trained monkey would have done better, but that's hyperbole and I can't prove it. Plus people will veer widely off topic and it will become a discussion of Clinton's infidelity or the 2000 Election travesty. I doubt it would be productive or informative given that none of us are political scholars with information enoguh to even make semi-accurate assumptions of "what if?" futures.

Even if we stick mostly on topic it will be a traditional Bush v. Anti-Bush discussion of how sh!tty our Commander-in-Chief is.

While there is always value in more speech and more discussion, in the hope that information, informed debate, and education can occur, it would seem logical to minimize those discussions which will have little tendency to actually create these good situations.