Ah yes, time to reward those that stood by as President Bush broke every law and catered to his party's desires over the good of the country.
a sample:
quote:The President intends to appoint the following individuals to be Members of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council:
Elliot Abrams, of Virginia, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09;
Joshua B. Bolten, of the District of Columbia, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09;
Alan I. Casden, of California, for the remainder of a five-year term expiring 01/15/11;
Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, for a five-year term beginning 01/16/09;
Yeah, a nice six-figure job on the Holocaust Memorial Council for these guys is just shy of war profiteering.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
You guys really need to rein in the power of your president. And make him directly elected.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Direct election has nothing to do with it; it's having a judicial system with a sense of ethics and a legislative branch with a spine that's the problem.
We'll never know how the votes would've tallied if Bush v. Gore hadn't ended the recount of votes; it's entirely possible that Gore still could've come out on top. But the Supreme Court justices voted along the party lines of their appointing presidents. And of course Congress has never had the collective guts to stand up for anything at all.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Yes, well I was going to start a long list, but then I remembered just how corrupt and croneyistic our dictator and his predecessor have been.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Dictator? May I ask where your from?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
That'd be the kingdom of yew-kay.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
For some reason, I was under the impression that Gordon Brown was not viewed as a particularly strong leader. Was I wrong about that?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
It's complicated.
Brown is not a very popular leader - widly seen as lacking the charisma and ability to worm his way out of (or simply ignore) problems that Blair so often displayed. He also lacks Blairs PR team, and his reputaion has been further dented by Blair leaving Brown to pick up the mess (such as dodgy party funding practices for one).
Then there's the financial crisis (during his time as chancelor he radicaly changed the financial backbone of the contry making it great when the going was good like the late 1990's to mid 2000's, but geared us towards the tremdous blow that is now happening in the UK economy), there's inflation, the 10p tax row, oil prices, 42 day detention without trial and the local council elections and by-elections which have seen Labour party losses.
The trouble is (as with Blair before) they have a majority in Parliament which means that they can do essentialy what they want, with no real obstructions. It is, I confess, a fundemental flaw in our electoral system. The party with the most MP's rules. MP's are elected simply by a first past the post system, meaning that the makeup of the government rarely reflects the will of the electorate.
All this, plus Labours 11 1/2 years in power, and the fact that, while it is accepted that the leader of the biggest party in Parliament is the defacto Prime Minister, Brown took over from Blair with no popular mandate - he simply suceeded him, have made Brown a very unpopular PM, and a weak one, but he is still the guy in charge.