0 Responses to “LIVE BLOG: Congressional Autograph Hounds”

1. Diane says:

   December 21, 2008 at 12:01 pm

   And what a horrific example it sets for the incoming administration, which will have the Bush precedent to justify spending $350 billion in any cock-eyed way it see fit! HELP!
2. wdriver says:

   December 21, 2008 at 12:15 pm

   Indeed it does set a precedent, that concept which seems to take precedence over any Constitutional restraint.
3. Jeeves says:

   December 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm

   Who has standing (not taxpayers, of course!) to sue Bush and prevent this “precedent” from being established?

   “Legacy” (e.g., UAW retiree benefits and Bush’s) is a word in bad odor these days. Well, for sure, as he bragged to AEI, Bush is not letting opinion polls drive his decisions. Anyone know what the half-life is for voter’s remorse?
4. Kenton A. Hoover says:

   December 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm

   “Regardless of legitimate disputes regarding the extent of the commander-in-chief’s powers in wartime…”

   Which war is this one: the one against terrorism, against recession, or against foreign competition? Perhaps against unemployment? Wasn’t it Orwell who posited a society whose stability was entirely predicated upon an eternal state of war?

   I hardly think that Bush is the worst president we’ve ever had, but the last few weeks have him running neck-and-neck with Jimmy Carter.
5. Oldflyer says:

   December 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm

   As much as I hate this action, I have no doubt that President Bush did it because he was convinced it was necessary.
6. Jonas Menchik says:

   December 21, 2008 at 2:10 pm

   Here is where we are at America. A conservative President is using taxpayer money to fund a failing business. The incoming President- Elect’s mantra of change means spending trillions to prop up failed businesses, people, and places and maintain the status quo. The real change is freezing the dynamic private sector and eventually replacing it with government works projects.
7. Mahon says:

   December 21, 2008 at 2:58 pm

   This may simply be the least bad option. The Democrats did win the election, and it is right and proper that they should take responsibility for dealing with this. What Bush is doing is the minimum necessary to pass the issue on to them. If Bush pulled the house down now, everything bad that happened from now on would be blamed on the Republicans, even if it were objectively less bad than something else might have been. I do not gainsay the issues of power and precedent, and only hope that circumstances are sufficiently unique for it not to stand as precedent (what Congress failed to pass was much larger). To repeat, it may be the least bad option.
8. True North says:

   December 21, 2008 at 4:04 pm

   #7 Mahon. Just what I was thinking but in my mind it sounds to Machiavellian to be Bush.
9. Janemarie says:

   December 21, 2008 at 5:13 pm

   I’m with Mahon and True North. In fact, I think this auto bailout is potentially a Rope-a-Dope; Obama paid lip service in his comments regarding new management etc for the auto companies, but I’d be shocked (happily so) if he were to hold their feet to the fire as to restructuring, etc. Instead, he will likely allow the UAW to get rid of any part of the bailout plan it doesn’t like, since he and the Dems are pretty much owned by the unions, and the taxpayers will foot the bill for constant financial support for these failing companies, possibly ad infinitum. If the Republicans are effective as an opposition party they will make hay about the auto bailout every chance they can, to 2010 and beyond.
10. Pedant von knowitall says:

    December 21, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    Can’t the Bush family just pay the damn thing, they have money.
11. Abe says:

    December 21, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    When Bush was breaking eavesdropping laws by circumventing the FISA court, or breaking the law by using interrogation methods that have been recognized as torture for decades, you sang his praises. Now that he is breaking laws in ways you don’t approve, by what right do you protest? After eight years of lawbreaking, you are now on the side of the law. After eight years of profligate spending, you are now fiscal conservatives. After eight years of an unchecked executive branch, you are now for checks and balances. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.
12. Grumpy Old Man says:

    December 21, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    It seems odd to me that people for whom no use of American power is ever robust enough, are indifferent to the potential destruction of a core American industry.

    We’re getting to the sordid dénouement of mass democracy, which Wilsonian ideologues praise so fervently–massive deficit spending to subsidize just about everything, including futile wars, at the ultimate expense of future generations . If we’re going to subsidize, real factories that produce useful physical objects seem better candidates than profligate and incompetent banks.

    Our nation is overextended. Our leaders are incompetent. Our morals are in tatters. If this is the system to be spread by force in Iraq, Afghanistan, and God knows where else, good luck with that.
13. dre says:

    December 21, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    “are indifferent to the potential destruction of a core American industry.”

    America will still makes cars. The losers at the UAW can go to hell.
14. Alexander Almasov says:

    December 22, 2008 at 4:35 am

    #11: Let’s hope cyanosis is not too distant.
15. Grumpy Old Man says:

    December 22, 2008 at 10:46 am

    # 14 Almasov

    “Cyanonsis” took me a while to decipher, but actually quite witty.