Where is the line?

Where do the Congress and Senate draw the line?

I don't think Bush has gotten to his line yet and I don't know if there's much we can do to create one..... we can protest, we can letter write, we can vote him out of office.

sozobe

This Didion piece from the NY Review of Books is quite relevant... http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13857

New Haven's rhetorical question (on the related thread by little k) suggests that the 'problem' for those of us concerned is merely Bush's Christianity. But of course, that's not accurate and is a straw man argument. There are lots of versions of Christianity. Likely New Haven doesn't approve of them all (for example, some of those to be found in Africa, not to mention, in Rome).

US style evangelism is a pretty tawdry version of Christian theory and is a little too sure of it's own godliness.

littlek, yeah. I guess I'm trying to do too many things at once here.

1.) Vent.

2.) Wonder about Bush.

3.) Wonder about the larger issue.

Thanks, blatham! I'll go read that now.

I'm in Canada and Bush gives me the creeps all the way up here. I don't see much stability as far as he's concerned and that's scary knowing the power he has :-(

sozobe - I would like to discuss the issue, but I fail to recognize a coherent question. "Where is the line?" What line? Can you give me more to work with? Thanks.

I guess when a Bush turns into a Hitler. When politics one does not agree with becomes policies that cannot be tolerated.

I think that this is a valid question. I would say that Bush crosses the line at such time as he uses executive orders to undermine or circumvent constitutional protections--for example, promoting a christian right style of governance in defiance of law and appeals and Supreme court rulings. More to the point would be a Watergate type of activity, which is when i believe Nixon crossed the line. I would think that Bush will be at least minimally circumspect until such time as he is re-elected (horrible thought), after which, things could get very ugly.

L'etat, c'est moi. Maybe that's the line. Or part of it. We labor under the delusion that we, the people, and/or its representatives, elect a president. An individual in that position crosses a line when he/she starts thinking and acting as if that individual IS the line.

I think part of the problem with Bush has been that he has never understood the complexities of being an elected president. He treats the office as being a God-given royal right. Along with that is the seeming thought that only he has the answers, the true path.

So we the people are not only treated as an audience, we are developing the feeling that nothing we say means anyting. In essence, we are talking about a dictator. And yet, this was clear from the start, when Rove and others announced that the aim was to make the executive the strongest arm of the three balances of power. What is fearful to me is that we appear headed down a path that only leads to disaster. There is no room to move around in; there is only one way. And that is his way.

i do believe the confederacy of dunces, formerly known as the Bush Adminstration, perceived the bible as a replacement for the constitution and the bill of rights, the line was crossed.

Okay. When Bush turns into Hitler, I'll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you to bring him down.

Until that extremely unlikely metamorphosis occurs, it might be more useful to discuss specific policies Bush has proposed or implemented and your exact concerns regarding same.

Oh, that's all.

Need I say I would be here a very very very long time?

This is why I asked that we discuss the larger question, not specific Bush issues. I realize that might be unfair. This is not one of those questions that are meant to lead someone either into a trap or into thinking the way I do -- it's something I honestly wonder about, no conclusion.

Setanta, yes, I quake in my boots at the prospect of re-election.

Mamajuana, I hope that your obersvation that "So we the people are not only treated as an audience, we are developing the feeling that nothing we say means anyting" means that re-election won't happen.

dys, interesting. This goes back to "what would you do", if you feel that the line has already been crossed?

I wonder, Gezzy, what in President Bush's policies toward Canada makes you so scared. Mr. Bush is mentally sane and he is not an absolute monarch, therefore U.S. military invasion to your country is less probable than conversion of bin Laden to Judaism (even if Mr. Bush becomes dissatisfied with policies of the Canadian government).

Need you be in personal danger to feel fear? Is empathetic fear -- fear on behalf of others -- somehow invalid? (I don't think that Gezzy is suggesting that Bush will invade Canada, though she can correct me if I'm wrong.)

Sozobe - I feel trapped. Just listened to the U.N. address, and I'm finding it difficult to say what I feel. Which is why I think I'll trot out to the library right now, where it's calm and soothing.

Lines are invisible. I should be feeling very much one-sided right now, on the side that is right. But I don't. For me it's passed a line - they are trying to convince me too much, and their own line keeps shifting. Powell kept alluding to intelligence sources, etc., but never provided, for me, convincing proof. What bothers me most is that this should be necessary.

If this were an absolute - if the WH felt this was a big enough urgent threat, and that they had the evidence necessary to prove it, then they could have and should have done something about it. Instead I have this feeling that everything done by this administration is a side-show, with disregard and disdain for the general public. More than that - not even an acknowledgement that there is a thinking public out there. If this is so important, then why didn't Bush go himself to France, to Germany, to China, to demonstrate not only his strong feelings on the subject, but to show respect for the leaders of these nations? A lot of these countries feel they've been dissed by Bush. More and more reporting indicates an anti-Bush feeling more than an anti-American feeling. And yet, Bush expects due deference from everybody else.

Sorry, Sozobe, but this does get personal. There are few discussions anywhere that don't mention Bush. He has crossed the line for many.

Another side to all this is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the bigger, better things that have been done for the country to offset some of the Iraqi problem.

What's empathetic fear?

I'm not afraid of anything!

New Haven

You should be!

What should New Haven be afraid of? I guess, only of new terror attack; and Mr. Bush's policies pursue putting end to the world terror.

With all due respect, the "larger question" is a straw man. As they used to say of virtual reality, "There's no there there." The only substantive discussions are by definition regarding specific issues. Anything else seems pretty pointless to me.

But I suppose if people want a forum dedicated to simply expressing their irrational fear of Bush without having to explain why they feel that way, go for it.