Where are the limits?

Lately a lot of folks on this site, including Kos, have been saying with great certainty that Bush won't do certain things. (Canceling the 2008 elections was Kos' example.) We're often urged to take off our tinfoil hats.

I'd love to. Personally, I feel paranoid when I worry about the more outrageous stuff. But all the same, I do worry. My sense that "an American president would never do that" has already been violated so many times that I no longer have good defenses against paranoia.

So I'd appreciate it if those of you who do have such defenses would help me out. If you believe there are definite limits on what Bush will or won't do, where do you think those limits are? And what is your basis for having confidence in those limits?

•  The First Man in Rome

  I find the novel "The First Man in Rome" by Colleen McCullough to have interesting and ominous implications for our era. It's about the rivalry between Marius and Sulla, which dominated the generation before Caesar and Pompey.

  The Republic at that time is ruled as much by tradition as by law. The various offices have designated powers, but there are unwritten traditions governing what people might or might not do with those powers. As the book rolls on, more and more of those traditions get violated, sometimes for good reasons. But by the end of the novel, you have heads on spikes in the Forum. The process is very gradual; it's hard to pick out a key moment when it could have been stopped.

  That's what I see happening today. Nixon could have pardoned Haldeman and Erlichman, but it would have been outrageous. Presidents just didn't do things like that. Today Bush when pardons Libby, there are a few toothless protests for a day or two, and then everybody moves on. What's next?

  by Pericles on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:41:41 AM PDT

•  I wish I had a good answer for you...

  but unlike Kos, I'm not confident that the 2008 elections will actually happen.  I get more confident they will by the day; however, I get less confident they'll mean much in the long run.  What I mean is that I'm afraid Bush has done such lasting damage to the Constitution that it's only a matter of time before another man or woman shows up and finishes the job Nixon started and Bush continued.

  by nilocjin on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:45:32 AM PDT

•  Here's what I wrote on another diary...

  Awakenings usually happen after the fact. The ones who realize before hand are written off as crazy. "I told you so" isn't very gratifying.

  by leftbird on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:58:31 AM PDT

•  I'm with you on seeing no real limits

  on the Bush cabal's intention and ability to destroy this government. As for the 2008 election, I just don't see how they can allow a Democratic administration to take power. So much of the stuff that they have been able to hide behind the cloak of 'executive privilege' will be subject to subpoena and they would all be indicted on something or other. The Rethus cannot let that happen and they will, they must, find a way to prevent a Democratic administration. I don't know what it will be but they will come up with something.

  by yellowdog on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 06:59:07 AM PDT

•  I still have faith in tradition, but...

  It's becoming clear that the "rule of law" rests on respect for tradition, as you point out.  If a Preznit violates law and his oath to uphold the Constitution, what does it matter if no one calls him to account.

  At this point I think Bush's risible popularity, along with the general expectation that Republicans will face the voters in 2008, will limit his support in his party.  There's no general support for a military coup.  Given another 9/11-style attack, however, I wouldn't put martial law past Cheney and his crowd.

  by Dallasdoc on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:00:00 AM PDT

•  We are asked to trust...

  those who are not trustworthy.

  by leftbird on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:06:08 AM PDT

•  Sorry, no opposition here...

  when a person lies and manipulates data to engage in an unnecessary war, while a legitimate one (Afghanistan/Al Queda) goes wanting, he/she has no limits.

  When a person is faced with new information that contradicts and corrects previous views and statements, sane and honest people will admit to have erred and correct their view. This is not going to happen with the Bush posse, because they are not honest or sane (messianic complex for one, addiction to power, fearful and fear inducing, psychopathic and socio-pathetic, to name a few).

  Will Congress be allowed to return to DC after Labor Day? Will the August surprise occur while Iraq is on holiday, Bush is on vacation, the Senate and House members out of town? Will Cheney have a health reason to vacate his office so that Bush (if not impeached) will name his successor to continue teh march to unitary executive?

  Who knows? Good advice is to prepare for the worst which we may not have seen as of yet.

  by don coyote on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:32:08 AM PDT

•  The Republicans Typically Run a Generation Ahead

  of the left in understanding how our system actually functions in the world we've actually got.

  They recognized 30 years ago that the Constitution is little more than a gentlemen's agreement if there are not forces trapping reps and branches into doing their ostensible jobs.

  All this behavior we see was premiered in the Reagan years but they were still hemmed in by a much more structurally liberal society --and all domestic factions were kept in check by the immediately lethal Soviet threat, which could damage anyone's interests if they shook up society by excess domestic aggression.

  The Republican program for 30 years and more has been to methodically dismantle all the factors that force everyone into doing the Constitutionally just things. I think Bush I was caught off guard by the collapse of the USSR, but the movement very quickly realized that this put them into endgame for capturing the nation.

  Some few of us were screaming every bit as hard 25 years ago as so many are today, because we saw indispensable laws and systems being destroyed that must inevitably lead to smirking W and Gonzo. As they have.

  Cancel 2008? I doubt it. They've got more than enough capacity to win it what with much of government opposing Democratic voters and candidates across the country. Remember they only really need the White House. As long as they've got 34 Senators and the WH, government cannot do anything meaningfully progressive. And they've probably already taken progressivism out of the Constitution, long term, with their 5-4 Supreme Court. They certainly will if they have the WH in 2009.

  Martial law? Like with tanks and troops? Physically impossible. As I've said, I've experienced it along with millions in 1970 and they just don't have the troops and gear to occupy the country in that classic sense.

  Some kind of state of emergency I could envision. They don't need to supervise 1/3 billion peoples' hourly movements anyways.

  But again they do operate on the force principle, so wherever opposition cannot force them to change behavior, they'll do and stonewall as they please. And I'd say history shows us there's a vanishingly small chance of anyone paying much for all this other than the people.

  by Gooserock on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 07:49:40 AM PDT

  •  Fred Fielding brings his knowledge to the WH...

    ..since he was Nixon's deputy counsel during Watergate and has been around since then, as Reagan's counsel. He's a graduate of the University of Virgina Law School.

    This kind of 'executive president' depth is helping the GOP to play several levels deep.  Fielding was right there when Nixon tried to use executive privilege.  

    I think we are seeing the results of Fielding's knowledge here, backed up by a very aggressive staff.

     

    by quantumspin on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:03:47 AM PDT

    •  p.s. Fielding is Bush's WH counsel today, see link

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      by quantumspin on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 08:05:22 AM PDT