I couldn't agree with you more, on both points.

When you have a President whose party is the majority in the House and Senate, the President is proposing spending that is most likely going to be approved. This is what we have now. When Bush and Clinton were in office, there was a system of checks and balances that we no longer have.

The President being "responsible" for what happens to our country has grown from being the head of one of the three co-equal branches of government to ridiculously being the face of who we are. And too much intrusion into the shape of our society HAS resulted from the mythical power of this face. In conjunction with legislative power being assumed by the Supreme Court (abetted by Presidential appointees) the executive branch has gone well beyond its originally intended power. Even so, when it comes to spending, Congress has the final say.

I agree, Bush 43 did focus too much on capturing executive power. Cheney does a tremendous job of articulating why this was important.

As to the comment before on running a zero balance budget, I think this would be great if you had a serviceable debt load, which even with Clinton's surplus, we certainly didn't.

-spence

this is hilarious...take a snippet what Detbuch says and just twist up an argument against Bush...you are deranged Spence...no president has engaged in the coalescing of power in the executive branch like this current pres., and in less than one year...so far...

but who can blame Obama when his constituents worship on hand and knee at his feet and the media licks his boots till they're shiny on a hourly basis...

Wilson's potential admonishment
 

Did you know that if the entire congress takes the sanction of admonishment against Joe Wilson that what happens is they stand up and turn thier back to him for a brief period of time.

Nancy Pelosi could turn her back on a full room of people and turn around and find they all left the room on her.

Congress has some pretty weird procedures and traditions...

I'd note that Wilson did violate House rules with his comment. Pelosi is well within her bounds by sanctioning him.

-spence

Obama throws the lie and lier words around all the time. This side show is pathetic. He apoligized, Obama excepted end of story. Except Pelosi needs to grand stand and continue to play petty politics. She should just effin go away. She's the biggest insult to the Presidency and The Nation as a whole.

He committed two offenses, one to the President and one to the House of Representatives of which he's an elected member of and which sponsored the President speaking before the joint session of Congress.

He violated House rules and longstanding tradition by his remarks. He was in effect saying that he was on equal ground with the President of the United States of America.

His apology was nearly a non-event. All words and no substance, in fact he used the event to gather sympathy from his peers by returning to his position after the fact, perhaps even more so.

Certainly the Dems are making a political calculation by serving this rebuke, but there's no argument that they are fully within their bounds by doing so.

Of course, you think the burden is on Pelosi and not Wilson who's lapse of judgment started this affair. And I thought Republicans were about personal responsibility!

-spence

christ he apologized!
and second this was NOT a national address, it was the president ADRESSING congress. KNow your history, there have been fights and insults flying in congress for decades.
And Spence, the absolute KING of the lame apology is Obama. How many has he already done?

So the same standard should have been applied to Pete Stark when he accused Bush of being a liar and also disrupted the House during the 2007 SCHIP debate. The difference was that he refued to apologize and the Dems didn't call for one from him. Pelosi did call his comments "inapproriate", which is a far cry from how she responded to Wilson's comment.
Here is what Pelosi had to say about Stark.

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand,..."

Spence, your defense of the Dems is usually a lot like Wilson's apology - "All words and no substance".

Now I'll just wait for your convoluted, doublespeak excuses why Wilson is such a bad guy and the Dems that do the same thing are salt of the earth servants of the people of the US.

right, he's being railroaded for being honest, what happened to the freedom of speech agument that the left throws out whenever they attack? this is not his employer's rules or the rules of a private entity..."Congress shall make no law respecting ..... or abridging the freedom of speech, , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
I think he was petitioning Obama for a redress of grievences, namely, Obama is a lying sack of sh$#.....

Obam has been pissing on "traditions" for a year now, wanna make a list???....Pelosi can kiss my a%$.....

Actually, Presidential power has grown almost from the beginning. Certainly Pres power grew greatly under FDR. As well under Lincoln. "Emergencies" and "crises" are always ripe times for power grabbing, not only by the executive branch from the legislative, but by all branches of government from the people (private sector). As we are seeing in this current administration.

Wasting a day in session over this shows the hypocrisy of the Dems. IMO this will and has backfired on them. They are stupid beyond the voters that put them in office.

Obamas speach was a rally, not an address. He used that rally to once again blame Bush. That continues to be a much larger disgrace to the Nation.

Absolutely, every thing under Obama, except maybe for the banking problem, has been a fear mongering Emergency.
He knows exactly what he's doing.
It's turning out that the deep recession which required the Emergency stimulus/pork bill, according to Obama,seems to be a cyclical recession, which lasts the normal 6 to 18 months.