President Bush commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence, putting this whole political fiasco behind us.
Just today President Bush has commuted the sentence that Scooter Libby was given in his obstruction of justice trial. Libby will still face a fine and probation but he will serve no time in prison. His conviction will also remain on his record.…
Article comments
76 - gonzo marx
well, stopped by for the first time in months looking for just such an as this one, since yer humble Narrator had furiously typed one up moments after the Announcement of the pardon and was thinking of actually submitting it...
but after perusing both the Article and the following comments, then throwing up a little in my mouth, i realized one thing...
i was right in my decision to stop using BC as my home page
know that i DO miss talking with some of you, and others are still fucking idiots and shills, imo
Excelsior?
77 - Maurice
gonzo! missed ya!
78 - Clavos
Howdy, gm!
79 - gonzo marx
for you Maurice, i'll respond...
ya missed cuz i ducked and hid!!!
heh
sorry to you and others who might be a tad disappointed at my disappearance, but there ya are...
currently i don't find any reason to *return*, but since my recovery from surgery i find the urge to spew words returning...
just hafta find a good home for them, little bastards that they are...stuff piled up on the olde hard drive on many topics, some way outdated...
but i digress...
heyas to those that care, and a guy nod to the rest...
be Well, folks...and remember...
look up shit for yourselves, NEVER just believe anyone about anything , myself included...triple check yer Facts...then make up yer own Minds
the Tao of D'oh
nuff said?
Excelsior!
80 - Alec
Dave - RE: [Can you provide a citation on this?]
Yes it is. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it rather than asking people to provide citations for facts which anyone even vaguely familiar with the case should know.
Sorry, Dave, you are getting circular here. YOU made a claim without proof or citation, not me.
RE: You aren't reading closely enough. I didn't minimize the leaking of Plame's name. I pointed out that Fitzgerald said that Libby's revealing of Plame (such as it was) seemed to be done entirely in ignorance. Armitage's leaking was presumably intentional, though his motives are somewhat obscure.
Sorry, Dave. You are attempting misdirection again. Libby's leaking of Plame's name is not at issue, nor was it the basis of Fitzgerald's case against him. Perjury. Obstruction of justice. Not leaking, whether intentional or not, whether in ignorance or not.
You talk about "close reading," and yet you continue to miscontrue the fairly simple facts of the case against Libby.
RE: And you trot out the same old jargon, accusing us of being Bush administration flunkies just because we don't agree with you. If that's the best you can do, why bother?
Just because it is "old jargon" does not mean that it is inaccurate. Others have asked, and I will ask as well: is there anything that the Bush administration could do that would cause you to disavow them? I also ask because you, John and others either deliberately mis-state the facts of the Libby case or attempt to minimize them.
It is not a matter of whether or not you agree with me. The sad thing is that both Democrats and Republicans are at fault here. I predict that if they regain the presidency, the Democrats may be tempted to abuse power in the same way that Bush is now doing, and Democratic Party lapdogs will do the rationalization dance that Bush defenders are now doing. My accusation is against anyone, of any party, who blindly puts ideology and "my side vs your side," against principle.
RE: [This is not only irrelevant, but it is also clear that lack of intent is not relevant to whether a crime has been committed.]
No, but it's entirely relevant to the severity of the crime and the type of punishment it deserves.
No, it's not. Not when a president interjects himself into it. The judge did not go for anything close the the maximum penalty. And Bush clearly violated previous DOJ guidelines regarding commutations.
RE: [For example, a person who causes the death of another without intent can be charged with and convicted of involuntary manslaughter.]
Yes, but he cannot be convicted of murder.
Wow. You almost had a point here. And this relates to Libby, how? By the way, there ain't no such thing as "convicted of murder" by itself. There is 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, etc.
RE: Because your argument that an unintentional act and an intentional act are treated the same under the law is just dead wrong.
Huh? There is no case law, none, nada, nowhere, that distinguishes between "intentional perjury" and "unintentional perjury," between "unintentional obstruction of justice" and "intentional obstruction of justice." You are just making stuff up here, although I do not know who your intended audience might be.
You keep trying to pretend that Libby's prosecution was based on his leaking Plame's name, and that this leaking may have been unintentional. But since this is not the facts of the case, why do you insist on offering it as something real and material?
RE: He's not a lawyer or a judge, he's the president. He has the power to commute sentences and actually doesn't really need a reason. That's the way it works. It's external to the normal system of justice.
Did you write the same thing about Clinton's pardons?
By the way, some are questioning whether Bush has the power to commute sentences when the convicted person has not served a second of jail time.
There is a larger principle at work here as well, which applies to all presidents, not just Bush. Just as Bush has the right to appoint US attorneys, his actions have caused upset among the ranks of present US attorneys, including some who are Republicans, for unnecessarily politicizing the office.
Integrity matters as much as the right to exercise power.
RE: [There is, however, clear evidence that Bush and Cheney hold themselves above the law.]
Citation? Any evidence that they believe this? I'd be amused to see it.
The evidence is clearly in front of you. The question is, are you getting what you want from this Administration? Is this why you so readily seek to minimize their actions?
RE: See my current article on the Reagan administration. Bush Sr. pardonned or commuted the sentences of dozens of Reagan era officials convicted of a variety of crimes.
Saw it. Didn't have time to respond because of the holidays. It was, however, another masterpiece of misdirection.
Neither Bush nor Reagan commuted the sentence of a loyalist who had not served jail time. Pardons are another matter.
Reagan had principles. Dubya has none except loyalty to his cronies. Dubya promised to be better than the perceived tawdriness and corruption of the Clinton era. But now you proudly declare that these guys are fine with you because they are a little less corrupt.
81 - Alec
Dave - A little bit more--
RE: He has the power to commute sentences and actually doesn't really need a reason. That's the way it works. It's external to the normal system of justice.
From 1982, an assistant attorney general for Ronald Reagan:
"According to Associate Attorney General Rudolph W. Giuliani, executive clemency involves a great number of people and a complex, yearlong procedure. Every request is subject to a detailed inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which conducts as many as 50 interviews to flesh out each application. That background investigation is as comprehensive as any the bureau conducts on a prospective United States Attorney, Mr. Giuliani said.
The case is next studied by the pardon attorney, who makes a judgment that Mr. Giuliani reviews. His judgment, in turn, goes to Fred Fielding, the White House counsel who re-examines the files and makes his own judgment. Then, according to Mr. Fielding, every request is presented to the President for his concurrence."
But with Bush we have an administration that makes a big noise about rule of law and "original intent" with respect to the Constitution, but in practice behaves as though arbitrary exercise of executive power is all that matters, ignoring established and traditional procedures, making up new and ridiculous interpretations of law to suit their ends, and creating justifications as an afterthought.
And yet Bush defenders ignore the extent to which Bush ignores precendent. It is odd that a group which claims to be all about liberty and the rule of law positively swoon in the face of arbirtary authoritarianism.
By the way, Bush's hamfisted commutation, within his power, but ill-conceived, has created some new wrinkles. He is here worse than an activist judge supposedly creating new laws:
From the Washington Monthly and elsewhere:
Bush said Tuesday that in reaching the decision on Libby, "I considered his background, his service to the country, as well as the jury verdict." While vacating the prison sentence, he did not disturb other portions of the sentence, including a $250,000 fine and two years of a form of probation known as supervised release.
"But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe; made a judgment, a considered judgment that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it," the president said.
Whether Libby would have to serve probation was in some doubt Tuesday. The sentencing judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in court papers that it was unclear whether a defendant who had not done jail time could still be subject to supervisory release. He asked the lawyers to advise him on the issue.
You can even see the judge's order to confirm this.
82 - Lumpy
Alec. Do you argue just for the sake of arguing? You don't seem to have any substantive arguments here, just babbling about misdirection and unsupportrd assertions. Repeating yourself is not actually an effective form of argument.
83 - Alec
Lumpy - re: Do you argue just for the sake of arguing? You don't seem to have any substantive arguments here, just babbling about misdirection and unsupportrd assertions. Repeating yourself is not actually an effective form of argument.
Hey, Lump. I think your nickname is very apt. Some may think I am wrong about an issue, but when I generously provide links and quotations, one could not honestly say that my assertions are unsupported. Unless, of course, one was lumpy.
84 - Dr X
"That said, it does appear from all available evidence that there never should have been an investigation and that Fitzgerald engaged in a witch hunt even though he knew the facts from day one that there was no real crime."
That's really a slander of Fitzgerald. How in the world could Fitzgerald know there was no crime from day 1?
He didn't initiate a witch hunt or initiate anything. Bush's attorney general appointed him to conduct an investigation because there was serious suspicion of a crime. How would Fitzgerald know, from day 1, that there was no crime when Bush's own AG suspected a crime? That's why Fitzgerald was appointed.
Even President Bush discussed the possibility that there had been a crime committed and he expressed full support for the investigation saying: "And if this helps stop leaks, this investigation in finding the truth, it'll not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action. But also hopefully we'll help send a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop as well.
To recap: President Bush described the leak as a serious matter and a crime. The Republican, AG appointed by Bush, thought a special prosecutor was needed. He selected a Republican Bush appointee(Fitgerald)to conduct the investigation. The case was tried before a Republican judge appointed by the Bush administration. A jury of 12 Americans unanimously believed that Libby was guilty. No one could have had the deck stacked better in their favor more than it was stacked favorably for Libby. There was no witch hunt. It was all the work of Republicans.
85 - sr
STM#75. As long as the shit sandwich has peanut butter, mustard and sardines on it. With a side of tater salad it's heaven. Try it on toasted rye bread.
86 - bliffle
Dr X makes some good points.
87 - RePo
seems like his punishment is still harsher than sandy berger's or clinton's. Would you like a side of double standard with that sandwich?
88 - Clavos
Here's an interesting, on-topic excerpt from an LA Times editorial:
"With the sand running out on his administration, President Clinton hustled through pardons for 141 people and commutations for 36 more. Among those who received pardons were 27 men and women convicted of drug crimes, deserters from the military, a former member of the Clinton Cabinet who pleaded guilty to making false statements to authorities, and various perjurers and obstructionists. Clinton's half-brother walked away that day with a clean record, as did Patty Hearst and financier Marc Rich " at the time a fugitive from justice on charges of violating the embargo against trade with Iran, tax evasion and other unsavory deeds. Clinton's pardons were particularly offensive because they were issued just as his presidency ended, so there was no way for him to be held accountable for his misuse of power." (emphasis added)
Res ipsa loquitur.
89 - gonzo marx
more and more bullshit...
this has nothing to do with Clinton, and anyone trying to say differently is just pure spin and attempted distraction...just because someone else was an asshole and did some fucked up shit, does NOT excuse another person from doing it...
when did the GOP become so soft on crime?
try and keep this Issue on topic...
a member of the Administration lied to the FBI and a grand jury during an investigation being held by an appointee of the Administration
found guilty by a jury of his peers for lying to the FBI, perjury to a grand jury, obstruction of justice
now, when it appears that some pressure could be put on the convicted felon to cut a deal and talk rather than going to prison, the President...without consulting the Justice department, commutes the sentence, going against his own Justice department guidelines, to remove any possibility of said pressure being utilized...
many a lawyer is going to be quoting the President on this one, trying to get their clients off of jail time due to "past service".."hardship to their family" all all the rest of the shit W spewed as *reasoning*
oh yeah..side note..as for Marc Rich, the bastard should have done his time, but it looks like his lawyer did well to con Clinton into a pardon...
his lawyer was Scooter Libby
plenty more, but no one is going to convince anyone, no matter the facts that are laid out before them
more and more as time goes on, one thing is shown clearly...W and his administration makes Nixon look ethical
after all, Nixon didn't pardon Liddy, Haldeman, Erlichman and the rest, and resigned for the good of the nation...
anyone want to bet that on W's last days, good olde Scooter gets a full pardon?
the Tao of D'oh
nuff said...
Excelsior!
90 - Arch Conservative
"You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens."
Dave........
That one paragraph is the truest, most worthwhile, topical, pertinent bit of writing I have EVER seen on Blogcritics.
Thank you.
Oh and I really don't get what all of the fuss the left is making over this Libby deal considering how they didn't utter a peep when Clinton was busy pardoning his own brother for cocaine trafficking and auctioning off pardons to countless criminals who happened to be either friends or family members of those who could gave the Clintons very sizeable political donations.
The icing on the cake is Slick Willie actually going on national TV and critisizing Bush over the libby commutation. I guess billy-boy can't help himself. The need to drop in every now and then and remind us all of what a world class scumbag he is is to powerful and compulsive for him to control.
91 - John Bambenek
For everyone who thinks I'm whitewashing here, I'd wish they'd actually read the *whole* article...
92 - bliffle
This is the funniest notion I've seen on BC:
"You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens.
Dave"
And there you have the mainspring of Daves political effort: he's just another democrat-hater. He's not a contrarian, he's not a "liberal", he's not a conservative, he's not a libertarian. Just another democrat-hater. How banal.
93 - Zedd
Clavos #88
This was dealt with thoroughly about six months back on this very blog sight. I think you participated in the discussion.
Feeling a little senior today or doth though also like the many amongst us bathe frequently the sweet bosom of the spirits thus echoing, with predictability (in true form, like the creature you've been since your weenin), In Jameson Veritas?
Sorry I'm still in Pirates of the Caribbean mode hence the long overly stated sample of free verse :o)
94 - Clavos
I have no idea what you were attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to say, Zedd.
However, I did decipher enough to respond to you that I am a teetotaler; i don't drink Jameson or any other alcoholI
95 - gonzo marx
and i Quote - ""You see, here's the difference between the two parties. The Republicans biggest threat when in power is their scandals and occasional bit of corruption. When the Democrats are in power it's their actual openly-advocated programs which threaten the nation and the citizens."
"
which appears, upon Examination, to be hyperbole and a pretty baseless generalization to many people
let's see, shall we talk about some Actualized *threats* for examples?
warrantless wiretapping, in defiance of the $th Amendment to the Constitution? - even the FBI admits to over 200 cases where it was done purely domestically...NOT involving ANY overseas people or calls...each and every one of those , done without warrant are violations of many federal laws, as well as said portion of the Constitution
Jose Padilla - probably a scumbag who deserves to be locked up for a while...but a U.S. citizen, held by this Administration and the Justice department for over 3 years, without being charged with ANY crime, without the recourse of habeus corpus and without ANY of the protections provided to EVERY U.S. citizen
i think most would say those are clearly defined threats
how about lesser "evils"...big government, wasteful spending..these are the kinds of things many would say are the Democrats domain...but let's take a look at the track record that 6 years of GOP control have wrought
between the "department of homeland security" and the Administration's Prescription drug program, government has grown dramatically since 2000...yet our borders are no more secure than they were and due to the problem of the drug program's legislation not even allowing negotiation of prices, as well as the complexity of the program itself...many folks are in just as bad a position as they were previously...some worse...but those pharma corps profits have gone up, eh?
so..i have to ask, what "openly advocated programs" exactly ARE such huge threats? and how so?
because right now, i just don't see it
and don't get me wrong..the Dems are almost as fucked up as the GOP, and have been at least as bad at times in the past...
but toss a pre-emptive war sold to the public under false pretenses (in some respects like what JFK and LBJ did with Nam), and scandals/corruption that makes Nixon look ethical in retrospect...
what argument could there possibly be that the Dems are not currently a much lesser threat to have in office than the GOP?
Excelsior?
96 - Clavos
Actually, gonzo, I think you just made a pretty persuasive argument for throwing ALL those "mainstream" fuckers (D & R) out and voting in a radical like Kucinich, Gravel or Paul.
At least the next four wouldn't likely be more of the same.
97 - gonzo marx
i would be all for Paul versus Gravel
a MUCH better debate of Issues for our Nation to converse about, and i would wager more solutions would be found for our problems than we are ever going to see from your stated "mainstream"
not a single one of those greedhead pigfuckers have an ounce of authenticity between the lot of them
like i've said before, rarely is there anyone i would like to vote for, but there's ALWAYS someone to vote against
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
98 - Zedd
Clavos,
Not only were you in senior mode but you are obviously in jerk mode too.
99 - Dave Nalle
gonzo raises many of the same relatively valid but tediously repeated issues, but does not actually address the point which i made earlier.
the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive.
the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop?
remember, failing something good, we're still picking the lesser of two evils.
and as for bliffle's comment:
And there you have the mainspring of Daves political effort: he's just another democrat-hater. He's not a contrarian, he's not a "liberal", he's not a conservative, he's not a libertarian. Just another democrat-hater. How banal.
i certainly don't hate democrats. some of my favorite people and some of my favorite politicians are democrats. but the good individuals who are in the party do not define the party and because i DO believe in the basic principles of liberalism, i cannot support the party and its adherence to a package of beliefs which are inherently oppressive. and i've never claimed to be a conservative.
dave
100 - gonzo marx
i quote #99 "the gop does not include warrantless wiretaps, torture or changes to habeas corpus in their party platform. they do not run candidates who openly advocate violating peoples rights and destroying the constitution. the policies which they advocate as good for the country are mostly actually positive."
more bullshit and spin here
while i can agree the GoP party platform does nto include these things, the elected representatives from said political gang have implemented them in the last 6 years...thus making liars of them as well as their other transgressions agains tour Republic....
those that are their Apologists and supporters thus make themselves guilty as enablers
i don't give a fuck what someone "advocates"..it's what they actually DO that matters...all else is spin
this paragraph - "the democrats on the other hand, have a history of advocating a philosophy of government which is inherently incompatible with the constitution and which would violate rights included there and in some cases even more fundamental than much of what is included in the bill of rights. starting from a point of philosophically opposing liberty how can they possibly produce an end result which is better than the gop?"
is nothing but speculation, unsubstantiated claims and pure partisan bullshit attempting to fear monger with NO basis in objective Reality, for the most part
true enough, the Dems are fucked up in many ways, but no where near the dangerous pigfuckers the GoP have shown themselves to be in the last 6 years of rule
Excelsior?
101 - Dave Nalle
gonzo, despite your long-term memory problem, the democrats have in fact held office within our mutual lifetime, and they did just as much evil as the gop, but they did much of it openly and were proud of it. i find that more repugnant.
dave
102 - gonzo marx
despite your insults about my memory...
why don't you cite your examples, and we will discuss whether your "evils" come close to trashing sections of the Constitution, violating several federal laws and the like
i still contend that the Padilla case alone, much less added to the warrantless wiretaps, far outstrips these "evils"...
but i'm willing to listen, if/when you deign to show your specific examples, and point out what exactly in the Dem platform you find so egregious
Excelsior?
103 - Dave Nalle
gonzo, where do you want me to start or stop? the fairness doctrine, the brady bill, the defense of marriage act, socialized medicine, the assault weapons ban, don't ask don't tell. do you not see the theme which unites these issues?
dave
104 - gonzo marx
and which of these are in the Dem party platform?
some of these are bullshit because they have bi-partisan support, like "the defense of marriage act"
how one can equate the brady bill and the assault weapons ban as being any kind of equivalent to tossing aside habeus corpus and the 4th Amendment (warrantless wiretaps) is beyond my at the moment...do explain...is it that you think they somehow violate the Second Amendment, which i will Quote -
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
one can easily argue that both of those legally passed laws fall under the "well regulated Militia" portion...they have stood up to legal scrutiny so far, and either way, do explain why you think of them as a "threat"
please do show where in the Dem platform (quote and cite) that "socialized medicine" (i'm guessing you mean the position some have towards "Universal Healthcare"..which appear to be different animals, on the surface)
"don't ask, don't tell" also had bi-partisan support..and while i'll readily concede it's stupid..and i fail to see this huge "threat"
again...you raise some points, but fail to follow the simple Question or even stick to the guidelines of what is being asked..instead giving some things that were bi-partisan, or at best minor bits of stupidity as opposed to the quoted and cited very real damage done by the GoP in the last 6 years
Excelsior?
105 - zingzing
dave, if you have examples, just write them down for us. we are very curious... this is going on in two different threads.
what is this mysterious democratic "philosophy" that is so dangerous anyway? i think you vote much like my dad votes: for whatever will line his pockets with a little more cash.
on most of the "hot button" issues of the day, you seem to follow the dems: abortion, gay rights, immigration... you probably agree that this war is costing us too much money (and you probably know that it's going to come out of your taxes eventually), you know the dems simply aren't going to ban your precious hand guns and you know that the death penalty is seriously flawed.
but something keeps you with the gop. what is it? what's so bad about the dems?
GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES!
106 - gonzo marx
ya gotta be specific, zing...he had raised the point that a lot of the problems with the GoP are not in their Party platform, but stuff the Party has done
so i asked what , specifically, in the Dem platform is such a huge threat to our Nation
just trying to keep the Record straight
Excelsior?
107 - zingzing
what the party members actually do is what the platform really is. other than that, it's just words that get you to vote.
that's like saying "judge me for what i say, not what i do!"
108 - Dave Nalle
as i point out on another thread there are really three levels here. there's what the party members believe, what they write in the platform (which is largely meaningless) and what they actually pass into law. attempting to focus on the platform as an expression of anything other than the desire to get people elected is pure misdirection.
on to more specifics.
gonzo, if you can't read the 2nd amendment which you just quoted and see how it totally is at odds with the brady bill and the assault weapons ban then there's no rational basis on which to discuss that subject with you.
what is this mysterious democratic "philosophy" that is so dangerous anyway?
it is the belief in the greatest good for the greatest number regardless of the needs or the universal rights of the individual.
i think you vote much like my dad votes: for whatever will line his pockets with a little more cash.
i wouldn't object to that characterization, except that there is more to it than that. there are the right way and the wrong way to line your pockets with cash. i support anyone who will give me the opportunity to earn and keep more money. i would not support those who wish to increase my wealth through a government handout or through the government managing my financial affairs for me.
on most of the "hot button" issues of the day, you seem to follow the dems: abortion, gay rights, immigration...
on the social issues i do agree with the dems, but if you look into their stance on immigration you'll find they probably don't really believe the way you think. their allegiance to unions has made them very protectionist and nativist - more so than many republicans.
you probably agree that this war is costing us too much money (and you probably know that it's going to come out of your taxes eventually),
of course. that's obvious to anyone. there's still some question of the cost/benefit ratio, but it's certainly excessive spending until there are proven benefits.
you know the dems simply aren't going to ban your precious hand guns and you know that the death penalty is seriously flawed.
something i certainly have to give howard dean credit for. he aggressively stamped out the anti-gun rhetoric once and for all.
but something keeps you with the gop. what is it? what's so bad about the dems?
again, as i said before, it's philosophy of government. the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone.
dave
109 - gonzo marx
on the Second Amendment bit..nice try, but i will stand by exactly what i typed, not your veiled implications..which part of "well regulated Militia" do you not comprehend? and how do you think a ban on civilians having assault weapons violated the concept of "well regulated"?
and i Quote "the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone."
and STILL think you need to show your proof
how the fuck do you reconcile "leaving us the hell alone" with the PATRIOT Act? or warrantless wiretapping and violating habeus corpus?
until you can give a straight answer to this very fundamental dichotomy, i STILL call bullshit
Excelsior?
110 - zingzing
all this being said (my comments, especially 107), i did miss comment #101.
111 - zingzing
"it is the belief in the greatest good for the greatest number regardless of the needs or the universal rights of the individual."
i think you oversimplify.
"the dems still believe that government should solve our problems for us, and the gop still mostly believes that government should leave us the hell alone."
and again, you oversimplify. what about torture and suspending habeous corpus is "leav[ing] us the hell alone?"
the dems may WISH gov't could solve all our problems, but they also KNOW that it can't. they do what they can do support the people, while the gop likes to support itself (in a selfish way, not a self-sufficient way). which may be where you get confused. the dems want to see the government working for everybody, while the gop is content to see the government manipulated by those who can afford to do so.