Colbert and the Imperial President

Stephen Colbert, a mock conservative news anchor on the "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central, was invited to address the Press dinner and the President recently. It was expected to be some mild, good-natured ribbing of the president from a man that pretends to be a conservative. What they got was something else entirely. I am not defending what he did--I think it was breathtakingly rude to the President, and overly harsh at times. However, the video also contains some of the funniest lines I have ever heard. You can't help but be surprised at Colbert's daring in his shameless honesty to powerful men. If you are angry at this President, you will be cheering at times. Even if you aren't, you will still be laughing.

This video has set the blogosphere on fire this week, with people arguing over whether Colbert was funny, appropriate, a hero, or a devil. Let's face it: he was funny. He was also rude and innapropriate, and the audience didn't like his jokes at times. Check out the President's face here. Stephen Colbert is a hilarious man with a deep-seated disrespect for authority, as his interview on 60 minutes revealed (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 are to the right). His broadside on the President was met with mixed reviews: Did President Bush deserve such harsh treatment?

I had a set opinion on this: no. I thought despite the President's incompetent national and foreign policy, cronyism, and pandering to large business interests--despite all of that, he was still the President and a human being who should have been respected and spared public humiliation.

Notice I said all of this in the past tense. This week the Boston Globe ran an article on Bush's creative use of signing statements, which are essentially declarations of his intentions NOT TO ENFORCE 750 LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. Bush has declared in writing that he and his administration are above the law on everything fom the torture ban to wiretapping to whistleblowing. Before Bush, no President had issued signing statements to block enforcement of laws. The Republican Congress is starting to fight back, but their powers are limited in a fight with the executive branch. The New York Times summarized Bush's transgression in an editorial:

Like many of Mr. Bush's other imperial excesses, this one serves no legitimate purpose. Congress is run by a solid and iron-fisted Republican majority. And there is actually a system for the president to object to a law: he vetoes it, and Congress then has a chance to override the veto with a two-thirds majority.

That process was good enough for 42 other presidents. But it has the disadvantage of leaving the chief executive bound by his oath of office to abide by the result. This president seems determined not to play by any rules other than the ones of his own making. And that includes the Constitution.

We have come to the day in the history of our Republic when the executive branch has begun to usurp legislative powers. If we do not stand up now, it will only get worse. The legacy Bush is creating is a grave threat to America--fifty years from now, presidents will consider it normal to quietly pick and choose which laws to enforce, and American democracy will be dead.

Stand up, America! This is not a partisan issue. Only Congress makes laws, not individuals. We fought a war against Britain to stop the last executive with legislative powers. President Bush is acting as a king, and he must be stopped by Congress. This means we need an effective, Democratic Congress to fight him. Bush must be condemned for this (or impeached) as soon as possible. Call your Congressman! Stand up!

Al Quaeda may blow up a city, but only our leaders can destroy the Constitution. Had enough? Vote Democratic this fall.