"an Executive Order stating that federal agencies must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. In other words, if EPA wants to, say, decrease the level of a toxin that is being dumped in the water system, it will have to run that decision by a political appointee."
The poster ranted on about what a horrible power grab this was. How awful this was of the Republicans. The part that particularly grabbed my attention:
"Do you think the Republicans would have liked this EO if it had been signed by a Clinton? They would be howling."
It made me think back on OSC's afterword and how both sides are fanatics that consider the other side the complete unredeemable enemy.
Okay, this poster is mad because the Republicans did this and are glad about it. Clearly the Democratic poster doesn't like it. And she's pointing out that the Republicans wouldn't have liked it if the Democrats did it.
She's missing the point. The more important question is, would the Democrats like it if the Democrats did it? If a Democratic president did this and was going to set up Democratic political appointees to keep things out of a Republican majority legislative branch? Given the general stance on more and bigger government, and their fanaticism against the Republicans, I think they'd be just as happy about that theoretical situation as the Republicans (as per her post) seem to be about this one.
And if the Democrats would like it if they were able to do it, how can she really blame the Republicans for being glad they can do it? Yes, the Dems are mad the Reps did it, and the reverse would be true--because both sides ARE fanatics that hate what the others do.
And that's what may cost us a lot in the long run.