Think Progress

Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage

By Nico Pitney on Apr 16th, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage

has won a 2007 Pulitzer Prize for revealing how President Bush had “quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office” through the use of presidential signing statements. A full list of the prize winners is HERE.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has much more.



22 Responses to “Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage”

  1. trueblue says:

    WooHoo!

    Go, Charlie.

    I love the Globe. Miss being in Boston.


  2. mikey r says:

    This is gonna draw some trolls. Like flies to sh*t, man. You just watch.


  3. Raven says:

  4. Jake says:

    Not so much “disobey” as “faithfully execute” the proper parts of said laws.


  5. Crump's Brother says:

    “I said to [President Washington] that if the equilibrium of the three great bodies, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, could be preserved, if the Legislature could be kept independent, I should never fear the result of such a government; but that I could not but be uneasy when I saw that the Executive had swallowed up the Legislative branch.” –Thomas Jefferson


  6. And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid says:

    Other Pulitzer-winning pieces that, judging by the title, likely demonstrate the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration:

    – Investigative Journalism
    Birmingham News (Brett Blackledge) — Cronyism and corruption

    – Explanatory Journalism
    Los Angeles Times (Kenneth Weiss, Usha Lee McFarling, Rick Loomis) — “Altered Oceans”

    – Local Reporting
    The Miami Herald (Debbie Cenziper) — “House of Lies”

    – Editorial Writing
    New York Daily News (board) — ground zero workers health


  7. Zooey says:

    Congratulations, Charlie Savage.

    Great job exposing our president as the slime we all knew he’d be.


  8. mikey r says:

    Not so much “disobey” as “faithfully execute” the proper parts of said laws.

    Comment by Jake — April 16, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

    Nice one, Jake! Excellent backflip. I have to deduct points because you failed to stick the landing, though.



  9. veritas says:

    Here we are: Bush’s 750 “signing statements” and the evidence of broken laws. Just because Gonzo told us that the practice was “legal” doesn’t make it so. We now know that Gonzales has already lied repeatedly and since the evidence of what he knew and when he knew it has been disputed with evidence to support the new information) he has zippo credibility as a lawyer and even less reliability and honor as a human being.


  10. Democrat Soldier says:

    #4 – You forgot to add “…and then disobey the rest of the laws that pres. Bush doesn’t care for.”

    Pres. Bush is almost like the fundamentalist Christians in the US. The Fundy Christians only support the verses of the Bible with which they agree and ignore all other verses that they don’t like.

    Pres. Bush only follows he laws that he supports, and disobey’s the ones that place legal limits on the egregious over-reaching of Presidential power that he wants.


  11. Michael C says:

    Down with the “monarchic executive”.

    The excessive use of signing statements and avoidance of direct veto is part of the neo-con / Federalist Society strategy to expand corporate & Republican power. We should reframe that quietly anti-democratic and anti-constitutional term for the power grab it is.

    Thank you Charlie Savage & the Boston Globe!!!

    See: Kelpie Wilson http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041507Y.shtml

    ” Raising the bar on standing in order to deny citizen access to the courts whenever possible became a key plank in the quest for the “unitary executive” espoused by the Federalist Society and other neocon groups. These groups promoted the notion that all of the executive powers of the government must be consolidated and tightly controlled by the president. From this perspective, citizen lawsuits to enforce government regulations amount to “stealing power” from the executive branch and they should be thrown out of court whenever possible”.


  12. Angry One says:

    It is worth comparing the 2007 Pulitzer recipients to lthose from last year. If there is one common attribute many of the 2006 winners shared, it was holding up a mirror to the scandals and corruption of the Bush administration and his Republican Party.

    The Pultzter Board rthen ecognized coverage of a broad range of Republican fraud, deceit and skullduggery, including the NSA domestic spying program, the CIA’s secret prisons and the Jack Abramoff scandal, just to name a few. For example, Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith of the Washington Post received the Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting for their work on the Abramoff affair. The Post’s Dana Priest got the nod for Beat Reporting with her coverage of the secret CIA “black prisons.” The New York Times’ James Risen and Eric Lichtblau were awarded for their stories on President Bush’s illegal domestic surveillance program.

    The Pulitzers also recognized GOP malfeasance in the states. The Toledo Blade was a finalist for its coverage of Bush Pioneer Tom Noe and his Ohio “Coingate” scandal. While the Blade came up short, a National Reporting award went to the San Diego Tribune for its coverage of bribe-taking Banana Republican ex-Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

    But the Pulitzer Board saved special attention for coverage of Hurricane Katrina and how in its aftermath the Bush administration turned a natural disaster into a national disgrace. The New Orleans Times-Picayune and the Biloxi Sun Herald each were awarded the Public Service prize for Katrina coverage. The Times-Picayune also picked up the prize for its breaking news coverage of Katrina, while the Dallas Morning News was awarded for its Breaking News Photography.

    For more background on last year’s Pulitzers, see:
    “The GOP’s Pulitzer Prize Winning Scandals.”


  13. ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus says:

    Not so much “disobey” as “faithfully execute” the proper parts of said laws. Comment by Jake — April 16, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

    Is that how you rationalize your own criminality, immorality, and willingness to disobey the law, and your own book of religion?

    You’re a sad immoral sicko. You *values* wing nuts have so much in common with Osama, it’s hard to understand why you ever stopped being best friends.


  14. Spudge_Boy says:

    Not so much “disobey” as “faithfully execute” the proper parts of said laws.

    Comment by Jake — April 16, 2007 @ 5:29 pm

    Not so much a stupid comment as stupid fu*king piece of sh!t a$$wipe typing the stupid comment.


  15. Zep Tepi says:

    LOL@Jake.

    Jake most of, if not all, of those signing statements were done during a Republican led congress. Bush disobeyed Republican legislation that came to his desk. But I guess you also think this abrogation of the balance of power is a good thing. George a non-lawyer and a poor businessman chopping Republican rubber stamped laws into bits.

    BWahahahahahaaaa.


  16. joe says:

    Isn’t it funny that these people call themselves republicans?

    Republicans were the people who overthrew monarchs, and insisted on the sovereignty of the laws enacted by parliament, and the legal responsibility of the executive to obey those laws.

    These people aren’t republicans, they’re monarchists. Elected monarchists, but monarchists still the same. They think there’s one “accountability moment” – the election – and then they think the president is the law.

    If there is a defining trait of republicanism, it’s the belief that the executive is subject to the law.


  17. bob (not the hacker) says:

    jake is a fascist. jake hates our freedoms. put jake on your ignore list.


  18. Kevin says:

    Left wing prize for being the best left wing nut of the year.


  19. Kane says:

    They might as well pass out a 2008 Pulitzer to Dana Priest and Anne Hull for their investigative reporting on Walter Reed Hospital.


  20. Marty Didier says:

    Good Going Charlie!


  21. bob's your uncle says:

    So why doesn’t Chimpy sign the Iraq war bill and then issue a signing statement indicating that he won’t recognize the deadline?



Jump to Top

About Think Progress | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy (off-site) | RSS | Donate
© 2005-2009 Center for American Progress Action Fund
View Most Popular

Advertisement

What We're About

Featured

image
Subscribe to the Progress Report



imageTopic Cloud


Visit Our Affiliated Sites

image image
Reports


Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.

Name:
Email:
Tip:
(required)


imageArchives


imageBlog Roll