What If the Next President Is Even Worse?http://news.yahoo.com/next-president-even-worse-053014797.html (http://news.yahoo.com/next-president-even-worse-053014797.html)
By Ron Fournier | National Journal – 4 hrs ago...
George W. Bush in 2001 declared war on a tactic (terrorism), and empowered Big Brother to tap phones, launch drones, and indefinitely imprison people without due process.
Barack Obama in 2008 declared those Bush policies an overreach, and pledged to curb drone strikes, protect media freedoms, and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Instead, he escalated drone strikes and spied on the media. Gitmo is still open for its grim business.
These are facts. And yet, they are distorted by extreme and narrow-minded partisans, supporters of both Bush and Obama.
Conservatives contend that Bush single-handedly prevented a major terrorist strike after Sept. 11, 2001. They demagogue efforts to shift the pendulum back toward civil liberties. Last week, when Obama finally proposed a modest reassessment of the Bush doctrine, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., claimed the efforts "will be viewed by terrorists as a victory."
Liberals hypocritically gave Obama a pass for furthering the same policies they condemned in 2008. Criticism from the left was half-hearted and muted, compared with their Bush-era indignation. On Gitmo, left-wingers rightly blamed the GOP for blocking closure but didn't shame Obama into using his executive authority to shutter the pit.
Some progressives even tried to justify the Obama administration's efforts to criminalize the work of a Fox News reporter. Would they be so blase about a White House targeting MSNBC?
As Leonard Downie Jr. wrote in Sunday's Washington Post, "Hardly anything seems immune from constitutionally dangerous politicking in a polarized Washington."
But that's no excuse for missing the big picture, which is this: Bush and Obama shouldn't worry you nearly as much as the next president.
Or the one after that.
Think about it, liberals. What if there is a president in your lifetime who is more conservative than Bush? What if that commander in chief is empowered, as were Bush and Obama, by a national tragedy and a compliant Congress?
Your guy Obama has armed a president-turned-zealot with dangerous powers and precedents.
Think about it, conservatives. It may be maddening to listen to Obama tie himself into knots over the balance between liberty and freedom, but what if the next Democratic president sees no limit on a commander in chief's powers? What if he or she doesn't give a whit about offending the mainstream media?
The IRS targeting conservatives is a scandal, but there is no evidence that it was directed by the White House. What if the next Democratic president publicly declared his or her political opponents a direct threat to national security, and openly deployed federal agents against them?
Before your eyes roll out of your heads, it is not unthinkable that a future president could make Bush and Obama look downright libertarian. We live in an age of rapid connectivity and hyper-celebrity, forces that create, destroy, and often resurrect public figures within the lifespan of a cicada. Does the name Justin Bieber ring a bell?
How about Sarah Palin? Our culture of celebrity coupled with the public's disaffection with Washington, could lead to the election of a true demagogue or reactionary. Put it this way: What if Huey Long had had access to the Internet? Or even Pat Buchanan? Don't be blinded by partisanship.
Left-wingers should be fighting the abuse of executive powers at home and abroad, rather than defending them.
Right-wingers should be demanding that Obama finally carry out the promises of his speech last week, rather than demonizing them.
What about the rest of us? How do we keep the country both safe and free? We don't cede the public square to these extremists.
The only folks who actually control things are those that have the resources. The politicians are public servants of these people. Black, white, Indian, or Progenitor... matters not. Do not let talk radio or the pageantry of TV sound bites lead you different.
-An obvious question. Would a semi-competent person who worked within the accepted boundaries/rules of the system -but who had a truly evil agenda- do more harm or less than what we have now?
Hallelujahs and Amens shall be uttered.
They are "all" just another politician.
Hallelujahs and Amens shall be uttered.Mispronounced ones, no doubt.
*Then again, on a day to day basis, the literal nuclear option seems more possible.
*Strange how deviancy gets defined down. Any other president I'd be outraged at the daily lies, disingenuousness, hypocrisies and false statements. Now instead I'm thinking "Yeah, but is it illegal, unconstitutional or impeachable?"
Just wait till President Pence, recognizing that this is a Christian Nation, tries to go national with his Indiana reforms ( diverting AIDS Treatment funding to gay conversion therapy, for example) , and puts only righteous judges on the bench. Hallelujahs and Amens shall be uttered.
-An obvious question. Would a semi-competent person who worked within the accepted boundaries/rules of the system -but who had a truly evil agenda- do more harm or less than what we have now?
-An obvious question. Would a semi-competent person who worked within the accepted boundaries/rules of the system -but who had a truly evil agenda- do more harm or less than what we have now?
Uh, I feared Pence would be worse. Now I'm not so sure.
Getting rid of the experienced people in the top of the state department and gutting it's budget, and being inept at finding and confirming replacements, or outright refusing to do so means that our non-military options for dealing with international incidents are vanishing.
We have a peculiar convergence of partisanship in media and public office. Then there's the Russian thing. I'm also concerned about changing norms, such as ethics, objective truth, and Constitutional interpretation.
We survived Nixon just fine, but I wonder about the lasting effects of the [Sleezebag] administration, including figurative and literal nuclear options. I like to believe that the system is self -correcting, that excess leads to reform and restoration. But when we let partisanship ...." [Sleezebag]" ethics, "[Sleezebag]" objective truth and "[Sleezebag]" Constitutional interpretation, I fear that tit for tat will replace restoring standards in one category or another.
SO- I'm starting to think that what we have now is worse in the long run.
#1 In line is Vice President Mike Pence. The trouble is I'm pretty sure that the Mueller investigation will implicate him in at least 1) the cover-up of the Flynn-Russia connection. He was the head of the transition team after Christie was fired, so he was responsible for vetting. His lies abut it would indicate he knew what Flynn did was wrong. 2) Pence is also involved in the Comey firing.
On the other hand, Pence used to be a member of the House of Representatives before he became Governor of Indiana. The GOP members see him as a peer and a good guy. They'd be reluctant to start impeachment proceedings against him.
#2 In line is Speaker of The House Paul Ryan. There are hints that he won't come out of this Mueller investigation unscathed, but you can't expect him to impeach himself. But he doesn't want to be President. He ran for vice president with Romney. If he wanted the top job, he would have run in 2016. He's said that repeatedly. So, potentially he could resign as Speaker, or from Congress.
#3 in line is Utah Senator Oren Hatch, who holds the title President Pro-Tem of the Senate. He's clean, but he's old. A place holder until the 2020 election.
#4 in line is the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. I only mentioned him in case anybody was wondering.
A lot depends on timing and how and when [Sleezebag] leaves. a) 2020 Election, b) Resignation c) removed by his cabinet in a 25th Amendment scenario, d) Impeachment? Will the Mueller investigation release it's findings before the mid-term elections next year? Will the news be so bad that the Republicans lose their majority in spite of their gerrymandering achieved strangle-hold? If so, Pence and Ryan might be removed from the line of succession. Or Pence might have time to choose his replacement as Vice President. The Democrats will not be so reluctant to impeach. The next President could possibly be Nancy Pelossi.
c) removed by his cabinet in a 25th Amendment scenario
But the "Commander-in-Tweet" can't be wrong.... can he... :rolleyes:
Over the last few weeks, I have been shuddering as to the next crap to come from the "Idiot-in-Chief"...
Thing is, if the Reps couldn't come together enough to repeal and replace, then I really don't see them coming together to Impeach, even with the Dem's help...
But the "Commander-in-Tweet" can't be wrong.... can he... :rolleyes:
Over the last few weeks, I have been shuddering as to the next crap to come from the "Idiot-in-Chief"...
Why not going for "Idiot-in-Tweet" directly? ;)
Thing is, if the Reps couldn't come together enough to repeal and replace, then I really don't see them coming together to Impeach, even with the Dem's help...
I agree, that's a long shot. 80% of Americans strongly disapprove of white supremacists, but only about 20 Congressional Republicans ( including the Senate ) in total could bring themselves to denounce them/ criticize the President after [Sleezebag] reversed himself on Monday.
It's more likely he'll rage quit, or have a cardiovascular episode from the stress. I'm sure he doesn't want to be the first and only president removed from office. Just look at the way he disbanded his manufacturing advisory board this week and his arts council today. He has a" you can't fire me , I quit!" attitude. Just like he filed for bankruptcies.
------------
c) removed by his cabinet in a 25th Amendment scenario
I don't think they can use the fact that he is a colossal idiot as a reason....
I cringe at the thought of state television.
I cringe at the thought of state television.
[Sleezebag] TV? ;)