- Write In Bush – Do we encourage this so that it sucks up McCain votes? Or discourage it so that Bush isn’t tempted to simply ignore the 22nd Amendment (in the name of “national security” and “executive privilege,” of course)?
- New Friends Bring New Troubles for McCain – A problem all candidates have — there are supporters who have unsavory records and positions of their own. How a candidate deals with them (Left or Right) is revealing of how they will deal with domestic and (especially) international affairs. Unless, of course, they actually agree with the nutcases.
- American Civil Liberties Union : Senate Passes Unconstitutional… – It’s going to be hilarious watching the Right spin 180 degrees on what sort of powers the president should wield once there’s a Democrat in the White House.
- Staver Lies About Court Case – But … but … Bearing False Witness is against the Ten Commandments, isn’t it?
- Con-artists join the war on photographers – Because when we fear authority, it’s easy to get fooled by people who feign it.
- Bozo Dead – I was never a big Bozo fan, but he was a cultural icon.
- Less Pipe, More Shading for CNET – I go to CNET on a fairly regular basis. While their old logo could probably have used with a revision, the new one basically looks like something someone whipped up in a graphics program in, oh, 5 minutes or so.
- Moon has water – First Mars, then Mercury, now the Moon … it’s kind of getting passe.
24 view(s)
I am not entirely convinced that:
a) The election will happen.
b) It will be so fraudulent that it will make the 2000 and 2004 elections seem like paragons of virtue.
c) A national emergency won’t be declared in early January (you know, war with Iran and all), and using his memo that was written for him, the change in power is put on hold “until it is safe”.
It would take more than a little war for Americans to stand for an attempt by the President to remain in office beyond his term. That’s banana republic nonsense. Yes, our political system has some major issues right now, but we’re all too prideful not to stick to the appearance of good governance. We had an election in the middle of an actual Civil War, after all.
Besides, people said the same thing when Clinton’s term was winding down.
Plus, the web page originating the “Write in Bush” idea is working from a false premise. Until and unless God shows up personally to take charge, the ultimate law of the land is the US Constitution, not His word. The Constitution sets term limits on the Presidency. Frankly, if God did show up, I’d be happier if he pushed through an amendment instead of decreeing anything anyway.
A viable third candidate would be, pardon my French, a Godsend. But giving your vote to someone who literally cannot accept the office would be throwing away your vote. If people want to do that, fine. It’s a free country. I just wish people would stop trying to game the system, instead voting for the person they think is best suited for the job from among the available qualified applicants.
Can I write him in for impeachment?
Thinking today — we probably won’t be be out of this morass (and in a different one) until the ranks of baby boomers has thinned.
“Republican” seems currently based on a game of us vs. them (Lee observed the other day that you could tell liberal bumperstickers because they’re idealistic and conservative ones because they’re mean), which is not so good as a long-term strategy. So many people have been kicked out of the “us” that it’s only the apathy of the “them” that lets the “us” have the illusion of numerical superiority.
However — the boomers are a very large group. Normally, I think the tides would have shifted, and both parties fallen apart by now (Democrats: We’re everybody who isn’t a Republican!) if it weren’t for such a glut of the last generation to grow up even *trying* to believe in the current parties.
@David: I tend to agree with you as to this being unlikely. On the other hand, the Bush Administration has more than once shown itself willing to act by fiat, waving around a mantra of “National Security! Executive Privilege!” as it if justifies anything they care to do. I don’t think it likely — but I’ve become a scosh more paranoid over the past few years.
Your note that Clinton was the victim of the same sort of rumors is a good one. I think there’s a lot more evidence of the current Administration’s malfeasance than the previous one’s, such that the immoral equivalence of such demonization is more difficult for me to accept, but it’s still worth considering.
In my opinion, were God to show up, we’d all have bigger personal worries than Constitutional law or who’s in the White House — the current denizen therein having cause for even more worries.
@dust: Given that I am ostensibly in the last couple of years of the Baby Boom generation (depending on how it’s counted), I look forward to something making me thinner. Wait, that’s not quite what you meant.
By the time I’m one of the last ones left, I suspect that, yes, we’ll be on to a whole new set of Gripping Issues of Most Dire Import, and look back on these days with both wonderment at the stupidity of some folks and nostalgia for a golden bygone age. Sort of like what we do looking back at the “Greatest Generation” and all that.
I don’t know that I agree with Lee’s bumper sticker assessment — there are some pretty mean liberal bumper stickers out there (let’s face it — liberals are going to have to search hard and long for someone to hate as much as they do — not without some justification — Dubya). I’d say that the difference is that most conservative bumper stickers are more authoritarian (X must be done, people must do Y) while liberal bumper stickers are more idealistic (wouldn’t it be cool if we had X?).
That being said — the rise of “Independent / Uncommitted” as a sizeable, even pluralistic force in American politics is both noteworthy and, I think, positive. In Colorado, for example, Unaligned (or whatever the technical title is) outnumbers either of the Big Two parties. It does make for increased extremism during the primary season (though both Obama and, to a lesser extent, McCain represent a counter-trend to that), and some uncomfortable balancing of appealing to the extremist base while trying to win the moderate middle — but that might actually be a more hopeful trend than letting the election be decided by the Wingnuts vs the Moonbats.
Let me elaborate. Were a President to attempt to remain in office beyond his term by nefarious (or merely suspicious) means, I suspect there would be repercussions. Even if he decides it’s best for the country for him to stay in charge, there’s that whole Congress and Supreme Court thing, or, worst case, someone with good aim and poor impulse control will inevitably disagree. It’s not entirely up to him whether or not he gets to stay President, is what I’m saying.
I’m having trouble with your second paragraph. Are you calling me immoral for equating the Bush rumor with the Clinton rumor, or are you refuting the idea that they are both immoral enough to have such rumors propagate about them? I’m not raising my hackles or demanding you defend your statement; I honestly don’t quite follow what you said.
However, assuming you were saying the Clintons were less suspicious, consider the common wisdom that if Obama picks Hillary as his running mate, he is unlikely to survive much past inauguration. Thoughts like that don’t spring from nowhere. The Clinton reputation for power at all costs was there all along.
However however, I wasn’t trying to equate them, only to point out that the rumors existed.
And now, having posted this comment, I’m on a DHS watch list as a possible assassin. It’s hypothetical, I tell you!
As I said, I think it’s not a likely scenario, but of the presidents we’ve had over the last century, I think the current incumbent (or his supporters) would be the most likely to try, and be in the best position to do so, esp. if the Democrats win the White House.
I don’t think there is an equivalency between the “Clinton will declare martial law at Y2K and use the UN’s black helicopters to take over the country” rumors and their analogous “Bush will foment war with Iran and/or stage another terrorist attack and declare martial law and not give up power” suppositions. The amassing of executive power, the manipulation of information to go to war, and the erosion of civil liberties over the last 8 years provides it least a more credible case for the latter (though I still, again, think it unlikely), whereas I don’t recall Clinton doing much (besides being a Democrat and dishonest about various things) to warrant the accusations.
The two sets of paranoia are interesting to compare, however.
Perhaps I don’t read in the same circles, but I’ve not heard the “common wisdom” rumor about Obama being doomed if he picks Hillary as his veep. Sadly, I think him the most likely president to be assassinated should he win that we’ve had since … well, Lincoln. Which is why his VP choice warrents more attention than normal (ditto for John McCain, except it’s his overall health and longevity I worry about there).
I do suspect, though, that it’s a good reason for Hillary to pass on any VP nomination, even if offered; she would never hear the end of it, and her primary campaign showed that (aside from physical assassination) she is a ruthless competitor for power.
Re: Bumper stickers. It may be a Colorado Springs vs. Denver thing. I’ve seen a ton of stickers calling everything that isn’t conservative stupid (or suicidal), but the worst liberal sticker I’ve seen is “Focus on your own damn family” –and that could be anybody who isn’t FoF+.
I think we’re long past due to have moved on to other “gripping issues of dire import” — or, rather, other ways of looking at/handling issues, because the issues have changed — but the statistical behemoth of the boomers has distorted things, as it will continue to do so.
Take Hilary Clinton for an example. Her generation’s type of feminism makes me feel alienated–are men taking away my rights? Is every male manager a denial of my opportunities in life? Uh, what?
With Hilary’s campaign, it was a question of whether or not a woman could be president. If you’re voting against Hilary, you’re voting against womankind!
Er…no.
Whereas later generations have been taught to think–by Hilary’s generation–that of *course* women can do anything, and, in fact, tend to be better than men at some things.
Another point. Later generations have grown up with the idea that the majority isn’t; everybody has their own opinion, which isn’t covered by their group identity. –And their group identities are fragmented. People aren’t just Christian, they’re raised Catholic, married ELCA, but studying yoga and thinking about joining that new evangelical place, because it looks like fun. They aren’t just Italian (or Italian-American), they’re British-Italian with a few drops of French, except what that means is “mutt,” and they’ll tell you so.
Again — not so much a matter of issues but a way of handling them, which can become itself an issue. The last of the black-and-white world being exchanged for a muddier one–the first generation to start to disbelieve in absolutes, but still raised with absolutes.
I think “Focus on your own damn family” is actually a clever tag line. If people concentrated on their own moral and ethical lives, and how their own family health is doing, first, I think we’d have a better world. Aside from its rather harsh tone, what’s your objection?
Well, upon consideration, while it’s still not fundamentally a bad idea, there is justification for looking outside of onesself and one’s own family (after making sure they are in as much order as possible) under some circumstances. Isolationism, in a nation or in a household, is rarely a good idea, and sometimes there *are* other families out there we have to intervene in.
From what I have heard from some quarters, Dobson’s original focus on healthy family dynamics wasn’t a bad one, until he decided to try to unleash a Christian Crusade to make Every Family a Goodthinking Family.
I agree with you on the Hillary issue. When a woman does become president, whoever it turns out to be, it will be (sort of like waiting for the statistics to catch up with identifying a recession) a sign that the Men vs. Women thing is not just then conquered, but that it was resolved in the past — because a woman cannot win just on women’s votes (or pro-women’s votes) but by being the best candidate to men and women. I feel similarly about Obama and the race question.
I like that a lot.