I think "dictator" would be a better choice of words than "king" for your title.

Or, in light of the fact that he thinks he can flood your property or seize your produce without compensating you for it, I think "schoolyard bully" might have been a good choice.

Your use of "king" suggested to me that he wanted to reign for life, and not just the two terms allowed by the 22nd Amendment. Also, in light of the fact that the world's most famous monarch is little more than a figurehead, "king" doesn't exactly suggest a huge power grab.

Your use of "king" suggested to me that he wanted to reign for life, and not just the two terms allowed by the 22nd Amendment.

This is exactly what some people are afraid of, seeing as how he's blown off almost every other Amendment during his administration. 'FDR did it, so why can't he?' is what some people are thinkin' he's thinkin'. I've heard this from so many people it's starting to get scary. It's not just Michael Savage who's been saying this!

I understand what you're saying, Flynne; however, I think we've all heard the paranoid ramblings about Obama being secretly a Muslim, born in Kenya, etc. A lot of people saying it doesn't make it true.

My only problem with the 22nd Amendment is that they restricted it to the President, and did not extend it to Congress.

(But I have no issue with judges serving for life.)

My only problem with the 22nd Amendment is that they restricted it to the President, and did not extend it to Congress.

Totally agree with you there, Patrick. Term limits are beneficial not only to the constituency, but also to the reps serving them. Staying too long in politics leads to forgetfulness of why you decided to serve in the first place. (See 'Ted Kennedy', et al)

I agree with you about judges too. Good judges who are more interested in upholding the law and the Constitution as it is written than playing politics are worth more than Congress itself.

"paranoid ramblings about Obama being secretely a muslim...."

We heard paranoid rumblings that the IRS was going after conservatives, too. And that the government was spying on us all, recording our every call and email. Suddenly, not much seems paranoid anymore with regard to this government.

Obama doesn't want to be king. He thinks he already is king in a parliamentary democracy.

He doesn't submit bills to Congress the way past presidents did. He demands bills from Congress for his approval and signature.

In the first half of his first term, he acted as if Nancy Pelosi was the prime minister and he was the king.

Now, he's frustrated because the parliament won't bend to his will. Instead of crafting legislation, submitting it to Congress, and guiding it through the approval process (the way countless past American presidents have), he rails against a Congress that won't simply give him the programs he wants; programs he claims are vital to our survival, but not so vital that he can be bothered to do the legwork of drafting them himself.

==============================

The problem with Congress is that office holders have the deck stacked in their favor - by default.

Even a first-year Congressman can use his office to raise funds, peddle influence, get his voice heard, and wield political muscle.

As long as he keeps the king-makers satisfied and doesn't rile up more than 50% of the voters in his electorate, he can coast along. His opponent can only promise to do things differently ... if elected.

Add to that the fact that the entrenched Congressional powers have stacked the deck even more with candidacy signature requirements, party-based funding and organizing, franking privileges, long campaign seasons, etc. and you've made it extremely difficult for any but a rich person to run for even the lowest of federal offices.

While I disagree with term limits in principle, they do seem to be the only way to ensure some turnover in Congress.

==============================

My only problem with the 22nd Amendment is that they restricted it to the President, and did not extend it to Congress.

Agreed.

Too many times, powerful Congressional interests can simply wait out a second-term president instead of engaging him. Entrenched Congressional office holders know they face ineffective opposition at home and will be back next presidential term when the second-term president will be gone.

If they both faced limits on the amount of time they have in office, they'd both be under some pressure to perform.

==============================

I originally favored modifying presidential term limits to a set number of consecutive terms, allowing people to re-elect a president again if they liked (after a reasonable interval), but Putin pointed out the flaws in that idea.

==============================

We have way too many people in Congress who have never held a job outside of elected government.

After law school, they start as Congressional aides and, later, parlay the connections they gain from that into a Congressional seat and, perhaps, a Senate seat (see Biden, Joe).

While Obama may want to be king, Congress already sees itself as the earls and dukes of a new American peerage.

It's rather gratifying to see the SC rejecting these blatant power grabs. Unfortunately, all it really does to the power-grabbers is slow them down a little, while they work up more subtle and devious ways of getting what they want. In fact, I fully expect that the government agencies involved will ignore these decisions and keep on doing what they're doing, under the theory that most people can't afford to take their cases all the way to SCOTUS and will pay up to avoid trouble. That's why we used to have tar and feathers; the power-grabbers won't be deterred until there are personal consequences for them.

"A government with all this mass of favours to give or to withhold, however free in name, wields a power of bribery scarcely surpassed by an avowed autocracy, rendering it master of the elections in almost any circumstances but those of rare and extraordinary public excitement." ~ John Stuart Mill

Too many times, powerful Congressional interests can simply wait out a second-term president instead of engaging him. Entrenched Congressional office holders know they face ineffective opposition at home and will be back next presidential term when the second-term president will be gone. -- Conan the Grammarian at July 23, 2013 9:11 AM

Actually I'm in favor of congressional term limits as well.

No congress person can run for federal re-election if that term would start in the twelfth year in congress. A former congress person must be out of office a minimum of two years before a congressional seat.

Do it so that a four term rep can become a one term senator. But then they have to take a minimum two year break from congressional office.

But the amendment I think would really break the individual House member's power is roll back the cap on the house.

Each state will have a minimum of two representatives in the House. No representative shall represent more than 150,000 constituents.

Basically have 3100 house seats. Trying to gerrymander that many districts would be very hard. In addition, anything the house passes would have to be well liked by the majority of the country. Vote buying would be hard to do. You have to get 1501 representatives to vote your way.

Then add one more amendment:

No law shall remain in force longer than seven (or ten) years without a re-approval vote by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Any law that exists prior to this amendment will have to be re-approved by the seventh year of its implementation anniversary.

So you would have to get 66 senators and 2046 representatives to keep everything like Obamacare,the IRS, Social Security, the NFA of 32, the EPA, the USDA and many other things.

Just think about how nice it would be.

Jim, I completely agree w/ you. I just want to add one thing. Remove all those civil service/union protections from Government employees that make it impossible to fire anyone. Civil service should be at-will employment same as we out here in the private sector face.

My only fear re: term limits is that it would hand real power over to faceless unaccountable bureaucrats. Being un-firable, they would wield enormous power over elected officials either by conspiring against policies and reps they don't like or simply waiting them out. Term limits w/o reforming the civil service would be a disaster.

Jim, I completely agree w/ you. I just want to add one thing. Remove all those civil service/union protections from Government employees that make it impossible to fire anyone. Civil service should be at-will employment same as we out here in the private sector face.

My only fear re: term limits is that it would hand real power over to faceless unaccountable bureaucrats. Being un-firable, they would wield enormous power over elected officials either by conspiring against policies and reps they don't like or simply waiting them out. Term limits w/o reforming the civil service would be a disaster.

Posted by: Kevin at July 23, 2013 12:28 PM

In a simpler and more fair world, I would agree with you. But the federal government is already top heavy with college graduates with worthless degrees.

In the at will employment scenario you wish for, my husband, a STEM graduate from a prestigious univerisy would be fired, in order to keep the black woman EO officer who is already being paid about 40k more a year, than he is.

The federal government has been engaged in pumping up the salaries of unqualified people in order to show "gains" in income for minorities and women, for years now.

In a system that eliminates seniority, it will matter even more what your race is, and who your friends are.

In addition federal retirement was reformed in the 80's.
About the best you can hope for after thirty years of service, is thirty percent of your top three. If you are an overseas employee, your COLA will not be figured into that calculation.

Staying too long in politics leads to forgetfulness of why you decided to serve in the first place. (See 'Ted Kennedy', et al)

Seems to me like plenty of them got into "serving" for the power, prestige and money anyway, so they haven't forgotten anything. We're experiencing fun here with Bob "I am a Congressman and I can do what ever I want" Filner in San Diego, a person that seems to fit the bill quite well. As did Ted Kennedy if you ask me.

How any of the idiots could vote for that guy... bah.

Jim, I completely agree w/ you. I just want to add one thing. Remove all those civil service/union protections from Government employees that make it impossible to fire anyone. Civil service should be at-will employment same as we out here in the private sector face. -- Kevin at July 23, 2013 12:28 PM

There really would be no need to.

At some point just about every agency from the Architect of the Capitol to the Trade Promotion and the U.S. And Foreign Commercial Service authorization will come up for re-approval.

Those agencies would have to get 66 senators and 2046 representatives to be re-approved. If the agency has pissed off enough people and they tell their representative (who has less than 150K voters) they're pissed off that agency is probably gone. Do you think you could enough votes to keep the IRS as it is now? Or do you think the tax code would be revised, rapidly?

How about 2046 votes for the EPA? The DEA? Food stamps? Obama phones?

The 78,961 pages of the Federal Register would probably shrink on a daily basis. Basically you would have to herd 2046 votes just about every day to keep it just from shrinking.

It would also effectively make the two party system as dead as a doornail. Right now there are so many gerrymandered districts it's ridiculous. Look in the Boston area at the 17th and 18th Suffolk districts as an example. You cut it down to 150K people and they would have to pick out houses to gerrymander.

M4:

Which doesn't make the paranoid ramblings about him being a secret Muslim true.

Conan: Now, he's frustrated because the parliament won't bend to his will. Instead of crafting legislation, submitting it to Congress, and guiding it through the approval process (the way countless past American presidents have), he rails against a Congress that won't simply give him the programs he wants; programs he claims are vital to our survival, but not so vital that he can be bothered to do the legwork of drafting them himself.

I truly weary of this. If you want to think Obama's a bad President, go right ahead. I wouldn't defend him from that accusation, because I happen to agree. And he's getting worse.

However, I am sick and tired of the stinking hypocrisy emitting from otherwise intelligent posters on this board. Indignant outcry after indignant outcry of these horrible, horrible things that Obama has done...all the same inference that he's the very first president in the history of the United States to do this.

Conan, what was Bush's contribution to the Department of Homeland Security? Oh, that's right. He didn't have one. He came with a stupid and confusing threatcon color chart.

He had zero to do with the crafting of legislation for the creation of the DHS.

And what did Bush do when this bill came to his desk? Why he opposed it, of course, because he objected to the civil service protection for the new department's employees, which would insulate them from coercive pressures from the White House. "You report that I'm doing a good job of keeping America safe, even if I'm not, or you're fired."

So, when his version came back, Congress stood on principle and voted against it. Bush, as he wont to do, obeyed Karl Rove and debased the debate. "Waaaah! The Senate is more interested in protecting special interests in the government than keeping America safe."

Never mind that he had zero to do with the DHS creation and resisted it all the way because it pointed out the obvious: his threatcon chart was less than worthless.

Conan, you and Cousin Dave are likely the most brilliant posters on this blog, but I get so irritated with the constant whining about what that nasty old Obama and the terrible things he's doing from posters who were the chorus of chirping crickets when Bush did the same thing.

And it comes up again and again and again.

We hear the snorts and snarls of angry poster, grinding their teeth to powder over the number of illegals in this country.

"Uh, hello?" I interject. "Obama's already deported more illegals than Bush has in all of his eight years."

"Snort! Snarl! Gnash! Gnash! Well, it's not enough!" come the screams.

"Well, you were just fine with it when Bush was President..."

"Stop defending Obama, you liberal!"

As if pointing out selective outrage is defending Obama. I hadn't said a single word to defend Obama, but I suppose it's more palatable to the chorus of banshees than having to face their hypocrisy.

A more recent example was the indignant outcries of how Obama was supposedly "rewriting the fucking law." (I didn't know we have fucking laws, but I'm not surprised. We legislate everything else in this country.)

Yet, no one seemed to care when Bush said that he was going to torture anyone he damned well felt like even as he signed the anti-torture bill into law.

Sounds like "rewriting the fucking law" to me.

But he's protecting us from terrorists, so that makes it all right. Snivel, cower, whimper, whine.

And what legislation has Bush ever crafted and guided through Congress? That epic idiot couldn't craft a preschooler's coloring book!

So, I guess for the rest of Obama's term, I'm going to be pointing out a lot of posters' manufactured and selective indignation. And in response, I'm going to be called a liberal and accused of supporting Obama and I'll hear a lot of whining about how I'm always defending Obama and I never ever criticize him. (Though personally, I thought I did a pretty good job during the Zimmerman debacle.)

But, you know, it beats having to deal with one's own hypocrisy.

I suppose the canard the George Bush is an idiot, will last just as long as Obama is able to hide his academic records and his test scores.

He is an affirmative action baby, and an intellectual light weight. Which is the one thing he has in common with most of the rest of the Democratic party.

And what legislation has Bush ever crafted and guided through Congress? That epic idiot couldn't craft a preschooler's coloring book! -- Patrick at July 23, 2013 6:48 PM

Well Bush might have been an "epic idiot", but at the same time Kerry never proved he wasn't.

But of course there has never been a comparison of Bush and Obama, because Obama never released his records. But I'll skip that.

I do my best to not denigrate the poster but ask for supporting facts.

The other thing is that I did hate the TSA under Bush. I also hate it under Obama.

I really don't worry about Gitmo under either administration as long as they use it "legally".

But did Bush ever propose Obamacare? Do you think the liberal media woud have shut up about Fast & Furious under Bush? What about the NSA spying?

I do my best not to say it's because of Obama but excusing Obama because Bush, Reagen, or Clinton did it is wrong, no matter what side you're on.

Isab, who apparently has no memories of any President prior to Bush: I suppose the canard the George Bush is an idiot, will last just as long as Obama is able to hide his academic records and his test scores.

And when did you see Clinton's test scores? Oh, you didn't.

And Bush the elder's? You didn't?

And Reagan's? Again, you didn't.

Bush's transcripts were leaked unlawfully and without his consent. So, because something was released that Bush wouldn't have otherwise authorized (and was no one's goddamned business), you demand that Obama release his, never mind that he would be the first president that ever did this.

Jim P. I do my best not to say it's because of Obama but excusing Obama because Bush, Reagen, or Clinton did it is wrong, no matter what side you're on.

Please show me where I excused anything. I didn't. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of being oh, so accepting when Bush did it, as opposed to screaming your throat raw with outrage when Obama does the same thing.

While not all legislation during a president's term will originate with the president, a president who wants to implement his own policy will propose legislation, recruit Congressional sponsors, and drum up support for it using the bully pulpit, political skills, public appeals, and other machinations available to him.

Since a president cannot directly introduce a bill to Congress, he needs Congressional sponsors to help craft and then introduce the legislation.

And what legislation has Bush ever crafted and guided through Congress? That epic idiot couldn't craft a preschooler's coloring book!

Well...let's see. No Child Left Behind was proposed by George W. Bush and sponsored by George Miller (D) and John Boehner (R). I don't know if there was a provision in it for preschoolers' coloring books.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 was proposed by George W. Bush. He also proposed a few other tax cut bills and then recruited a sponsor or two to introduce and shepherd the bills. He didn't simply demand a tax cut bill from Congress and then whine that the Democrats were obstructing him when he didn't get one he liked.

He had zero to do with the crafting of legislation for the creation of the DHS.

You mean other than creating the White House Office of Homeland Security on which the Department of Homeland Security was based.

He initially resisted creating a new (and expensive) Cabinet department, but eventually went along with Democrats in creating it - disagreeing with them on allowing it to be unionized.

From policyalmanac.org on Homeland Security Act of 2002: "H.R. 5005 incorporates additional improvements to the President's proposal. Working closely with the committees of jurisdiction and the White House, the bill preserves the essential functions outlined in the President's plan while adding several changes that will help ensure successful implementation and continued congressional oversight."

From CNN: "Bush initially resisted the idea of a new department, which had been championed primarily by Democrats in the wake of the attacks. But Bush embraced the concept in June and used the issue effectively on the campaign trail this past fall, criticizing Democrats who differed with him over the issue of labor rights within the new department."

Sounds like George W. Bush might have been a little more involved in the process than you give him credit for.

Yet, no one seemed to care when Bush said that he was going to torture anyone he damned well felt like even as he signed the anti-torture bill into law.

You mean the John McCain / Carl Levin sponsored amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act, 2006 (the amendment officially titled The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005)?

The amendment/act requiring military interrogations to be performed according to the U.S. Army Field Manual for Human Intelligence Collector Operations?

The amendment/act that forbade all non-Army US government agencies from subjecting any person in their custody to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" but didn't define what that phrase actually meant?

And, Patrick, lots of people cared - from both sides of the aisle. That's why the issue is still being hotly debated today.

Conan: "And, Patrick, lots of people cared - from both sides of the aisle."

Not on this board, they didn't. Bush rewrote the fucking law.

And this forum was silent as the grave when Bush rewrote the law with his signing statement.

Bush's Signing Statement for the Detainee-Treatment Act: "The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

And this entire forum, including you, Conan, didn't utter one peep of protest when Bush basically said that he'll torture anyone he likes.

But now, if Obama does the same thing, poster wail with profuse sobbings that wrack their bodies....Oh, why,oh, why does Obama rewrite the fucking law? That saintly Bush, who was surely the finest man to trod the globe since Christ himself, never, oh, never, attempted to rewrite the law. But here, we have this awful Obama, who just thinks he can rewrite the law whenever he feels like. Oh, woe is us! Whatever did we do to deserve such an evil man as president?

Wow. Hyperbole much?

The law banned "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of detainees without providing any guidelines. It said Army interrogations would be conducted according to the field manual. I haven't read that manual, so I can't say what it allows.

The law was probably intentionally left vague so as not to hamstring interrogators. But when one is vague with one's instructions, one doesn't get to come back later and "that's not what I meant."

Is waterboarding torture or duress? How far is too far? These types of questions should have been addressed in the law.

High ranking members of Congress (in both parties) were kept fully aware of what was going on, despite their denials today. Bush didn't rewrite a law; he implemented it ... with Congress' tacit approval.

I don't know where you were, but there were long (sometimes tortuous) debates on this forum about what constituted torture, the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, the president's authority to authorize enhanced interrogation, etc. Some condemned Bush, some supported him, others were ambivalent. Some condemned Obama for continuing it while others praised him.

I didn't "utter one peep of protest" about the Bush saying he'll torture anyone he wants to because that's not what the signing statement says. It says the president is the chief executive and the commander in chief of the military and will interpret any vague aspects of this law in that capacity.

Congress had the capacity to clear up any ambiguity and chose not to.

I don't deny Obama the capacity to interpret a vague law in his capacity as chief executive and commander in chief either (even when I don't agree with his interpretation).

Keep in mind, however, there is a difference between covering all contingencies in a law and Congressional over-reach. Congress is not the chief executive and commander in chief. Nor is the ptesident the legislative branch of the government.

There's a divide between their powers that both sides seem be having trouble respecting these days. And Obama has been a major provocateur in this.

Bush went to Congress before committing troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama maintains he doesn't need Congressional approval to put men and women in harm's way blasting the daylights out of foreigners.

Bush waited until Congress said it was recessed to make recess appointments. Obama simply declared that Congress was in recess.

If I recall correctly, no one even thought test scores and academic records were relevant until the 2000 election, when the dems were trying to prove how much smarter Gore was than Bush.

I believe that backfired on them, as Gore was a mediocre student at best with poor math and science skills, and poor grades.

Painting Obama as some kind of genius has backfired too. Whenever the teleprompter fails, he is exposed for what he is.

The release of Obama's academic records will do nothing but confirm what everyone in this country already knows about Obama's "so called" intellect.

Well, Conan, fortunately for me, I have read the Army Field Manual. And it is very clear on this that the treatment of detainees is to be done according to the Geneva Convention.

And, wouldn't you know it? I actually was an interrogator in the Army. A 97E1L, Top Secret Clearance, SCI nomination, at your service.

And while there are a ton of methods for persuading prisoners to talk, there is nothing and I do mean nothing that is taught to interrogators that allows waterboarding, or any form of abuse.

The only thing I've ever learned that even comes close is the "Mutt and Jeff" approach. (Basically, it's "Good Cop, Bad Cop.") But even then, you're not allowed to harm the prisoner. A person who's afraid or in pain will not tell you the truth. They will tell you what they think you want to hear.

And you've deviated away from the discussion. I said I am sick and tired of hearing whine after whine after whine about the horrible things that Obama has done, as if he's the first president ever to do so. Then when I point out the hypocrisy, I get accused of defending Obama. (That's also your favorite strategy, by the way. Since when is it defending Obama to point out someone else is a hypocrite?)

And while I do remember discussions about torture, one of things I also notice is that those who condemn Obama for rewriting the fucking law were the chorus of chirping crickets when Bush did the same thing.

Congratulations, by the Conan. You're the only person in the entire free world who doesn't believe that Bush's signing statement wasn't a clear indication that he will torture anyone he goddamn well pleases, and that courts can go screw themselves.

"Conan, you and Cousin Dave are likely the most brilliant posters on this blog, but I get so irritated with the constant whining about what that nasty old Obama and the terrible things he's doing from posters who were the chorus of chirping crickets when Bush did the same thing."

Peace, please. Obama is the guy getting ripped because he's the guy on the point now. In three years we will presumably have someone else on the point, and then that guy's going to get ripped. Yes, Bush got a pass on a lot of things initially because of 9/11, but in his second term the media was on him so constantly that it wasn't really necessary to criticise him further. And as in the Treyvon Marton case, the media spread a lot of stories that were patently false and convinced a lot of people to believe them. On the other hand, Obama mostly gets a pass from the media, and so he gets more criticism from elsewhere.

But yes, I completely recognize that Obama's actions are just the latest step along a continuum that goes back a long way (back to Woodrow Wilson, at least) and includes both parties. In fact, I see us rapidly moving towards a post-ideology model of politics, where loyalty to a party is sort of like loyalty to a sports team -- basically a tribal identity, with no real rationale behind it. Ideologically, the two parties have pretty much converged on a philosophy of expansive, intrusive government, and the only question to be answered is who gets to control it.

Congratulations, by the Conan. You're the only person in the entire free world who doesn't believe that Bush's signing statement wasn't a clear indication that he will torture anyone he goddamn well pleases, and that courts can go screw themselves.

The only person in the entire world, eh?

So I've got that going for me.

==============================

Patrick, I was never a "chorus of chirping crickets" when Bush was endorsing enhanced interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, nor am I condemning Obama for continuing the practice.

It made me uneasy then and makes me uneasy now, but I recognize that threatening Khalid Sheik Mohammed with life in a US prison would not faze him and would only enhance his internal martyr complex; that sometimes extra duress needs to be applied.

However, extra duress, as you pointed out, can become torture quickly and, if not done judiciously, can end with someone telling you what you want to hear to avoid pain. It also saps the respect the torturing party has for human life as well as blurs the line between the monsters and civilization.

However, to be fair, Bush didn't approve of anything Congress wasn't aware of and in approval of. Nancy Pelosi (D) and Porter Goss (R), ranking members of the House Intelligence Committee, were briefed in 2002 on the techniques being used.

Pelosi even responded to the suggestion of another technique by a member of her party that using that technique would be wrong.

Based on her knowledge of techniques then in use, Pelosi could have insisted on greater specificity in the 2005 DTA, but chose to leave it vague - perhaps recognizing she could use that ambiguity as a weapon with which to pummel Bush in the court of public opinion while not actually doing anything to curb the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.

So, the blanket condemnation you've laid on Bush should be applied more widely ... lest you be accused of selective indignation.

==============================

Your hatred of George W. Bush is so strong that if he cured cancer, you'd mourn for the dead cancer cells.

Lyndon Johnson once remarked to the media that if he walked on water across the Potomac, the headline the next day would read, "President Can't Swim."

I think of that story whenever I hear people responding to criticism of Obama by plugging their ears and crying "Bush did it, too."

I know, I know, I'm accusing you of being a socialist and defending Obama.

==============================

Criticizing Obama for insisting that he can use an aerial drone to kill anyone, anywhere in the world without consulting the courts or Congress while not criticizing Bush for endorsing enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees at Guantanamo Bay (with tacit Congressional approval) is not hypocrisy.

Criticizing Obama for sending warplanes and military advisers to Libya and Syria without consulting Congress while not criticizing Bush for sending warplanes and troops to Iraq and Afghanistan after long consultations with Congress is not hypocrisy.

While Bush may have begun some of the less-than-savory practices continued under Obama, Obama has expanded many of them even while criticizing Bush for starting them. That, but the way, is hypocrisy.

==============================

And you've deviated away from the discussion.

You brought up torture, the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and Bush's signing statement - ascribing, as always, the most venal of motives to Bush.

If you want folks to stick rigidly to your chosen topic, you'll have to curb your tendency toward hyperbole and histrionic asides.

...just the latest step along a continuum that goes back a long way (back to Woodrow Wilson, at least) and includes both parties. In fact, I see us rapidly moving towards a post-ideology model of politics, where loyalty to a party is sort of like loyalty to a sports team -- basically a tribal identity, with no real rationale behind it.

The age of the ignorant voter is upon us.

Ideologically, the two parties have pretty much converged on a philosophy of expansive, intrusive government, and the only question to be answered is who gets to control it.

The parties have polarized around certain themes, but neither truly represents the vision of a small, unobtrusive government.

Bush was a big government Republican. Clinton and Obama were big-government Democrats. Clinton was held in check for a time by a short-lived small-government Congress.

I had faint hope that Mitt Romney might win and prove to be the fiscal conservative he was running as, but I wasn't betting the farm on it.

RomneyCare was practically dictated by the federal expansion of Medicare, so I had hopes it was a policy anomaly.

I still have hope that the fiscal conservatives will soon hold sway in the Republican Party, at least for a while.

With any luck, we will see a (probably short-lived) era in which the size and scope of government is somewhat reduced.

However, I fear that to undo the damage done since the unrelenting expansion of government reach that started under Herbert Hoover and accelerated under FDR (damage done over time by both parties) may take a revolution (a relatively peaceful one, I hope).

Conan, you give Pelosi more credit for deviousness than I do. Her political attacks are usually pretty clumsy -- such as her attacks on Turkey -- and not done with a lot of forethought. To suggest that she left legislation vague so that she could then attack Bush would require more cleverness than I think she has.

Of course, one of her advisers could have made the suggestion.

As for Bush, if I were to make a list of everyone in the entire nation, all 330 million of us, and ranked them in order of who would make the best President to who would make the worst presidents -- with taking certain factors into consideration, such as intelligence, knowledge of world affairs, willingness to bring oneself up to speed on knowledge of world affairs, just about everyone who posts on this forum would be ranked higher than Bush.

(I wouldn't be on the list, if anyone's thinking I have political ambitions. I would also include an "other" category of those who should not be considered, and I'd be on that list.)

By the way, just to prove to Conan (for whom I have high regard, despite the fact that I'm usually at odds with him -- as opposed to Crid, with whom I'm always at odds and have no regard for) that I can say something nice about Bush, there is one thing he did that I consider to be a great service to the American people that is too often understated.

In case anyone's forgotten, one of Bush's earliest acts of legislation was the creation of the "Do Not Call" list.

If you love the "Do Not Call" list (and who among us does not), you do have Bush to thank for it.

So, you can go chase a wet pirate up a dry telephone pole while drinking milk in your car.

So Patrick, I guess I have a somewhat higher opinion of W than you, but it's a bit like arguing who's worse, Ryan Braun or Alex Rodriguez. (Answer, for anyone who is interested: Melky Cabrerra.) What I think we agree on is that what's happening today is the further progression of a long-ongoing trend. How much farther can the trend go? Hard to tell, but my guess is not that far. I'm beginning to agree with the people who claim that the most responsible thing any politician can do today is to double down on government expansion and entitlements, so as to speed up the arrival of the day of reckoning. Trouble is, when that day arrives, it's going to be seriously ugly, and from a personal standpoint I have to look at where it arrives relative to my lifespan.

The problem with doubling down on spending ourselves into oblivion, is that it will be more likely to end in a violent revolution, rather than a whimper of a 2nd world lifestyle for everyone but the rich, (which is where we are headed now)

A lot more people are goingto die needlessly, if LA, Detroit and Chicago burn to the ground five years from now, rather than just emptying out as the tax base goes away.

A study of the Weimar republic and Argentina might be in order for those who think printing money to pay off government obligations has no downside.

OK I have to ask...how does mentioning Bush and the lack of criticism help anything.

Saying, "Well you were OK with it under Bush!" means nothing, were YOU OK with it under Bush?

No?

Then why the fuck are you pissed off that a previous political opponent has now become a political ally over the very same issue that you were supposedly angry over years before?

For fucks sake, if you didn't like it under Bush, and you don't like it under Obama, and now you have one more person on your side, why the hell are you arguing with them instead of collaborating?

That is focusing on the past, which achieves nothing, when you should be focusing on working in the present to create a much improved future.

That is focusing on the past, which achieves nothing, when you should be focusing on working in the present to create a much improved future. -- Robert at July 24, 2013 8:16 PM

He's just hoping that the reason Gitmo is still open is because it is Bush's fault even after Obama has been in office 4 years.

He also want's to blame Obamacare on Bush because he did nothing with the health care system.

"He's just hoping that the reason Gitmo is still open is because it is Bush's fault even after Obama has been in office 4 years."

As I keep saying, it's all part of a continuum. Either something like Gitmo needs to exist, or it doesn't, and that function is independent of who is President. The real problem is with the media, which has willingly cast its lot with the Washington establishment, and so has become the most powerful propaganda organ the world has ever known. I'm starting to think that the media's real problem with W was not that he was a Republican per se, but that he was an outsider, not a member of their tribe. Whereas Obama is a member in (very) good standing. So what was truth yesterday is not truth today, depending on who is saying it. If the Democrats nominated someone who is considered an outsider in their party, like, say, Ron Wydon (sp?), the media might well have a conniption fit over that too.

And winding back to Gitmo, the problem is that the media flip-flopping on the issue based on tribal loyalty has made it impossible to have a rational discussion about the issue. Or almost any other issue. Our politics has been reduced to a raw power contest, a blood sport with deadly consequences for the losers.

"The problem with doubling down on spending ourselves into oblivion, is that it will be more likely to end in a violent revolution, rather than a whimper of a 2nd world lifestyle for everyone but the rich, (which is where we are headed now)"

That's the only part we disagree on... I think it ends in widespread violence either way. If it happens sooner, there's a chance that we will have time to rebuild and reload while the rest of the world is still catching up. If it happens fifty years from now, after decades of decline, by then China or Russia may well be positioned to exploit it. That would end with America becoming a colony or a possession of empire.

I think there will be a lot of lawlessness in blue states and blue cities when the social welfare system collapses.

I suspect most of those cities will have large sections burned to the ground.

There are states and cities where looters and rioters will be shot by both police, and business owners. In those places, people who are not productive might be able to scrape by for a while, but most will leave for "perceived" greener pastures.

There are states and cities where looters and rioters will be shot by both police, and business owners. In those places, people who are not productive might be able to scrape by for a while, but most will leave for "perceived" greener pastures. -- Isab at July 25, 2013 4:16 PM

I'm thinking it will be more along the lines of we'll have guards on every exit from the interstate. The family units that show up willing to work will be allowed through -- the rest will move on or be shot.

But there are too many roads. :-(

@JimP

Well Jim, it is going to be tough in Wyoming because there are lots of exits on the interstate which lead to nothing much except a couple of well armed ranch houses, and no gas stations.

I have a feeling the new Okies will be looking for easier pickings, and better weather.... :-).