The New Imperial Presidency & Tyranny of the Masses

I read a semi-humorous editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal decrying the passing of the California-initiated, American fast/muscle car culture.

The author noted how such an icon of freedom, the American automobile, is now being regulated and prospectively redesigned into unrecognizability. The line that I recall most poignantly was,

"And she'll have fun fun fun til' her Daddy takes her Prius away."

Seriously, how did we get to the point where all Americans want to have such a major part of their lives- the cars they buy and drive- so radically altered by governmental fiat?

Suddenly, one party and its president is commanding all Americans that, because of dubious scientific evidence, gasoline-based cars are to be mandated to get certain gas mileage and, in time, probably legislated out of existence.

When did Americans decide they wanted government to decide the type of car they will buy? When did we choose to lose the right to choose to buy a car the gets lousy gas mileage, but has other attributes- size, space, speed, etc.- which we prefer?

How did one election give Congress and the administration the right to take unto themselves our rights as individuals to choose in so many important facets of our lives?

Democrats accused George W. Bush of being an imperial President, but he was nothing next to Wonderboy.

We have true tyranny now. And it's a weird sort of tyranny. The tyrant, once elected, is forcing radical, quick changes in how we drive, heat and light our homes, and use medicine, without resorting to any market forces for any of the changes. Instead, a plea to what's good for all mankind or 'the planet' now supersedes individual choice in America.

It's not a tyrant amassing personal wealth, so much as launching both class warfare and a general socialism on behalf of the dictum that we all should feel empathy for the poorest/weakest/etc.

No matter that such values are the opposite of what built our country.

But, what do you expect when you elect the country's first president from a victim class, because people feel guilty, rather than electing a president based upon his prior accomplishments.

Wonderboy's Racist Supreme Court Nominee

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

That's the key quote from Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, currently a federal Appellate Court judge. Never mind that such a statement, if reserved and uttered by a white male, would result in hounding him from whatever position he currently occupied.

Missing, of course, are trivialities such as: the facts of a case, and the law applicable to the case.

Details....details......

This is Wonderboy's idea of a post-partisan, post-racial administration. The most explicitly racist Supreme Court choice since Roger B. Taney. Only, now, the racism runs against whites and males. With this nomination, the first rookie has made public his explicit intent to violate his oath of office. In this case, by nominating a judge who intends, based upon her prior statements, to ignore the rule of law, and, instead, rule on the basis of outcomes, based upon her latina heritage.

Since confirmation in the Senate for Supreme Court justices requires only a simple majority, it's very likely Red Sonia will be replacing Souter.

There are so many things wrong with this choice that it's hard to know where to start. But the media is, as usual, already in the tank.

One liberal commentator on a cable news channel began by lauding her minority background, then promptly stated that it had nothing to do with her nomination. That she is the best-qualified jurist in the land to replace Souter.

Huh?

Somehow I doubt this woman is actually the most-qualified jurist for the ninth seat on the country's highest judicial bench. Not because she's female, or hispanic. Rather, because she's so relatively junior to other jurists.

Of course, by nominating Sotomayor, Wonderboy has sent a clear signal that he has no intention of being bi-partisan or unifying. He's trying to overturn the Constitution while his party has a majority in Congress, thus insuring that he won't be impeached.

But he should be.

Dick Cheney's Underestimated Influence

A Wall Street Journal's editorialist, William McGurn, wrote a nice little piece yesterday giving rare credit to former VP Dick Cheney for his ability to force the current president to take him on as an equal.


In McGurn's column, he actually cited liberal MSNBC talk show host Chris Matthews as the only media person to correctly notice Wonderboy "listening for footsteps, that he could hear Cheney coming at him and he was defensive."


No kidding. Here we have an unaccomplished young political hack pretending to be president, dressing up in grown-up clothes and grappling with issues which are beyond his grasp, and the consequences of his actions he typically doesn't understand.


"Coming at him" is a very accomplished, seasoned, very smart former US Representative, administrative operative, Secretary of Defense, VP, and corporate chief.


Among US Vice-Presidents, Dick Cheney is perhaps the most qualified to have actually become President, should the occasion have arisen. Possessing a rare combination of extensive prior goverment experience in both administrations and elective Congressional office, he was, and is, qualified to perform as Chief Executive of the United States.


George W. Bush never considered Al Gore remotely threatening as a former VP, or even former presidential candidate.


It speaks volumes that, regardless of the largely-uncognizant larger populace of the US on whom popularity polls are conducted, the sitting president rightly fears tangling with Cheney.


Cheney doesn't engage in baseless or unreasoned emotional diatribes, as does Wonderboy. Rather, Cheney constructs careful, coherent, logical frameworks of reason which are unusually difficult to refute.


There's no question that in last week's face-off, Cheney emerged as having bettered the current Oval Office occupant.


Wonderboy took pains to lambast his predecessor, although again promising he wouldn't, suggesting that whatever actions were taken involving enhanced interrogation methods and Guantanamo were without a justification. Nowhere in his speech from the National Archives was the 9/11 attack on American citizens on American soil ever mentioned.


Cheney, however, made that attack the rightful centerpiece of the debate. Without it, the rest of the arguments on either side are pointless and lacking in context.



If this mess continues to be pressed to the point of Congressional hearings and, possibly, criminal charges, Wonderboy and his chief accomplice in this matter, Frisco Nan Pelosi, will be very sorry they persisted in banging on this drum.


Cheney's speech provided a preview of the arguments which will be used in such venues, and their solidity and credibility.

Frisco Nan's Incredible Arrogance

It seems incredible that, after personally causing a political firestorm by accusing the CIA of lying to her, Frisco Nan (Pelosi) now refuses to answer further questions regarding the affair.

Is this extreme political arrogance, or what? To me, it smacks of the imperiousness with which our elected federal representatives now comport themselves. They seem to believe that their election to Congress places them above the rest of us, rather than makes them civil servants.

How can Nan, the Speaker of the House, seriously believe she is above accountability for her reckless charges against one of our nation's primary security agencies?

Whether Democrat or Republican, Congressional members who display this sort of arrogance demonstrate, yet again, why there seems to be a rising backlash against them across the nation.

What John Edwards & Newt Have In Common

I was browsing through a bookstore recently with a friend when I came upon several books by political figures.

One was Elizabeth Edwards' offering, Resilience. Around the corner, on the next rack, was one of those 'habits you should cultivate' things by Newt Gingrich and his daughter.

I began to make impolite jokes to my friend about Elizabeth Edwards' hypothetical attitude toward her husband's love child, sending her into fits of laughter.

Then it hit me. Those two guys, although polar opposites, politically, share one thing in common. And it's not a good thing.

While I like and respect Gingrich immensely, politically, didn't he choose to have an affair with another woman while his (first) wife was ill with cancer?

Isn't that what John-boy Edwards did, too?

Who'd have thought these completely politically opposite, national figures would share such a thing? And such a character flaw, too, for someone aspiring to, or having served at, a high level national office?