McCain: Bush's third term

Rod, Obama has consistently and clearly opposed the Iraq war.

Sigh, indeed. The "conservative" party decided around 1950 that its route to power was to be the militaristic nationalist party, routinely casting its opponents as appeasers of this country's adversaries.

When Nixon tried to set up an imperial presidency - i.e., the president as elected dictator - conservatives went along with the plan. Post-9/11, Bush, Cheney, et al., recast the imperial presidency as an Orwellian commander-in-chief in a war without end (Global War on Terror), in which the enemy is whoever the C-in-C says it is and opposition, or even skepticism, constitutes "surrender" to that enemy.

McCain, a third-generation career military man-turned-politician, is the logical hier to this hierarchical command model of the presidency. His background may make him more considerate toward the troops, less inclined to push the military past its breaking point, than Bush has been; but McCain's instinct, perhaps even more than Bush's, is to answer any foreign challenge with military force and to reject any domestic political challenge to his command authority - which, thanks to Bush & Co., now extends to wholesale violations of civil liberties and intrusions into privacy under the rubric of "national security."

This election may seem seem to be about the economy, Obama's "other"-ness, healthcare, social hot-button issues, Supreme Court appointments, etc.; but it's actually going to be a referendum on the nature of the presidency, on whether we continue to go along with the commander-in-chief/elected dictator model.

The issue won't be decided if McCain is elected. He will face a Congress with enlarged Democratic majorities, far less willing to finance military (mis)adventures and consent to appointments of cabinet officers such as Gonzales, Chertoff, Muchasey and Bolton - let alone hard-right judges. Senate Democrats, especially, will be far less fearful of Rove-style attacks, because there are no more than one or two vulnerable Democrats (as opposed to half a dozen vulnerable Republicans) up for reelection in 2010.

"The difference is the judges."

And war with Iran, and maybe Russia while we're at it.

With those pro-life judges, you also get pro-death penalty judges, pro-torture judges, judges uninterested in controlling the power of the executive branch, judges who will always favor business over the worker, polluters over the environment, big business over the consumer, health care companies over the patient.

Ironic, isn't it.

When you complain in four years about an unchecked executive branch, a neverending war in Iraq, a war with Russia to defend Christian Georgia, totrure that violates international human rights standards, and unbreathable air and undrinkable water, at least you can be reassured that the same judges were pro-life.

Hyperbole doesn't help your case. Unbreathable air and undrinkable water?? You had me until then.

The difference is the [pro-life] judges.

Who will also, if the past few years are any indication, finish destroying the Bill of Rights and complete the transition of the Chief Executive from President to Emperor (see "unitary executive" theory).

By pro-life judges do you mean those same judges that voided the General Election in Florida? Those same judges that ruled that it was against the law for a city to outlaw guns in homes? The same judges that void jury verdicts that punish corporations and choose to forgive debts of crooked bank?

Oh, those wonderful, god fearing judges bought and paid for by Corporate America who choose to twist the Constitution of America for the benefit of the Robber Barons of Wall Street.

Bring back the "honest" days of Richard Nixon whose only crime was to spy on the Democrats.

As much as I agree with Bacevich on how our nation has become a self-corrupted "empire of consumerism," with all the nasty ramifications that course implies, his analysis of the 2006 elections appears hopelessly shallow.

Because the Democrats came out of the 2006 midterm election with a 51-49 majority in the Senate and a somewhat larger (but hardly overwhelming) margin in the House they were in a position to end a war on which the President has bet his entire administration?

When in American history has a divided Congress ever dictated foreign policy to a sitting President?

Seriously. Give me an example.

Blame Congress for abdicating power to Bush in the wake of 9/11, sure. Blame the press for not challenging the phony arguments of the White House, absolutely. Blame the Limbaugh right for backing a war for oil, yes indeed. But blame the Democrats for not ending the war over the fervent opposition of the President and the Republican party? Unfair.

They did try. And exactly what was anticipated was exactly what happened.

They were not going to sign the funding bill for the war. They were told they were obstructing the running of the government. They were called traitors, said they weren't supporting the troops. Endangering our servicemen and women for such a thing. And the president who didn't take out a veto pen, or even threaten it for the previous six years has used it the first time in 2006.

So, yes, they DID try. And it was both the Republicans who prevented it.

That, and the public once again falling for the paradigm that defunding a war is a treasonous act, that harms our troops.

They even tried a modified funding bill to help with veterans benefits, while giving SOME of the funding desired, to have IT blocked.

As long as there is a man with a veto pen, and only one house with even a slim Democratic majority, exactly what were you expecting to happen?

Whether McCain is selected President or Obama is selected President matters much less than one might think, for the following reasons:

1) Congress is still going to be controlled by Democrats, and they will have an agenda of their own. Remember Carter's term: he ran into all sorts of problems dealing with a Congress controlled by his own party;

2) There are still going to be American troops in Iraq, and they're going to stay there for the foreseeable future. We've still got forces in Bosnia 10 years after that pointless little war. There are still troops in Korea 50 years after that war ended. We've still got troops stationed on Okinawa and in Europe 60 years after another war. Does anyone really think that the Iraqi situation is going to be any different ?

3) Entitlement spending is still going out of control; the first of the perfidious Boom generation is going on the SocSec/Medicare dole even as we speak. That trend will only accelerate. Bush, for all his other faults (and they are many indeed), at least tried to make noise in public about addressing the SocSec issue---and got lambasted for it. Medicare ? Don't even start; the only issue being debated is how much Medicare spending should go up.

This is not to say that there will be NO difference between an Obama Imperium and a McCain Imperium. There will be some stylistic differences, and there will be different judges appointed. (But it won't make that much difference---the judges most likely to retire from the Supreme Court are all leftists.) The overall trends, however, are likely to remain the same; an ever-growing State apparatus, ever-expanding State spending, collapsing institutions everywhere else in the society, and social/political collapse, very likely within the next 20-30 years.

Oh, well. At least we won't lack for entertainment while the ship goes down. Absurdist comedy----you've gotta just LOVE IT !!

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Lord Karth rules.

They did try. And exactly what was anticipated was exactly what happened.

They were not going to sign the funding bill for the war. They were told they were obstructing the running of the government. They were called traitors, said they weren't supporting the troops. Endangering our servicemen and women for such a thing. And the president who didn't take out a veto pen, or even threaten it for the previous six years has used it the first time in 2006.

So, yes, they DID try. And it was both the Republicans who prevented it.

No, they didn't. They backed down. I don't consider it trying unless they actually failed. Almost no one has the backbone to adhere to principle and take a stand. It's all about false prudence.

In the end, politicians are people who, like all of us, want to keep their job.

Sure, it is public service, but that also involves doing what the public wants, to represent them. And that's built into the system. We never want a rep to think their job is totally safe and they can do what they please.

I think, honestly, the ones who REALLY need to show conviction and backbone?

We do. The public. We need to show that this is really what we want. That we know what it'll take to get it. That we will stick by those who do it. That we aren't going to cave the first time someone spooks us, or calls us a name, or infers we might be something or another if we support that position.

We get the representation we deserve. We need to deserve better.

I think that, at the time of the election, there were many who did. But, obviously, given the hair thin majority in one house, the opinion on it, at that time, was divided.

Even now, and this is from someone who was against it from the beginning, most don't have the will, and the backbone to do what is needed TO end it, from the Legislative branch. Which is, and ONLY is, to defund the war.

They get too twitchy, too easily guided into the idea this makes the soldiers vulnerable, or impacts their paychecks, or shuts down the government, etc.

If we, the people, the ones who put them in, aren't willing to stand BY the politicians and tell them our will, and that we know what it takes to enact it, we might as well, otherwise, be telling them, 'Get from Point A to Point B, and the only acceptable way for you to do so is to teleport by the power of your mind. All other ways will be punished.' Then acting all surprised when they don't manage it.