Uh huh, color me extremely doubtful that Levin would be similarly concerned if the charismatic leader were a conservative.

It’s not that I don’t see a problem with movements that are centered around worship of a charismatic figure. I do see that this is a problem. But I also think that people like Levin have convinced themselves that this accounts for a bulk of Obama’s support, when there are an abundance of more pedestrian explanations: the miserable failure of a Republican president, the lack of message of McCain, the obvious intelligence of Obama (irregardless of policy), the Palin pick.

Levin is at the Corner, one of the sites that most religiously supports Palin, so he ignores the fact that the bulk of Republicans who have gone to Obama are citing Palin as the straw that broke the camels back. They don’t like her, they think she’s unprepared and inappropriate, and happen to think that Obama is better ready to be president. Many also believe that the GOP needs to get well and properly beaten so they can do some soul searching about who they want to be. But it’s just more convenient to assume that they are merely hypnotized by the “movement”.

It’s also pretty ridiculous to express earnest concern for the worship of a political figure when you stop to consider the treatment Reagan gets from a plurality of Republicans. The Republican primary debates were a contest to see who most loved and represented Reagan. No, me thinks hero-worship only concerns Levin when it’s a liberal who’s the hero.

Still, there is a valid point to be made with regards to excessive mythification of political figures. I simply think that people on the right exaggerate (some on purpose, some truly believe it) the proportion of people this represents. The same thing happens on the left with racists. There are a notable number of people yelling very disgusting things at McCain/Palin rallies, but that does not mean that the bulk of their support comes from racists. I do think though that both campaigns have willingly and cynically exploited their fringe.

Claudia: I think the reason that the concern is very valid is that in the current climate, this mythification means that Obama’s ego, agenda, and cohorts will have no check on their power. When those doing the worshipping are the leaders of the Fourth Estate, and the legislative branch of Congress is already in Obama’s camp, there’s definitely reason to fear how far this will go before someone starts to seriously question anything Obama says or does.

To put a finer point on it, Claudia- do you think that the adoration that conservatives had/have for Reagan would have perhaps been a bit dangerous if that movement hadn’t been checked by a skeptical press? Even as a conservative, I would have felt concerned if Reagan had had a Republican majority in Congress and a MSM led by Fox news.

If you agree with my point here, then how about actually considering how the current concern can be addressed instead of making excuses for it and minimizing it?

I do believe that excessive worship of a political figure is a problem, as I specifically said. I happen to disagree with you Michael and Mr. Levin that this is a very widespread phenomenon that accounts for a large part of Obama’s support and for the Republicans who are endorsing him.

I believe a large number of people are inspired by Obama, but categorizing everyone who is inspired as being “worshipful” is far too sweeping and in my personal opinion entirely mistaken.

But even if I were to accept the notion, despite the lack of evidence, that the majority of Obama support comes from mindless worship and that the Republican support comes from the same phenomenon and not a frontal rejection of Palin, I don’t believe it’s a foregone conclusion that this will last longer than 6 months.

The economy has not bottomed out. It will in the next year or two. Signs at present signal that this will happen under an Obama administration and a Democratic House and Senate. The fact that this is largely inevitable no matter which party wins will not protect Obama and the Dems from taking the blame when the economy gets much worse. Any love affair that people may have with Obama will go away very quickly once the jobs start disappearing, the businesses start closing and they look to see who’s in charge at that moment.

Well, that’s encouraging, Claudia, that you anticipate things getting much worse and then FINALLY, when there isn’t a single Republican in sight who can be credibly blamed for the rock bottom scenario, the press and the public will start to apply some measure of responsibility on Obama and the Democratic Congress.

No, nothing to worry about there.

LMAO, Christine, I anticipate that McCain would be blamed for what would happen if he were to be in office. The fact is, neither McCain nor Obama are particularly to blame for what’s coming, but whoever wins will be blamed for it. They aren’t 100% blameless of course, being members of Congress, but they are no more to blame than any other senator (though I believe that McCain, by virtue of his deregulation record, has more blame, but that’s partially unfair to him because he’s been in Congress longer).
Applying responsibility to Obama for the economic mess at this point is silly. I don’t doubt though that in 9 months, when the situation gets worse, the GOP will blame every aspect of the economic collapse on Obama and Congress, as if the economy had been doing fine right up until January. That’s just the way the game is played. It will be the job of Obama and Congress to try to clean things up as much as possible, but I think it’s disingenuous to assume things are going to be just fine. They very patently are not. The people will naturally look up and blame the guy in charge for the mess, no matter who he is.

Well, someone who writes for The Corner certainly knows a thing or two about recklessness and abandonment of rationality.

Remember when Andrew McCarthy was a respected US Prosecutor as opposed to an ardent investigator of birth certificates?

You fail to mention that a lot of Obama’s support is tepid, driven by the economic realities the country is facing. And, for an instance, if you assume that Obama has a maniacal following on the left, how is it different from the passions we’re seeing chasing Palin on the right?

Claudia is right on one thing: Obama’s approval ratings will go down as times goes on.

This is all more of an infatuation than outright worship. A honeymoon that will end one he’s been in office for some time. It always happens.

Now, if we want to talk about cults of personality, why not talk about Kennedy, Lincoln, or Washington? There’s three people who’ve had their lives mythicized. Practically can’t say a bad word about them. And Washington has the status among all three of having been elected unanimously not once, but twice.

I think the reason that the concern is very valid is that in the current climate, this mythification means that Obama’s ego, agenda, and cohorts will have no check on their power. When those doing the worshipping are the leaders of the Fourth Estate, and the legislative branch of Congress is already in Obama’s camp, there’s definitely reason to fear how far this will go before someone starts to seriously question anything Obama says or does.

I always marvel at how conservatives can say things like this without a hint of irony.

The current occupant of the White House for the past 8 years has had no check on the power that he and two of his most senior colleagues, Dick Cheney and David Addington, have been consolidating with their extremely radical philosophy of the all-powerful executive branch. Under Bush-Cheney-Addington, we have become a country in which there is no law — literally, really literally — that the president or his designated representatives are bound to respect or to obey. The concept of checks and balances that the founders designed as an essential tool to prevent dictatorship has been completely abandoned. Congress — both under Republican and Democratic leadership — has been notoriously and cravenly and consistently unwilling to say no to the president.

Basically, the Bush administration has presided over the most massive power grab in U.S. history. And much of it has been institutionalized in ways that will be very difficult to reverse or undo, no matter who is in the White House next. (Of course, if it’s John McCain, he won’t want to undo the changes anyway.)

Obama’s enormous popularity is due to a lot of reasons, but the central reason is that he has articulated a coherent and intelligent set of policy positions for ameliorating the catastrophic state of the U.S. economy, which has absolutely devastated the lives of millions of Americans — an economic crisis that up until very recently lots and lots of conservatives were denying even existed, or were trivializing. We were told that there was no recession, or that it was not widespread, or serious, that it just affected tiny little pockets of America, that the economy was actually just fine.

Well, guess what? It’s shortsighted, insensitive, uninformed, and callous attitudes like that, that have made Bush the most unpopular president in decades, and probably in all of American history. And it’s the fact that Obama is NOT like that, that he does get it, that he genuinely cares and understands what’s going on, that he doesn’t deny reality, that he has rational ideas for addressing the problems, that have put him so far ahead of McCain.

If Obama is poised to win this election — and I’m not taking that for granted because jinx rules must be respected — conservatives have no one to blame but the president that *they* have worshiped and adored for 8 endlessly long years.

Oh, and by the way (and I should have said this at the top), I really like your posts, Claudia. Most of the ones I get the chance to read, not just this one. You’re a breath of fresh air.

Kathy, obviously you and I have vastly different definitions of irony, since you practically make my point for me. All I’ve heard for the past 6 years or so is the kind of hyperventilating you are doing about the breakdown of checks and oversights- and yet you and Claudia now see no problem with giving this massively unchecked power over to someone who will ALSO be unchecked by a duly skeptical press and public.

A breakdown in checks and balances is a problem no matter who is in the White House. Anyone who has been concerned about this development during the Bush administration is being incredibly dishonest to pretend that it now doesn’t matter, in fact it’s fine apparently to move further in that direction. What you and your cohorts are doing is showing your true stripes- because it wasn’t the concept of increased executive authority that has bothered you about the Bush administration, it was the fact that the Republican party was at the helm and assumed that authority. Give the same or more unchecked power to a liberal Democrat and you apparently have no problem with it.

Every time I’ve mentioned this concern, to many of the same people who were very critical of the Bush administration for this very reason- the answer is basically that they believe Bush and Cheney used their usurped power for bad while Obama for some reason is believed to be above this (despite his history of using the most corrupt aspects of whatever power system he’s worked within in order to further his own ambitions and agenda.) The only logical conclusion I can draw from that is that such people either actually want increased power for someone with a liberal agenda, or they believe that somehow Obama is a man who will avoid misusing that kind of power being put in his hands (you know, cause he’s such a humble, unassuming kind of guy or something.)

And this?:
Obama’s enormous popularity is due to a lot of reasons, but the central reason is that he has articulated a coherent and intelligent set of policy positions for ameliorating the catastrophic state of the U.S. economy,

What coherent policy positions? One day he’s saying he wants to spread the wealth, then he and his supporters are beside themselves when more conservative voters ask how that philosophy differs from socialism or why we are to believe that distribution is the solution to our current problem when history shows that stagnated economies need growth, not redistribution.

Can YOU actually articulate any of his policy positions (don’t direct me to his website, I’m asking what you yourself know abou this policy positions?) Just because it gets repeated over and over again that he has these well thought out plans doesn’t mean that this is true- and certainly not true that most of his supporters actually understand what he intends to do.

A breakdown in checks and balances is a problem no matter who is in the White House.

Too true. Six years of Democratic control in both branches would be just as bad as six years of Republican control.

MM- Reagan has also been mythicized– it seems to occur after death. For Kennedy and Lincoln, this probably had more to do with their assasinations while they were in their prime. With Reagan– its more convenient to remember his assets and accomplishments than his flaws, and his life has become iconic for today’s Conservatives.

Of course there’s bound to be a big letdown no matter who wins–because every president has a learning curve and also the US is in a crisis that is elusive, poorly understood and not completely under our control to fix.

Obama’s appeal is one of national unity. If you look back at his life, however, he has reached out to both liberals and conservatives since his days as president of Harvard Law review. That is his strength- the ability to work with all stripes and shades of political persuasion.

Maybe the media is a little over the top, but they were blatantly in McCain’s corner in 2000- and Bush still beat him.

Christine,

Quite honestly, I don’t understand the hysteria going on over on the right about “redistribution” and “socialism.” All taxation is redistribution. The only difference between right-wing redistribution and left-wing is in who the money gets redistributed to and which national priorities get funded and which do not.

A taxation scheme that favors the wealthy over the middle class is distributing public money according to a particular political/economic philosophy that says wealth has to be created from the top down. Obama’s position is that wealth is not created from the top down; it’s created from the bottom up — and for some odd reason he feels that the people who create the wealth should get the economic benefit of that, too. I happen to agree with him.

None of the above is “socialism.” Even Michael acknowledges that, and he’s not exactly a flaming leftie, you know.

And yes, I can articulate Obama’s policy positions perfectly well without referring to anyone’s website. Giving tax breaks to Americans making under $250,000 a year is one of those positions. And the logic that undergirds that position is perfectly logical and not outrageous at all. It’s the middle class that creates the wealth. It’s an economically strong middle class that drives the economy — any economy. If you disagree, fine. But that doesn’t mean the position is “incoherent.” It just means you don’t like it.

Obama has totally coherent policy positions on every significant issue: health care, foreign policy, the Iraq war specifically, social issues like abortion and gay marriage. I am at a loss to understand why you cannot describe or identify his positions, whether you agree with them or not. He has articulated them over and over again, on a daily basis for a long time now. John McCain is the candidate who has NO coherent policy positions other than “Yeah, what Bush said.”

As for the checks and balances issue, again: If it doesn’t bother you that Pres. Bush has effectively repealed whole sections of the Constitution, usurped powers that belong to the legislative and judicial branches, violated domestic and international laws we swore to uphold, and basically put himself beyond the reach of any law he doesn’t wish to follow, then I don’t get why it bothers you when Obama takes what is the classic conservative position on the Constitution and the Supreme Court: that the legislature is the better and appropriate route for creating positive rights, not the Supreme Court. Haven’t you guys on the right been screaming for eons now about out-of-control judges legislating from the bench?

I think I can put my last point a little more succinctly and clearly in the form of a question: What on earth makes you believe that Barack Obama is going to further destroy constitutional checks and balances, and/or usurp more executive authority? I am not and have not been saying that it’s okay for him to do that because Bush did it; I’m saying where do you get the notion from that he IS advocating that? You seem to be making something up out of whole cloth that isn’t real and that is terrifying you, when the past eight years of actual and real power usurpation and checks and balances destruction appears not to have bothered you at all.

I don’t get that. Maybe you can explain it.

“Can YOU actually articulate any of his policy positions (don’t direct me to his website, I’m asking what you yourself know abou this policy positions?)”
That would of course be the simplest way to get his or McCain’s stated policy positions.

GG: The point is, I know what both websites say- my comment was in regard to whether or not the voters who support Obama really know what the policies are (perhaps a lot of it is written out on the website, but many of the supporters don’t seem to have read that and Obama’s stump speeches are very vague and answers aren’t forthcoming when he’s questioned about specifics. He also hasn’t articulated any path out of the current economic crisis- his plan is the same now as it was before early Sept- and his plan is NOT a pro-growth plan. Neither McCain nor Obama has articulated a solution but at least McCain’s economic plans make more sense at a time when jobs and growth are the most important factors for economic health.

Kathy, the reason you think your position, and Obama’s, is coherent is because you base your conceptualization on an incorrect assertion:

And the logic that undergirds that position is perfectly logical and not outrageous at all. It’s the middle class that creates the wealth

The middle class largely supplies labor, while the wealthier individuals and the corporations provide the capital. Of course now, many in the middle class are also part of the investor class (though most Dem politicians would pretend otherwise) and if they would have a correct understanding of the labor + capital equation, they would see why the punish the wealthy mentality is harmful to their own interests in the long run.

As for describing my concern about unchecked power (which is not a hysterical fear as you want to describe it, but a perfectly rational concern), you only have to turn your statements around. You assert that I somehow don’t care if checks and balances have been upturned under the Bush administration (I do care, although I certainly don’t agree with your hyperbole over the problems.) You claim that you also care about this but you seem to think that it was driven by the personalities and not by events and one party rule. I strongly disagree- because history shows that when one party controls the legislative and executive branches (and worse, when they also have an opportunity to stack the courts) that the memebers of that party are corrupted by the lack of oversight.

And since even Obama supporters generally agree about the overwhelming media bias in his favor and the protective nature that the press is taking toward him, this means that we don’t even have the Fourth Estate putting a check on an Obama presidency. Now, some have suggested that this will change once Obama is in office, but I’m not willing to take a chance on that- if the media will not show some objectivity and willingness to critically examine Obama now, I don’t see why we should think that will change- in fact they may struggle to rationalize everything he does in order to protect their own reputations for having endorsed and supported him so strongly.

Incoherency and inconsistency in Obama’s policy positions:
health careNot too inconsistent on this, although he has told certain audiences that he actually favors a single payer plan but doesn’t think there’s the political will to support this right away (so there’s reason to believe that the plan he currently pushes is meant as a first step to a more socialized healthcare system.)

foreign policy
Would meet one on one with Ahmedinajhad during his first year without preconditions…Then claimed that he never said Ahmedinajhad though he did say this…then claimed that there would be preparation but not preconditions. Wrongly claimed that past leaders negotiated in the manner that he suggests, and wrongly claimed that Kissinger supported his ideas on diplomacy.

Said he’d cross border into Pakistan to get bin Laden, then backtracked when he was hammered for saying this.

Said that Jerusalem must be the undivided capital of Israel, then backtracked when his pro-Palestinian supporters balked (he was inconsistent anyway, because while he was saying that this condition was essential, he was also saying that it’s not our business to decide these things and must be left to Isreal/Palestinians to negotiate among themselves.)

Said Iran was a tiny country that posed no military threat to us, then the following day backed off of that by saying that Iran poses a grave threat.

the Iraq war The surge couldn’t possibly worked, the surge succeeded beyond his expectations but he still wouldn’t vote for it if he knew then what he knows now.

social issues like abortion Says he wants to keep abortion legal but rare, but has the most far left voting record of any US politician ever (farther left than European countries) and is on record saying that he couldn’t vote for the bill to protect surviving infants of abortions because this would cause mother’s to rethink their decision. He will also immediately sign FOCA which will overturn ALL current restrictions on abortion including late term abortions and laws for parental notification in case of minors.

and gay marriage. I’m not well versed in his position on this one (I don’t think it should be an issue in presidential politics anyway.)

And one biggie you left off the list- protectionism. Will he really work to roll back trade agreements like NAFTA, or is it more like what his advisors privately told the Canadian govt and he was just giving red meat to the base by saying that? How are we to know his true positions when he speaks one way to one audience and then contradicts himself in other venues?

And that’s not to even mention Biden’s misstatements and contradictions.

And back to the point about executive power and checks/balances, Kathy.

What I’m trying to say is that the burden of proof is on you to show why you DON’T think it’s a problem for Obama to inherit a powerful executive office without constraint from an opposition controlled Congress or a dutiful media. It’s not my burden to supply you with reasons why I distrust Obama in that position (though I certainly do see tendencies toward egomaniacal power hunger, and then there’s the autocratic responses to his critics as detailed here.

Point being though, if you feel that the executive branch is now too powerful, then you have to show why you believe this one man can transcend that and why you believe he’ll voluntarily limit the powers of his administration even without any external constraints.

What I’m trying to say is that the burden of proof is on you to show why you DON’T think it’s a problem for Obama to inherit a powerful executive office without constraint from an opposition controlled Congress or a dutiful media.

Why? You invent a problem and the burden of proof is on me to show why I don’t think your invented problem is a problem?

I respectfully disagree.

Point being though, if you feel that the executive branch is now too powerful, then you have to show why you believe this one man can transcend that and why you believe he’ll voluntarily limit the powers of his administration even without any external constraints.

Actually, Christine, if you agree that the winner on Nov. 4 will inherit a powerful executive office (and more specifically, an executive office with extraordinarily and unprecedentedly enhanced presidential powers) you need to explain to ME why it’s NOT a problem for John McCain to be president when he supported Bush’s policies 90% of the time, but it IS a problem for Obama to be president when he opposed those policies.

I never said “this one man can transcend that.” YOU expressed alarm at what you apparently see as intent on Obama’s part to destroy checks and balances and violate the Constitution. Not being able to fully transcend the power grab policies is not the same thing as signing on to the power grab policies and continuing them.

With respect, Christine, you’re not making any sense.

Ah, OK Kathy, I guess I imagined the part where you said:

The current occupant of the White House for the past 8 years has had no check on the power that he and two of his most senior colleagues, Dick Cheney and David Addington, have been consolidating with their extremely radical philosophy of the all-powerful executive branch. Under Bush-Cheney-Addington, we have become a country in which there is no law — literally, really literally — that the president or his designated representatives are bound to respect or to obey. The concept of checks and balances that the founders designed as an essential tool to prevent dictatorship has been completely abandoned. Congress — both under Republican and Democratic leadership — has been notoriously and cravenly and consistently unwilling to say no to the president.

Yes, I made that up and thus ‘invented a problem.’

Kathy, on your last comment, I’d be glad to engage your question about why I don’t see similar concerns from a McCain presidency if you’ll stop spouting talking points and address any specific area where you feel that Bush has usurped power. Since you repeatedly state this in such over the top terms (I don’t think you’ve used the phrase ’shredded the Constitution” yet, but it’s been pretty close), and since you quote the talking point about agreeing with Bush 90% of the time, I can’t debate the points with you if we don’t even agree to certain basic truths to begin with.

explain to ME why it’s NOT a problem for John McCain to be president when he supported Bush’s policies 90% of the time, but it IS a problem for Obama to be president when he opposed those policies.

To reiterate: Which policies are you referring to?

Not too inconsistent on this, although he has told certain audiences that he actually favors a single payer plan but doesn’t think there’s the political will to support this right away (so there’s reason to believe that the plan he currently pushes is meant as a first step to a more socialized healthcare system.)

Yes, and I have no problem with that.

Would meet one on one with Ahmedinajhad during his first year without preconditions…

That is not what he said. That is a distortion of what he said.

Said he’d cross border into Pakistan to get bin Laden, then backtracked when he was hammered for saying this.

I’m not thrilled with the way Obama expressed his position on this issue.

Said Iran was a tiny country that posed no military threat to us, then the following day backed off of that by saying that Iran poses a grave threat.

Again, this is a serious distortion of what Obama said.

The middle class largely supplies labor, while the wealthier individuals and the corporations provide the capital. Of course now, many in the middle class are also part of the investor class (though most Dem politicians would pretend otherwise) and if they would have a correct understanding of the labor + capital equation, they would see why the punish the wealthy mentality is harmful to their own interests in the long run.

Ha! Perhaps middle-class Americans are less persuaded by theoretical, ideological, Friedmanesque “understandings of the labor + capital equation” than they are by their actual experience trying to survive in Bush’s America for the past eight years. And requiring that the wealthy assume more of the tax burden than the middle class is common sense and basic fairness, not “punishing” the wealthy. Making the middle class assume more of the tax burden than the wealthy more accurately defines the word “punishing.”

You assert that I somehow don’t care if checks and balances have been upturned under the Bush administration (I do care, although I certainly don’t agree with your hyperbole over the problems.) You claim that you also care about this but you seem to think that it was driven by the personalities and not by events and one party rule.

It was driven by ideology, mostly originating from two men, one elected, one not: Dick Cheney and David Addington. Bush went along with it because he is weak, easily led, and essentially corrupt as a person. I don’t know what you mean by “events,” but the consolidation of power in the executive branch at the expense of the constitutionally defined powers of the legislative and judiciary branches did not just “happen” by accident or by chance. The “unitary executive” philosophy under which Cheney and Addington operated was something that they both (especially Cheney) had believed in and wanted to implement for decades — since the Nixon era, to be exact. Before 9/11, however, it was politically impossible to do it.

One-party rule is a bad thing, obviously. But one-party rule has *been* the rule throughout the eight years of Bush’s presidency — even though for the past four years we’ve had a Democratic Congress. That Democratic majority was swept in on the strength of public disgust with the Republicans and Bush’s policies, but even though they had a clear mandate for change, this Democratic Congress went belly up and continued to support and go along with Bush’s demands almost in every case.

I continue to not understand why you believe a man who unquestionably shares the Bushian ideology and worldview would do anything to help bring us back to the proper constitutional practice of separation of powers.

Obama’s own words on whether or not Iran is a threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I&feature=related

Obama’s own words on meeting with Ahmadinejad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU&feature=related Note that although the question didn’t specifically name Ahmadinejad, a picture of him was shown on the screen as the country of Iran was named- and Obama didn’t start claiming that he wasn’t referring to him until way after this blew up in his face- he was challenged about this answer by Hillary Clinton and others in the days after this debate and he initially used Ahmedinejhad in his answer- it wasn’t until later that his team seemed to settle on a new explanation, that he was actually talking about meeting with the mullahs, not Iran’s president.

Sorry, but he has to own these comments. I realize when he spoke about Iran’s size and military budget, he wasn’t incorrect- but why did he stress those things and downplay the real threat they pose? And then back off of that completely after getting hammered for it, and go out on the stump the next day saying how grave the threat is?

Ha! Perhaps middle-class Americans are less persuaded by theoretical, ideological, Friedmanesque “understandings of the labor + capital equation” than they are by their actual experience trying to survive in Bush’s America for the past eight years.
Wait, I thought conservatives were the ‘anti-intellectual’ ones? Do you or do you not think that sometimes expert analysis is superior to one’s intuitive sense of a problem from one’s limited perspective (seeing forest for the trees, that sort of thing?)
And requiring that the wealthy assume more of the tax burden than the middle class is common sense and basic fairness, not “punishing” the wealthy. Making the middle class assume more of the tax burden than the wealthy more accurately defines the word “punishing.”
Fine, so you are in favor of a progressive income tax structure- so am I. Now we have to discuss how much the distribution of taxation should be shifted onto the wealthier taxpayers. What percentage do you feel would be fair for the top 5% of wage earners to contribute to the general fund?

I continue to not understand why you believe a man who unquestionably shares the Bushian ideology and worldview would do anything to help bring us back to the proper constitutional practice of separation of powers.

You don’t understand because you’re mixing up ideology with other things here. A chief executive’s use of authority isn’t based on ideology. The votes where McCain was on the same side as Bush often did have to do with conservative ideology (there are significant differences in their ideology as well, which is why McCain has at times had a greater degree of dissonance from Bush.)

You’re acting as though Bush pushed legislation which declared him the king and McCain championed the bills to do so.

That’s why I asked you to enumerate WHICH Bush policies you feel were incorrectly supported by McCain, and what these have to do with power grabbing (if anything.)

Yes, I made that up and thus ‘invented a problem.’

LOL, Christine. That doesn’t even begin to make sense. You didn’t make up what *I* wrote. You made up the terrifying scenario of Obama being a power-mad autocrat who would hijack the Constitution and turn the presidency into one-man rule. Or rather, to be fair, *you* didn’t make it up. Right-wing bloggers and media pundits made it up, and you believe it.

Kathy, on your last comment, I’d be glad to engage your question about why I don’t see similar concerns from a McCain presidency if you’ll stop spouting talking points and address any specific area where you feel that Bush has usurped power. Since you repeatedly state this in such over the top terms (I don’t think you’ve used the phrase ’shredded the Constitution” yet, but it’s been pretty close), and since you quote the talking point about agreeing with Bush 90% of the time, I can’t debate the points with you if we don’t even agree to certain basic truths to begin with.

The phrase “shredded the Constitution” is fully applicable. And I’ll be happy to address specific areas where Bush has usurped power:

1. His misuse of signing statements to bypass hundreds of laws. Signing statements have been used by other presidents, but Bush has issued more of them in his one administration than all other presidents in U.S. history combined. And he has used them specifically to thwart the will of Congress, in order to advance the Bushian idea of the all-powerful president.

2. Torture is another example. The Bush admin — most notably Cheney, Addington, and Bush, with the help of John Yoo and others in the Office of Legal Counsel — designed a system of what they called “enhanced interrogation” — really torture but not called that to avoid the legal repercussions. These top-level Bush admin officials violated, and indeed declared null and void, the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution, and other domestic law prohibiting torture. Their defense for so doing was that the president is constitutionally authorized to break laws and issue orders as he pleases, without interference from any other branch of government. Lawyers like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales were there to create legal justification for whatever it was Bush wanted to do. Yoo has even famously suggested that the president could legally order the torture of a child in front of the child’s parents if he felt he had to do so in the name of national security.

3. The establishment of Guantanamo and other law-free zones for holding detainees in perpetuity without charges or trials or even the most basic legal rights required by international law and common decency. Addington in particular responded to criticisms about continuing to hold detainees who it became clear had not committed or planned any acts of terrorism against the U.S. by asserting that the president had decided these individuals were enemy combatants and no one had the right to question his decision.

4. The Military Commissions Act, which was the Bush admin’s attempt to, in effect, overrule the Supreme Court via legislation that permitted the president to do what several prior SCOTUS decisions had said he could not do: deny habeus corpus rights to suspected terrorists at Guantanamo. Earlier this year, as you probably recall, the Supreme Court threw out Section 7 of the MCA, which is the section referring to habeus corpus.

So, getting back to the point that triggered my involvement in this discussion, is it your contention that if Obama wins the election, he will abuse his power by attempting to defy the Supreme Court in the way Bush did, or that he will sign bills into law and then declare his intention to violate them, or that he will abrogate centuries of legal precedent by fiat without involving or informing Congress?

Is it your belief that John McCain will restore all the constitutional protections and provisions that Pres. Bush and his cronies have shredded?

First, Kathy, please stop attributing things to me about “terrifying scenarios.” That’s a nice way, I suppose, to dismiss legitimate concerns by making someone who raises them seem like a deranged, cowering idiot, but since I never said that I was terrified of Obama or anything even close to that, your dismissal doesn’t apply here.

But your statements about Bush ARE relevant because whichever candidate becomes our next president will step into the situation as it currently exists. By your own words, you describe the power imbalance of the ‘unitary executive’ as far worse than I believe it is anyway, so that’s why I said earlier that the burden is on you. Although I still feel that’s true, I’ve agreed to engage on an equal discussion of which candidate is less likely to run an executive branch which is overly authoritative, as long as you stick to specific discussions of which policies and actions of Bush you are critical of.

So now that you’ve listed some, here are my responses:
1. Has McCain ever expressed support for Bush’s use of signing statements? McCain was part of that Congress which was being thwarted, just as Obama was for the last couple of years. I would assume that they both sometimes disagreed with this practice, and I haven’t heard either one of them questioned on it.

2. And torture would be part of the 10% of disagreement between McCain and Bush, now, wouldn’t it? Even Barack Obama continues to praise McCain for this.

3. McCain also agrees with you about closing Guantanamo.

4. MCA is a pretty complex issue- the stated purpose of the legislation was to do what SCOTUS advised in Hamdan, but yes, SCOTUS also found part of MCA unconstitutional. That interpretation depends on whether or not foriegn combatants are actually entitled to habeus corpus, since our Constitution only guarantees such right to citizens. People can certainly disagree over what rights the detainees should have, but this issue isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be. A lot of the problem stems from the conflicts we’re currently involved in being much different than conventional wars of the past. We simply have to keep wading through all of the new territory that comes from having detainees who weren’t necessarily captured on a battlefield as in past wars.

As for your last question- it’s not a matter of ‘restoring constitutional protections’, it’s about whether or not the executive branch will once again be subject to oversight by Congress and by the people informed by an impartial free press. I see that being far more likely with divided government, and with a president who isn’t being deified by the press.

Obama’s own words on whether or not Iran is a threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxiyg2tDD7I&feature=related

Obama: “I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us. We shouldn’t be afraid to– you know, Iran may spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

You: “Said Iran was a tiny country that posed no military threat to us.”

Your statement was a snippet from a video of a speech that itself was just a snippet of the entire portion of the speech on this topic. The context, which of course if included completely invalidates your spin, is about talking directly to Iran’s leaders. He was clearly starting to say that in the sentence where he interrupted himself. He was talking about Iran’s military power, and the threat it poses to the U.S., in the context of the former Soviet Union’s military power and the threat that IT posed to us then. We talked directly to Soviet leaders many times. Is Iran a more militarily powerful adversary or more of a threat to us than the Soviet Union was? (I’m not necessarily asking you this; I’m conveying what Obama was saying.)

All of this was crystal clear before the context was removed.

So does your statement sound like a fair or accurate representation of what Obama said?

On talking to Ahmadinejad w/o preconditions. The video clip you link to is even less unlike the spin you give it. He’s saying we should get over this idea we have that if we refuse to talk to our enemies, we are somehow punishing them, or that it’s rewarding bad behavior to try to find areas of common ground we can use to move forward. If you’re going to disagree with Obama on this point, at least disagree with what he’s saying.

Also, I have no idea what you mean by that additional stuff about not mentioning Ahmadinejad and then claiming he was talking about the mullahs, etc., etc. He did not mention Ahmadinejad or the mullahs at all, period. Although if the U.S. were to enter into direct talks with Iran, it most certainly would have to be with the mullahs and not Ahmadinejad, since Ahmadinejad has absolutely no authority over Iran’s foreign policy or nuclear program.

Do you or do you not think that sometimes expert analysis is superior to one’s intuitive sense of a problem from one’s limited perspective (seeing forest for the trees, that sort of thing?)

I think that when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, can’t find work, are drowning in debt caused largely by having to use borrowed money to pay essential bills, are having to file for bankruptcy, are losing their homes and being evicted from their apartments, are straining the resources of food pantries and other social services to the breaking point, are flooding the Unemployment system with applications and phone calls to the extent that you can’t even get through to unemployment on the phone anymore no matter how often or when you try and when you go down there in person and you take a number, you see there are a hundred people ahead of you, even though you get there soon after they open, and when the so-called “experts” — who are totally insulated from any and all of this suffering — say there is no problem, they are talking out of deep within their asses. That’s what I think.

There’s a difference between being anti-intellectual and being anti-reality. Being anti-intellectual is being unable to name a single man-made cause of climate change and saying it doesn’t matter what the causes are anyway because the important thing is to solve the problem.

Fine, so you are in favor of a progressive income tax structure- so am I. Now we have to discuss how much the distribution of taxation should be shifted onto the wealthier taxpayers. What percentage do you feel would be fair for the top 5% of wage earners to contribute to the general fund?

I’d have to think about it, but I do know that the percentage difference between what Obama is proposing and what McCain is proposing in terms of raising taxes on the wealthy is only 3%.

More to the point, though, I assume that if you favor a progressive tax structure, and the only point of debate is how progressive, then you would agree that redistributing taxes is not socialism.

More to the point, though, I assume that if you favor a progressive tax structure, and the only point of debate is how progressive, then you would agree that redistributing taxes is not socialism

No, that’s not accurate. I do agree that redistribution is not the same thing as socialism- but it is social democrat policy, which is something which has never been acceptable on any great level to the American electorate, until now when it’s being ushered in inside a Trojan horse.

But none of that has anything to do with progressive tax structure. The redistribution part comes after the taxes are collected and then how the money is used (whether for the legitimate functions of government or to distribute money earned by some taxpayers into the pockets of other taxpayers.) Progressive taxation is disproportionate, but most modern conservatives have no problem with it as long as the taxes being collected are for the normal, Constitutionally derived functions of government and as long as the distribution shift isn’t so far to the ‘wealthy’ that there’s a disincentive to invest or earn more.

And you missed my point about percentages- I’m not talking about the percent of one’s income that is payed in the various brackets. What I mean is that when you evaluate how progressive a tax structure is, you have to compare what the top earners provide to the public funding vs. what the middle and bottom earners provide. So, let me try asking again- do you think in order to be progressive or fair enough, the top 5% of wage earners should pay, say 25% of the total federal revenue from income taxes, or 30%, or 35%? (all of those are above their neutral share of the communal expenses, since a flat tax would have them paying 5% in to they kitty to match their 5% of total earnings.)

Kathy, the problem about the ‘talking with our enemies’ stuff is that Obama (and you) slip between overgeneralizing Bush’s diplomatic policies in a way that’s highly inaccurate in order to criticize them, and then he answered a VERY specific question at a debate in a way that he later tried to back off of by being more general about the concept he’s espousing. I do still disagree with that concept, btw, just as Henry Kissinger disagreed with him despite Obama’s claim that Kissinger supported him on this. The high level meetings DO require preconditions, and even Obama seems to realize this when he talks about ‘preparations’. If preparations don’t lead to conditions conducive to having leverage in meetings between the highest level officials, then the high level talks don’t happen. That’s why you don’t agree to those talks until after the ‘conditions’ are met- hence, preconditions. Incidentally, I think Obama is savvy enough to know this but tried to throw some raw meat out to the base with that whole line of reasoning.

“[...]If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.”

You: “Said Iran was a tiny country that posed no military threat to us.”

I think I actually gave him more credit than he deserved with my paraphrase- because I remembered that he was talking about military budgets and such so I attributed his statement about lack of threat to that- but the way he said it was even worse because he denied ANY serious threat rather than just emphasizing the relative size of the military threat.

Has McCain ever expressed support for Bush’s use of signing statements?

Has anyone ever asked him about it? It’s not an issue that’s up for voting. I think what he says about a particular issue is, in any event, less important than what he does, or has done. And his voting record shows that on most issues, he has sided with Bush.

Same with torture. McCain has, in the past, condemned torture and, to his credit, has tried to stop it as it goes on under the administration. When push came to shove, though, he voted to allow Pres. Bush to continue doing what he’s been doing. He deserves credit and praise for what he’s done in the past, but he has been a far less forceful advocate for ending the torture of detainees than one would expect him to be given his own personal experience.

That interpretation depends on whether or not foriegn combatants are actually entitled to habeus corpus, since our Constitution only guarantees such right to citizens.

That is not true. Nowhere in the Constitution are the rights it guarantees stated as being only for citizens. That concept didn’t even exist at the time the Constitution was written in the sense it does now. And in fact, when detainees in U.S. custody are denied habeus corpus and other basic legal rights, the illegality derives not just from what the Constitution guarantees to Americans, but also from what the Constitution requires from Americans. If the Constitution says that the right of habeus corpus cannot be repealed except under very particular circumstances that do not apply here, that doesn’t just protect the detained; it also binds those doing the detaining, since they are American. They are violating the Constitution in their official positions as U.S. officials.

I see that being far more likely with divided government, and with a president who isn’t being deified by the press.

I don’t see that divided government has helped much in that regard in the past four years, though. Republican or Democrat, you have to have a Congress with a backbone for divided government to work. It’s like the Constitution itself. It’s only a piece of paper. It doesn’t enforce itself. It’s only as good as the willingness of the government and the American people to observe it.

I don’t see that divided government has helped much in that regard in the past four years, though. Republican or Democrat, you have to have a Congress with a backbone for divided government to work

We’ve only had divided govt for two years- but I agree with the second statement. So, are Pelosi and Reid more likely to have backbone against a President Obama or a President McCain? If your honest with yourself, I think you’ll see that the answer would be the latter but you still prefer the former because you don’t think they will need to show backbone against Obama. Which gets back to the original point I made- that as far as I can tell, Obama supporters like yourself put your faith in the man, not the system of checks and balances.

And actually, when you examine how the 110th congress has behaved, I think a large measure of their impotence was because they didn’t necessarily WANT to roll back the power of the executive branch, knowing that their party would probably assume control of that branch in ‘09.

I think both candidates should be asked about signing statements. I don’t agree with your assertion though that McCain’s voting record somehow implies that he agrees with Bush’s asterisks on the legislation. Again, keep in mind that many of Bush’s signing statements were added to legislation that was passed by a GOP majority Congress. You know, the stuff that McCain did agree with a good portion of the time- but then Bush added his own layers of interpretation after the fact.

The high level meetings DO require preconditions, and even Obama seems to realize this when he talks about ‘preparations’. If preparations don’t lead to conditions conducive to having leverage in meetings between the highest level officials, then the high level talks don’t happen.

Preconditions and preparations are two different things. Obama’s position is that he supports talking to our enemies without preconditions. He has never said he does not believe in preparing for such meetings.

I don’t agree with your assertion though that McCain’s voting record somehow implies that he agrees with Bush’s asterisks on the legislation.

I didn’t say that McCain’s voting record implies that he agrees with the signing statements (assuming that’s what you mean by “asterisks on the legislation”). I said that what McCain says on a particular issue is less important than what he does. There wasn’t any legislation on signing statements. I’m saying that regardless of what McCain says he opposes or supports that’s different from Bush, in the overwhelming majority of instances where he voted on legislation, he voted the way Bush wanted Congress to vote.

So, are Pelosi and Reid more likely to have backbone against a President Obama or a President McCain? If your honest with yourself, I think you’ll see that the answer would be the latter but you still prefer the former because you don’t think they will need to show backbone against Obama. Which gets back to the original point I made- that as far as I can tell, Obama supporters like yourself put your faith in the man, not the system of checks and balances.

Honestly? I don’t even know what you’re asking here. Are you saying it’s better to elect McCain because Pelosi and Reid will oppose everything he does?

I certainly put a lot of faith in Obama because I think he has earned it, but it’s not blind faith. And I don’t get why you think that my belief in Obama as a candidate, and my belief in the system of checks and balance that we used to have before Bush, are mutually exclusive. It’s not making any sense to me. Sorry.