President Obama wants to be a king, you know. We hear that all the time. He's a tyrant, he appoints Czars to run things, but of course he gets nothing done and plays golf while hordes of armed terrorists cross the borders disguised as children he invited here with his "policies." Never mind that the influx peaked in 2008.
His policies -- his executive orders -- you know he's issued more of them than any other president and he's trashing the constitution by doing it!
Rand Paul, the man who would be president says his first executive order would be to repeal all previous executive orders, doesn't seem to see that particular order as trashing the constitution or indicating royal presumptions of his own and perhaps because he also asserts that revoking all previous orders would be his only and final order.
Of course the entire premise, that our current executive branch operates primarily by autocratic executive order
and in disregard for the "will of the people" (as ignored and
filibustered by Congress) is false. In fact Obama and his predecessor
issued far, far fewer of them than any president in my lifetime. If the
facts don't fit, you're full of shit as Mr. Cochran might have said --
and he would be right.
But
Paul's presidential campaign is not about truth or even about
Democracy. It's all about appealing to the irrational and fact-free
passions of the Party and apparently he had to think for a moment about
repealing Truman's integration of the military and indeed Lincoln's
executive order freeing of the slaves and Eisenhower's desegregation of
schools before saying he would repeal and re-instate those which had
some saving grace. One can only imagine the debate about re-instating
those three, but I have to wonder about the Napoleonic ego of someone
who would repeal all the executive orders of the Washington
administration onward and using his own judgement, re-order those he
agreed with.
To the people who cheered and applauded
this proclamation without bothering to check any facts or perhaps to
those who care little for facts or are able to dismiss them for some
metaphysical reasons President Paul is a prospect devoutly to be wished
because to those who really would be kings, all that which stands in the
way must be done away with, whether true or false, good or bad or
disastrous.
Honest debate, over honest concerns about political, economic, and social policy has fallen away to be replaced with hyperbole and platitudes. Often with no basis in facts and reality.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly unfortunate that the republican party has ran off the rails. Cable news and the free wheeling often fact free blogosphere share the lions share of the blame. I miss the likes of Huntley and Brinkley, Cronkite, Donaldson, Wallace et all.
Tall radio has a part in all this as well. When all a person listens to is non stop respective BS ir becomes truth and reality.
The drivers of that which you covered in your post understand what inculcate means and have elevated it into the stratosphere.
Okay, I'm done. Time for a beer and sardines.
I know too many people who listen to "talk" radio all the time. It's true, it's another factor in America becoming a theme park for madmen and loonies. Some of the good old timers of news reading have gone to Al Jazeera, which says something, I guess.
Delete“It was not meant to be taken literally,” an aide said. Does this mean Rand Paul should be taken figuratively? I visualize a Burger King lookalike whose bobbing head is spring-attached ... bloviating in silence.
ReplyDeleteMost likely...
ReplyDeleteI have visions of heads that are rope attached, but hey. But he's right, his audience expects hyperbole because
ReplyDeleteThe Wrong Wing isn't about facts, it's about expressing all the anger and frustration they're trained to feel by the puppeteers.
A may contribute to his campaign though because I think he's extremely beatable and there's no prospect for a Republican candidate that offers anything but obedience to the plutocracy.
Actually, my reactions towards Rand Paul are mixed. OOH, I appreciate his statements on inequality in our criminal justice system and his comment today: "Interventions caused the rise of ISIS." At least, it is a satement of understanding although devoid of solution. OTOH, Paul has a rather disturbing eccentricity that concerns me. The rest of the GOP pack are way off track and worthless hacks.
ReplyDeleteEccentricity and maybe inconsistency, but many wrong people will say something right now and then. I agreed with his father on many things too, but I trust neither one and have the feeling that both hold their cards close to the ches while feeding sound bites to the people who hear what they want to hear.
ReplyDeleteOf the two I prefer the Father. Must be and age related thing. :-)
ReplyDeleteI have to admit I've agreed with him on many things, including Bush's war.
DeleteI read on another blog that the number of executive orders does not matter because Obama's are worse. In coming to this conclusion the individual in question cited Jonathan Turley's claim that Obama is an "imperial president". I'd be interested in knowing what Capt. Fogg's (or anyone else's) opinion of Mr. Turley is. It's one thing to criticize Randal Paul (and his stupidity in saying he'd repeal all executive orders) but another to criticize a supposed Liberal (Turley). Myself, I admit I have not really dug into the issue. That said, if someone could point me to an article - or give an opinion - regarding why Turley is right or wrong - it would be appreciated.
ReplyDeleteOh, they're "worse." That can't possibly be bullshit can it? I suggest a trip to the dictionary to look up what "imperial" means. Emperors have empires and take over other countries -- kinda like George Bush so it's probably kind to call Turley's claims hyperbole. That's why I'm choosing to call it bullshit.
ReplyDeleteHe's basically lamenting the allegedly increased power of the executive which probably has increased in some areas while having been eliminated in others. The poser to send in troops without declaring war has been there since Truman. He claims that the executive has been lying to Congress. That's hardly imperial and please remember that the Vietnam war (which we were told wasn't a war) was based on lies as was the invasion of Iraq.
Frankly I have to laugh at the idea that Turley isn't a Republican since every word of his "argument" comes out of the tea party catechism. Yes, I fear the security state but that's hardly Obama's fault and he's blamed for not providing enough security every time something like Benghazi happens and it's my opinion that Turley, like all the other slingers and flingers of dung will say anything, no matter how much it conflicts with history or fact or decency or sanity just to slander Obama for reasons he doesn't reveal, just like all the other radical Libertarian, quasi anarchists.