- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came on this article today, I thought it was pretty insightfull. I am going to start looking into the roll of the president as was set up by the framers, because I have to admit, I dont know what it was meant to be from those brave guys who started this country. I dont think this article takes a stance on either candidate, but I thought it might give some of you something to think about as it gave me. My hope is that when and if anyone reads it, it is taken in the way I meant you to take it when I posted it, just to give you something to ponder. Thanks for letting me share this.
” The Bush years have given rise to fears of a resurgent Imperial Presidency. Those fears are justified, but the problem cannot be solved simply by bringing a new administration to power. In his provocative new book, The Cult of the Presidency, Gene Healy argues that the fault lies not in our leaders but in ourselves. When our scholars lionize presidents who break free from constitutional restraints, when our columnists and talking heads repeatedly call upon the “commander in chief ” to dream great dreams and seek the power to achieve them—when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small—should we really be surprised that the presidency has burst its constitutional bonds and grown powerful enough to threaten American liberty?
The Cult of the Presidency takes a step back from the ongoing red team/blue team combat and shows that, at bottom, conservatives and liberals agree on the boundless nature of presidential responsibility. For both camps, it is the president’s job to grow the economy, teach our children well, provide seamless protection from terrorist threats, and rescue Americans from spiritual malaise. Very few Americans seem to think it odd, says Healy, “when presidential candidates talk as if they’re running for a job that’s a combination of guardian angel, shaman, and supreme warlord of the earth.”
Healy takes aim at that unconfined conception of presidential responsibility, identifying it as the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties. If the public expects the president to heal everything that ails us, the president is going to demand—or seize—the power necessary to handle that responsibility.
Interweaving historical scholarship, legal analysis, and trenchant cultural commentary, The Cult of the Presidency traces America’s decades-long drift from the Framers’ vision for the presidency: a constitutionally constrained chief magistrate charged with faithful execution of the laws. Restoring that vision will require a Congress and a Court willing to check executive power, but Healy emphasizes that there is no simple legislative or judicial “fix” to the problems of the presidency. Unless Americans change what we ask of the office—no longer demanding what we should not want and cannot have—we’ll get what, in a sense, we deserve.”
While he has some interesting views, It’s just his opinion. I do not believe some of the things as he see it, but like I said there are a few valid points.
I get leary when someone try to ‘group’ folks and make generalizations. I also don’t like the use of the word ‘cult’, but since he is coming from that view I guess it’s appropriate for him to use.
I’ve noticed a lot more authors typing to lable Obama as a ‘cult’ type leader and has us all dumbed up to vote for him, but like I said only time will tell.
For instance this part here. It’s the current administration that has boosted the expectations, BUT does not mean that Obama will do the same. Only history will tell so the article will be more relavant once we see if he was right or not.
Barack Obama has done more than any candidate in memory to boost expectations for the office, which were extraordinarily high to begin with. Obama’s stated positions on civil liberties may be preferable to McCain’s, but would it matter? If and when a car bomb goes off somewhere in America, would a President Obama be able to resist resorting to warrantless wiretapping, undeclared wars, and the Bush theory of unrestrained executive power? As a Democrat without military experience, publicly perceived as weak on national security, he’d have much more to prove.
The part about the cult, do you think the writter was referring to Obama?
I didnt get that, of course I didnt read the book. If anything he was talking about Bush and just referring to the office itself.
Of course it was his opine, he wrote the book. I just thought it was insightful, because I never looked at the office in that way, I thought and I think most ppl would agree that we do look to our president almost as a cure-all. I am going to try to RE-EVALUEATE THE WAY I LOOK AT THINGS.
I like to check out new ideas, I might buy the book when it comes out in soft cover lol
Like I said, my only negative about the book/author is the title and some subject matter.
Being that I’ve been on the internet for 7 years I’ve learned to appreciate learning new things and differnt views just so that I could get along with everyone as best I can, but I doubt that I’ll buy that particular book. :hattip:
LMAO, How long has it been since Gore invented it:tongue:
@bud405n 182884 wrote:
LMAO, How long has it been since Gore invented it:tongue:
Let me do a quick web search on my Blackberry, which McCain helped invent :roflmao:
McCain Invented Blackberry? Adviser Says He Helped
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/16/mccain-helped-invent-the_n_126785.html:tongue:
I don’t see any link between the Imperial Presidency – one based on the idea the president is king during his term and can’t be held to any law and the “cult of the presidency” as described in this excerpt.
While it’s pretty clear that the country does hold the president responsible for more than they should, but it does make a difference who runs the country.
Healy takes aim at that unconfined conception of presidential responsibility, identifying it as the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties. If the public expects the president to heal everything that ails us, the president is going to demand—or seize—the power necessary to handle that responsibility.
That’s silly, it’s because george bush and his imperial presidency that has tried to overstep his constitution powers that has led to the great distrust of him, the republican party and john McCain(deserved or not). When bill clinton was president, i wasn’t thinking “Why doesn’t he break the law to get more done”, though i did hear republicans in the media asking that of Bush.
Certainly much of the public’s disillusionment with the political system and politicians is that we expect too much from them.
Bush, Cheney & their cronies ignore law. Whether it be bills passed by Congress or those stated in the Constitution. :flush:
RE: Stop spreading these false rumors
McCain Invented Blackberry? Adviser Says He HelpedI thought he couldnt type :wink-wink
@bud405n 182957 wrote:
I thought he couldnt type :wink-wink
That’s true. Nor can he do Jumping Jacks.
@bud405n 182877 wrote:
—when voters look to the president for salvation from all problems great and small—
People look at the government as some sort of omni-potent thing all right.
People expect that government pay for wars, ifrastructure, local woes, state pork, welfare, medicine, failed businesses, failed banks and whatnot while lowering taxes for everyone.
It doesn’t seem to occur to anyone that somebody needs to pay the piper.
Just like you and me, government can only spend what it has, and when it spends more it takes out loans. The nations who make the loans own an evergrowing percentage of the US. At this time we are in such deep debt that we cannot conceive of paying it back. So – lets bail out more businesses, pay mortgages for individuals, cut some more taxes and pretend all is well. :tongue:
I think the root of that is that people do see the government as omnipotent.
Your post was (in my opine) very interesting. I wonder, who really does have more influence, the president or the house and honestly, I am not saying this in a sarcastic way, but say Obama wins, naturally I will be pulling for him to do a good job if he is president, I live here and even if I dont like what he says, I still wantmy country to strive, but is it good for the country to have 3 of the highest powers to be of one party. President, Speaker and the House, it seems like their would be no check and balance.
But back to what do the ppl think, I would think most feel whatever happens, is the presidents doing. If ppl are honest with themselves, I would guess they give the Pres credit when things are good and fault him when things are not, weather or not it is of his doings.
NE Way, I like discussions like this. Thanks for your reply to that article.
At this time we are in such deep debt that we cannot conceive of paying it back. So – lets bail out more businesses, pay mortgages for individuals, cut some more taxes and pretend all is well.
I not sure how you meant this ,if I typed that line I would have meant it as I am strongly opposed to it. I think you meant it as you disagree with all of that and if so, I am with you 100%.
I think none of that should happen. The only problem for me is I think ( and I mean myself here, no on else) how can I say something is wrong if I cant say what is the right way to handle. I do believe in ones own accountability though.
Originally Posted by bud405n View Post
I thought he couldnt typeYea, I guess it wasnt funny no matter which way I am coming from.
I am a fan of his after-all
no more insults from me either way.
Lets just get together and do what ever we think will help this country.
Well you all enjoy your day of rest, I gotta go clean the pool, it has been so windy and with the fires in my neighborhood, my yard is a mess.
@bud405n 182963 wrote:
At this time we are in such deep debt that we cannot conceive of paying it back. So – lets bail out more businesses, pay mortgages for individuals, cut some more taxes and pretend all is well.
I not sure how you meant this ,if I typed that line I would have meant it as I am strongly opposed to it. I think you meant it as you disagree with all of that and if so, I am with you 100%.
I think none of that should happen. The only problem for me is I think ( and I mean myself here, no on else) how can I say something is wrong if I cant say what is the right way to handle. I do believe in ones own accountability though.
I was being sarcastic. Yes, I am strongly opposed to it.
In all this election, no one is campaigning on fiscal responsibility. Everyone is campaigning on giving away more money. Money we have to borrow someplace so we can give it away. They just disagree on who gets it.
That’s because nobody wants to pay taxes. But everyone wants to have a military, and all the other things I mentioned above. Every state representative wants to carve out as much money as they can for their own state so they can get reelected. Thats what started all that hiding of bills inside other bills, like UIGEA came about. It happens every day and is usually about securing extra money for one state or another.
Fiscal responsibility is unpopular. No one likes it. Not wallstreet, not big business, not the banks, not the borrowers and least of all the government.
If you tell people they have to tighten their belts and work off their debts they won’t vote for you.
Most of Europe is debt free now, and they worked hard at it.
In the US, paying off your debts is like a dirty word anymore. No wonder the economy is going to hell in a handbasket.
