Thursday, January 20, 2005

Anything Goes

If you want further proof that Bushism is a radical cult that seeks to overthrow the basic concepts of American governance, and replace them with something more akin to the Divine Right of Kings, look no further than these recent remarks by Dick Cheney:

Vice President Cheney said in an interview that the proper power of the presidency has finally been restored after being diminished in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate, and that President Bush contributed to the process by not allowing his narrow victory in the 2000 election to inhibit him during his first term.

"Even after we went through all of that, he never wanted to allow, correctly, the closeness of our election to in any way diminish the power of the presidency, lead him to make a decision that he needed to somehow trim his sails, and be less than a fully authorized, if you will, commander in chief, leader of our government, president of the United States," Cheney said in an interview last month that will be broadcast tomorrow night on "Inside the Presidency," a documentary on the History Channel.

[snip]

Cheney said that the "low point" of presidential power occurred at the beginning of Gerald R. Ford's presidency and that "over time" it has been restored, despite such challenges as the Iran-contra investigation under President Ronald Reagan, which Cheney characterized as an attempt to "criminalize a policy difference" between the president and Congress.
There's not much to say about this, except that it stands every ideal of American democracy on its head, displays utter contempt for the most basic Constitutional principles, and suggests that the next four years will be exceedingly grim times for anyone - Right or Left - who believes in legal or ethical limits on government power.

3 comments:

Aquaria said...

Yowsah.

Methinks Ol' Crashcart missed school whenever the teachers talked about that whole separation of powers thing in Gubmint class. Or history. How about those Radical Reconstructionists and Andrew Jackson? There's a reason most people can't remember if Millard Fillmore comes before or after Chester Arthur. Few of the pre-TR Presidents are memorable. They simply didn't do all that much, because their role was rather limited. Outside of the first few Presidents, Jackson and Lincoln, the executive branch exerted very little real power until TR, who, to me, gets credit as the first "modern" President: Strong, charismatic, and er, creative about how to use the execute branch to bend the government to his will.

Another reason Ford, et al, were held to a higher standard is because the media tried this interesting idea of doing its job and reporting the facts of what our government was doing for a while there. They actually (gasp!) informed the American public about things every now and then, and the public would get all outraged and demand accountability.

It was fun while it lasted.

--LJ

NYMary said...

Gee, Dick. Could it be, is it possible, that there was a reason the low point fell at the beginning of the Ford presidency? Because you and your ilk had been revealed as the amoral powermongers you are?

Nah, gotta be something else....

joshowitz5 said...

despite such challenges as the Iran-contra investigation under President Ronald Reagan, which Cheney characterized as an attempt to "criminalize a policy difference" between the president and Congress.I never thought about it that way. And Watergate was just an attempt to "criminalize a policy difference" between the White House and the FEC.