President Palin?

[Zoombie]

Life fails without opposing viewpoints to keep it interesting.

 

[SPMiller]

Ah, how the democrats are pining for a single party system with Obama as 'President for life'. Yeah.

And now the pile-on begins.

Ya'll have a blast now, without the rest of us, because that's how you like it.

Destroy any opposition to your points, and lay waste.

That's the point with Palin, and that's the point with the 'liberals' of today, they want to destroy the opposition at any cost.

o rly?

I prefer having a relatively healthy opposition party.

I have personally spoken out against this before, and I have never seen any liberal say or write anything like what you claim.

 

[Joe270]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPMiller
I prefer having a relatively healthy opposition party.

I have personally spoken out against this before, and I have never seen any liberal say or write anything like what you claim.

You quote yourself and then argue with yourself?

Go away, amateur. I will soon abuse you.

 

[Zoombie]

I think he had spoke out against what you were insinuating (that democrats want a President For Life dictator stand in) and he's never heard a single liberal EVER mention their plans for King Obama or anything moronic like that...

 

[SPMiller]

You quote yourself and then argue with yourself?

Go away, amateur. I will soon abuse you.

What are you babbling about? It's obvious I was saying I want a healthy Republican party. If you're so blind with anger you can't read a single simple sentence, I don't know what else to say.

 

[Zoombie]

Well, your post goes like this

I have personally spoken out against this before

But that's right UNDERNEATH your quote of

I prefer having a relatively healthy opposition party.

So it sounds like you're saying that you have spoken out against having a relatively healthy opposition party...which just sounds silly when you remember that you're quoting yourself, and then seeming to say that you contradict yourself...

 

[SPMiller]

What I was speaking out against was the belief that "liberals" might want a dead or dying Republican party, which was rather the point of that whole thread.

This isn't rocket surgery, guys. I'm not writing Finnegans Wake.

 

[Andrew]

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=

 

[dmytryp]

I think he had spoke out against what you were insinuating (that democrats want a President For Life dictator stand in) and he's never heard a single liberal EVER mention their plans for King Obama or anything moronic like that...

http://volokh.com/posts/1246905517.shtml

 

[SPMiller]

Ah, well, people have often called for repealing the 22nd amendment no matter which president happens to be in office. Remember when Reagan argued in favor of it? Hey, US Rep Vander Jagt even introduced such legislation in 1986. He kept it up over the next few years. The Thomas database helps, but it only goes back to 1989, so please enjoy this jewel: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.404:.

I can play this game all day. Sure, I think repealing the 22nd amendment is ridiculous, but it's hardly the same as calling for a "president for life". Another buzzword I've heard is "king". Gives me a good laugh every time.

 

[dmytryp]

I actually have no opinion on the repeal of 22d amendment (just as the blogger I quoted). I do have some issues with the phrasing "make Obama's third term possible". This is obviously a gimmick here, but it still smacks of cult of personality. Paired with other manifestations of it during the campaign and after he was elected, this is very troubling, imo.

EDIT: To argue in favor of repaling term limits so it'd apply to the sitting president smacks of things straight out of Chavez's playbook (and his Honduran friend, too). I am not saying this is what Obama wants, by the way. But the conversation didn't deal with Obama himself.

 

[SPMiller]

Would you have said the same thing about Reagan and his cult of personality? Reagan himself denied any desire for a third term, but his supporters were all over it. Congressmen proposed bills. This is really, seriously nothing new.

 

[dmytryp]

If I were aound interested enough in politics at the time and see something like this, yes I would.
By the way, as far as I read, the levels of fawning over Obama that transcend logic are far greater than for Raegan. Though this is only the impression I get without actually witnessing Raegan's times in WH.

 

[SPMiller]

First, the Internet didn't exist back then. Of course you're going to feel inundated with Obamalove now that everyone and his dog can create a blog and post on forums.

Second, conservatives and Republicans and even some moderates still reminisce about Reagan to this day. It was a big deal in the last presidential race. That man's cult of personality was/is terrifying to me in much the same way this Obama business seems to be scaring conservatives.

And for the record, I believe you when you say you'd have spoken out against King Reagan. I just want to make it clear that this has all happened before, many times, and the fact that it appears to be happening again (except that the shoe's on the other foot) isn't necessarily reason to worry.

 

[robeiae]

I see Proposition One and Proposition Two, as expressed by you, as united at the hip. You’re the Emperor of Semantics here, robs. We all would like to see your elucidation of why this is somehow not so.

I've explained as clearly as I can, blacbird.

She can quit. Anyone can quit. You can think she's an ass for quitting. You can claim she let down the voters of the state.

But if you're gonna claim the latter, that leaving before one's term is up equates to failing the votership, then quite obviously the same must be true for others that voluntarily leave office. Or is there a provision--when you vote for a Governor ---that they can leave for another gig in DC without letting down the voters?

As to finding reasons why she would step down--sans a clear explanation from her--I think thinking persons can come up with some pretty easily, but that's really neither here nor there.

 

[Christine N.]

However, she can't quit without good reason and expect the people of this country to respect her, or to trust her with a higher office in the future. And if she's quit thinking she's made a good career move, well, that just proves the correctness of my opinion that her head is empty.

Excellent point.

 

[dmytryp]

There is a big difference -- Raegan actually completed two terms. In addition, I have no problem with people thinking Obama a good president or a good person or whatever. I am not talking about this. I am talking about comparing him to God, about children's books during campaign with Obama and godly motives, I am talking about the basically soft ball questions from the major media outlets and lack of any serious investigation and examination. But we are really straying from point here. Zoom repeated your assertion that you haven't heard any liberals calling to "make him a king". Granted, this is not exactly it. It is also mostly a gimmick, but the fact is that the authors of the site in question thought that this gimmick woul give them traction. In addition, if you recall a couple of sentiments from the media right after the elections (Bush should step down now -- or some paraphrase), this comes not very far behind (as obviuosly Joe's words were not meant to be literal also). I don't pretend to make this some kind of overwhelming sentiment, but it is there. I really don't have any numbers to make any kind of assertions of how widespread it is.

 

[robeiae]

Nope. I've posted three times about the difference between the governors of Kansas and Utah leaving to take positions in the Obama Administration and the governor of Alaska.

After a certain point it stops being a debate and becomes a tautological argument. We are at that point.

Probably true.

But the explanation I was asking for was specifically why "first term" mattered. You haven't explained that, yet.

 

[Christine N.]

See, quitting for another public position - is it REALLY letting down the voters if you're moving to serve them in another capacity? I mean, I think that's the biggest difference between just quitting and resigning to take a different public service job. Those that do are STILL serving the public, and therefore the voters, only in a different way. These people aren't just running away to the private sector when the going gets tough, they're still public servants.

SP just up and left, leaving her constituents with Parnell and no explanation. Sure, she's well within her rights to quit, but it just makes her look even more ridiculous than previously, and with a great big finger to the people of Alaska.

 

[robeiae]

See, quitting for another public position - is it REALLY letting down the voters if you're moving to serve them in another capacity? I mean, I think that's the biggest difference between just quitting and resigning to take a different public service job. Those that do are STILL serving the public, and therefore the voters, only in a different way. These people aren't just running away when the going gets tough.

But here's the thing, Christine: the voters didn't ASK others to leave, and "serving" them in theory in DC (or as an ambassador someplace) is not really comparable to directly serving them in the manner they chose. The move is a choice for the individual. They can rationalize it however they desire. And again, I think it's completely fair.

 

[BenPanced]

 

[robeiae]

You may have something there...

 

[Elaine Margarett]

It is pretty much ass-backwards, if this is what she is doing. Why? Most politicians want to have their cake and eat it too. So they run for higher office, while holding a lower one...that they don't relinquish, unless they win the higher one. And of course, they spend all their time campaigning for that higher office when THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED TO DO. Like McCain and Obama.

Palin--once again--approaches this stuff more honestly than the typical politician in either party.

Getting back to this earlier post...How do you see her actions as honest when she never gave a single *reason* for her resignation? I've read her statements, again and again, and they say nothing. Her mission statement at SarahPAC says nothing specfic other than requesting money for Sarah. How is this being honest?

Truly, I wish her well...especially since she can no longer be considered a serious contender for public office. I hope she makes lots of money. I hope her family is well and continues to prosper in whatever private venture they wish to pursue. But to overlook her serious intellectual flaws; to suggest that her rambling incoherant and deliberately vague statements give testimony to her honesty (come on she wouldn't even name a few magazines she's read) is simply wrong.

Hey, if I were on a basketball team, I'd give her a shot. PTA? I bet she was killer! Mayor of little Wasilla? Obviously she nailed that one too. Governor? Apparently she did pretty well the first year or so. Too bad she cut and ran before getting down to the nitty-gritty and doing the real job.

Now, it's all kind of moot. Palin as a serious politician capable of national office has at last been put to rest. But I did hear she's putting out some posters for her fanboys. She'll do for middle-aged men what Farah Fawcett did for all those teenage boys in the seventies.

Sweet dreams~ <g>

 

[rugcat]

But if you're gonna claim the latter, that leaving before one's term is up equates to failing the votership, then quite obviously the same must be true for others that voluntarily leave office.

Sorry Rob, but it's not obvious at all. In fact, one could just as easily say it's obvious there's a huge difference.

Once again, despite your protests, you are focusing on the action of leaving as the crux of the matter, and dismissing the reasons and circumstances as irrelevant.

This discussion has nowhere to go.

 

[LaceWing]

One could push the question to an extreme as a thought experiment. Here are two examples.

(1) What if Obama or Medvedev or whoever left office for the U.N.?

(2) What if no elected representative were allowed to leave office voluntarily without some panel approving (for health reasons, etc.)