Consider this post a language-syntax refresher for conservatives.
President Obama today…
"Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can, transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
Sentences like these are going to be extremely difficult for some conservatives to comprehend. I'm relatively sure that words like…"information will not be withheld just because I say so",…will sound like some foreign language jibberish to certain folks of the minority persuasion. For you see….to conservatives, presidents who don't withhold information aren't really presidents.
Conservatives don't fully recognize the Carter and Clinton presidencies. Never have. To conservatives, presidents are only presidents if they're Republican….and with W., that didn't even hold up. Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes would never in a million years say words like…"information will not be withheld just because we say so." Of course information will be withheld…..what the hell sense is it being president if you can't withhold information and keep lots of secrets? That's why we had Watergate, Iran-Contra and the soon-to-be investigation into the Crawford Cowpoke Gang. All of these GOP presidents withheld information, much of it implicating them in crimes, and did so on just their royal say so.
A word to conservatives here. We'll be patient as you get used to new, foreign-sounding-at-first, phraseology from President Obama.
Here's another….."separate authority". Say it with me…first word, sep-ar-ate….second word, au-thor-i-ty. Not so hard, really. I know, I know….believe me when I say that I know many conservatives whose eyes will glaze over at those two words when used by the president of the United States. Conservatives baptized in the deep waters of 'unitary executive' pools will most likely experience a sort of knee jerk reaction to a president using the words, "separate authority." The reaction will manifest itself in responses like this ….."There is no separate authority to the president. What's he talking about? Our nation is eternally at war and that means that there is no "separate authority"….there is no other authority but the president."
I'm here to help my conservative brethren. See….actually, there is no such thing as a "unitary executive" privilege elevating one man or woman above any and all "other" authorities. Calm down. I realize the word "other" is a more mature word, especially when used in conjunction with the word "authorities"…..but it shouldn't frighten you. It's okay. The Islamofascists won't get you in your bed if you acknowledge that there are, indeed, "other authorities" outside of the presidency.
Also difficult to comprehend will be, "well grounded in the Constitution." The difficulty is understandable in light of George W. Bush's regard for what he so patriotically called, "a goddamn piece of paper." Conservatives, at first shocked to hear about the Constitution, should not seek outside help for the ringing dissonance they encounter when hearing the words "well grounded" or "in the Constitution." Though it will take time, I believe the most drunken conservative kool-aid drinkers out there will, eventually, find that those words are all good.
I saved the most challenging for last. "Rule of law." Repeat it with me, "rule of law." Not so hard if you go slowly. This phrase by the new president will be the most difficult for conservatives, and even some of the zillions of centrists that David Broder keeps telling us are out there, to commit to memory and full understanding.
The president is, in reality, the chief law enforcement officer of the country. He isn't, as many folks have gotten used to, the law MAKER. Hyper down….I know this stuff is frustrating. The Congress MAKES the laws…..the president enforces those laws….and the Supreme Court reviews those laws comparing them to W's "goddam piece of paer", I mean, the Constitution. It's called….brace yourself for this…..separate yet equal powers. Also, most likely, a foreign sounding phrase to those who know for sure that Islamofascists are hiding everywhere in America, as well as counterintuitive to those who insist "everything has changed" since 9-11. In actuality, and please take this in the right way,…..nothing changed.
I think that will be enough for today. Brain drain, and that's what's required now, literally, is very exhausting. But don't forget to commit the new words and phrases to memory. "separate authority", "well grounded in the Constitution", "rule of law." We'll be using those words a lot over the next 8 years.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I'd prefer something simpler, along the lines of : "Information will not be withheld."
Jeb Bush 2012.
"information will not be withheld just because we say so" – Barack Obama.
You mean like Obama's birth certificate, Michelle Obama's college thesis, stuff like that ?
There's gullible, and then there's denial. Take your pick.
Or how about his relationship with Rev Wright and his association with racist groups. Or his associations with domestic terrorists or his buddies in the financial services industry that brought down our country. Or his associations with socialist endorsers like George Soros and what does he really owe this man for giving him the money to get elected? How about his voting record of lack of one. Do we know him?Or how about Nancy Pelosi's business associations with T Boone Pickens, that he apparently agrees with, he owes him some big "thanks for the money" favors.
Are you saying Bill Clinton was white as snow? His term was the second most corrupt in the past 35 years and I don't just mean getting a B* in the oval office. His was surrounded with many "gates" and even a couple of murders, that were ruled suicides. I will give you the statement about Carter but he was the most ineffective president we had in my lifetime.
He can say what he want's Rev. Do you really think everything will be revealed to the people? He can act like that and gain the peoples trust but listen to his language closely. Listen to how he is selling and hypnotizing his followers. It reminds me of the Godfather and his lawyer. And the snake oil salesmen of the old west.
Before we put him on a pedistal let's give him a chance to get caught. Even you told me that you won't believe him or any other governors. He already has many secrets and things he won't come clean on. He isn't Jesus even though the left treats him like it.
Also don't get me wrong I pray that he does well and that we are able to get a Rep congressional majority in the next election. Also I would feel the same if McCain were elected.
I meant politicians not governors
Obama won and closed the book on the Bush chapter with his inaguration speech. Bush is gone. Move on, Rev.
Rev, I'm glad I was able to read your blog because without doing so, I, as a conservative, would have no clue what I believed! You are the only person I've seen who was able to actually explain that to me!
All jokes aside, I have never "not fully recognized" the Carter or Clinton presidencies. None of my conservative friends have ever "not fully recognized" the Carter or Clinton presidencies. Many may think they were not very effective presidencies (at least in a positive way), but none have ever "not fully recognized" them.
Thinking a little deeper on the entire point to this blog entry, I tried to consider what kind of people in this country really do NOT fully recognize presidencies. The first type of people that come to mind are the millions of liberals who, for the past eight years, claimed Bush "stole" the election. They did so by protests on college campuses and random street corners, bumper stickers on Volkswagens and other small, beat-up go-carts, err, cars, unwashed t-shirts, hand-made signs, and the like.
In 2000 we heard how, despite the fact that the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College for a reason, Bush did not really win the election because he did not win the popular vote.
In 2004 we heard how Bush was GOING to steal the election. And, despite widespread voter fraud from liberal groups like ACORN, we were told that Bush DID steal the election. So again, even with the largest win by popular vote count in presidential history, we were told that Bush was not REALLY the president.
I guess my point is this: the next time you decide to write a blog about what conservatives believe, 1/ Make sure they actually believe what you CLAIM they do, and 2/ Make sure that YOUR political affiliation is not the ACTUAL guilty party of the crime you spend the blog complaining about.
Touched a couple nerves, I see. That's good.
Lawn Jockey: Jeb Clampett maybe, but not Jeb Bush.
King: I never took you for a denier of Obama's citizenship. Who knew?
average: Got a lot of misinformation in your comment, but setting that aside for a second……Obama said he would close Gitmo, get us out of Iraq, and stop the torture…..already, he has taken actions, not just words, to fulfill those promises. Not bad for 48 hours.
dd20: You're right, and I will. At the same time, there are many wrongs that must be righted. When Obama rights them, I'll be pointing out why they needed corrected and who introduced the wrong in the first place.
cloverfield: Very thoughtful comment. Of course, I overstated the case. Not all of any group thinks the same thing.
I suggest to you that 30% of the nation's voters support Rush Limbaugh's wish that Obama fails. That is a real time delegitimizing of another Democratic president, this time, before he even gets started.
I don't know what you would call the impeachment of a Democratic president for fibbing about consensual sex in a civil suit later thrown out. If that's not delegitimizing just for the sake of it…..and all Republican leaders thought Clinton's tenure was not legitimate. Ross Perot, according to the GOP, stole Poppy's second term and gave it to Willie. For 8 full years the GOP stalked Clinton…..didn't come up with anything. I fail to see how that isn't an entire political party refusing to recognize a president.
On the 2000 election….it is incorrect to say that Bush stole the election. It is correct, however, to say that the Supreme Court appointed Bush to office in a decision that should have never been made. The Justices felt so guilty for doing what they did…..they stated that the ruling was a one-off and shouldn't be referred to as precedent.
On the 2004 election, you have it all mixed up. Sorry. There was no evidence of voter fraud, whatsoever. But there were numerous questionable situations in Ohio….losing votes, miscalculating votes, denying voters with long lines,….and what was that again that Blackwell was up to? In addition, Bush won in 2004 because of the wingnut turnout for 17 gay bashing state initiatives. He and Karl were so proud of themselves for successfully getting their hate on.
Finally, from the beginning of the Bush administration, the biggest change from Clinton was the wanton lawlessness. Clinton is not my favorite….but Bush-Cheney were lawless from beginning to end. Obama's strong comment about returning to the rule of law and the Constitution was soothing to my ears.
I for one would much rather have a 'constitutional freedoms' type in there than a 'constitutional rule of law' type, Reverend.
Point. Maybe you can share why that would be your preference.
It's obvious. A man on top who sees the constitution as a tool to control behavior is fairly creepy. The constitution is a tool meant to do the exact opposite–safeguard our freedoms.
Rev,
I didn't deny Obama's citizenship, Mr. Spin. I just disproved Obama's claim that "information will not be withheld because we say so." His birth certificate is being held precisely because he says so, as was Mrs. Obama's college thesis (sealed until after the election). You didn't think your blog post through. Maybe you are familiar with these words: "He [Ayers] was just a guy I knew from the neighborhood." Any information being withheld there ???
About Gitmo, closing it doesn't answer anything, because Obama didn't say what he was going to do with the prisoners. Until that question is answered, it's just a a political move for show.
About hoping Obama fails – I can't even believe you raised this issue. What a short memory you must have. Liberals spent 8 years attempting to undermine Bush at every turn. And I suppose it never occurs to you that almost everything liberals accuse Bush of, Clinton did too. That would include rendition, tracking communications without warrants, and firing US attorneys. Clinton even went to war without Congressional approval (Bosnia). Bush got permission both times. In addition to the "sex stuff" (the issue was actually perjury, btw, not sex (which was actually the sexual ABUSE of Paula Jones, to whom Slick Willie paid $800,000), Clinton also had the FBI files of 900 political enemies at the White House (Filegate). That episode was roughly equivalent to a little scandal you might remember from the 70's, called Watergate. Then there was Travelgate, Whitewater, and all those other -gates.
I don't think you want to raise the specter of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" regarding Clinton. He was given more passes for bad behavior than any president in memory.
About the 2000 election – you forgot to mention that all counts, recounts, and a later independent recount showed that Bush won Florida. Must have slipped your mind. The Supreme Court made the correct and only decision it could make.
Great point, larry.
No….it's not. larry is trying to bifurcate (like that one?) the Constitution.
There is no distinction between the Constitutional rule of law and Constitutional freedoms….they are one and the same. Think about it.
The LAWS guarantee our FREEDOMS.
And King: there are just too many errors in your last comment for me to address. We've been down this road before.
I would recommend you do a post validating this…..
"That would include rendition, tracking communications without warrants, and firing US attorneys."
You have some apples mixed in with your oranges. I understand the cul-de-sac attempts to find equivalency…..but go ahead and show your work, proving what you said is true…..and then we'll have a real good discussion.