For at least six years, the liberal and MSM narrative on executive power has been fixed -- President Bush sought too much of it and, because the courts consistently rejected his claims, Bush's power grab ultimately proved destructive of presidential power.
Later:
But with the ascension of Barack Obama, the narrative has shifted dramatically. The shift is evident in this front-page Washington Post story by Barton Gellman. Gellman has been a critic of the Bush-Cheney approach to executive power, and the quotes from Bellinger and Goldsmith cited above both appear in today's story. However, they now receive a gloss. Both Bellinger and Goldsmith, Gellman tells us, believe that in disputes about presidential power "the president usually emerged the victor in practice." And leftist law professor Geoffrey Stone believes basically the same thing. He informed Gellman that "the limits that have placed [on presidential power] have not come close to the powers that have been concentrated."
Isn't it funny how fast a tune can change? Take for example the MSM's gushing, fawning over Obama, and their persistent calls to "unify!" "Be a citizen of the United States, not a Democrat or Republican." Funny how that was missing for the last 8 years. It's like a we moved to another planet with sand dunes and big worms and "the sleeper has awakened!" Case in point, Mitch Albom's show yesterday evening:
Driving home from classes yesterday, I was listening to "The Mitch Albom" show (760AM in Detroit). I had lots to say about Mitch, his columns, and his show yesterday morning. As is probably obvious to everyone, there was only one topic of interest (the inauguration) with tangential conversations here and there. A few things that Mitch said struck me about as well as fingernails running along a chalkboard. But let's start out with the congenial:
Mitch called for unity on this day. (and that was about it for congenial) He blasted Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for not "coming together" on this day. Because Rush and Sean apparently didn't agree with any Obama policy on inauguration day, Mitch excoriated both for being "merchants of hate." (Disclaimer: I'm paraphrasing here as I cannot find an official transcript of the show online) Mitch claimed that Rush and Sean were "just following the money" by "spewing their hate." He accused Sean of switching from being a liberal to being a conservative just so he can make more money. I could hold back no longer. The words left my mouth (I was alone in my car): "Mitch you ignorant liberal!" (Think SNL with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin: "Jane you ignorant slut!") At that point in his program, who was spewing hate? I didn't listen to Rush or Sean that day (I had to teach after all), but whenever I do, I do not hear them "spewing hate." I hear policy disagreements. In any case, since Mitch railed against conservatives for not uniting with the Omamamaniacs (legions of glazed-eye people walking around aimlessly chanting oh-ba-ma, oh-ba-ma) and therefore showing disrespect on this inauguration day.
Let me show you an example of disrespect:
I know what you're saying, "Where is the respect? Where is the unity here?" How incredibly disrespectful was it to chant "nananana, nananana, hey, heyyy, good bye"??? Well, in liberal la-la land, unity means you have to do what THEY want (unify with ME!). If they have to unify with US, then, all of a sudden, dissent becomes the highest form of patriotism (as I touched on yesterday).
Further, Mitch stated that he thought that on this day, that the radio station (760 AM) should have only run live inauguration events on inauguration day. No Rush commentary. No Sean commentary. (760 AM also broadcasts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity before Mitch) This must be Mitch's idea of the fairness doctrine as he thought Rush and Sean ought to be silenced on this day while he got to do HIS commentary. Of course, since HE wasn't showing any disrespect (I disagree because of the above), it's OK. Good grief!
To top it all off, there was a "prayer" (if you can call it that) by Rev. Lowry which Mitch broadcast on his show. All I heard was "and when white will embrace what is right." What the...!!!! What WAS THAT! And Mitch and his sidekick thought it was funny and cute! Mitch said that Lowry was in the middle of the civil rights struggle, so "he should know best." (I'm paraphrasing again) Excuse me, but isn't this the example of "spewing hate" that Mitch accused others of? Is there a better example of having liberal blinders on? How can Mitch simply not see this as anything but offensive? I was shocked that it was said! Is this unity? Hope? Change? Here's the video: Rick Warren's prayer, by the way, can be heard in full here. Note the lack of racist demagoguery in the latter that was clear in the former. One note on Rick Warren - I was pleased that he invoked the name of Jesus in the prayer. These days, with Christianity under unprecedented attack from liberals and their allies, it seems like public prayers use the generic 'God' rather than invoking the name of Jesus, unlike Muslim prayers that have no problem invoking "Allah."
For my part, I will continue to pray for Obama. My church as a body will continue to pray for him. We are commanded to do so. I will pray that he becomes a wise leader. That God bestows upon him great wisdom to make correct decisions. What I will not pray for is that somehow I unify with the policies that Obama espoused in the run up to the election. Abortion on demand. Card check and union thuggery. Losing the war on terror. Taking the assets of some to be distributed to others. Grow government which necessarily takes away some freedom and liberty from all. These things are anathema to Biblical principles. If that makes me a "spewer of hate" in Mitch's world, so be it.
"Today is a great day...to be a liberal, to be a Democrat, and to be naive. Barack Obama is one of the least accomplished men, perhaps even the least accomplished man ever to become President of the United States. He did nothing of note as a community organizer, nothing of note in the Illinois State Senate, nothing of note in the Senate, and despite that, his next stop is the White House.
Given the adulation the media has heaped upon Obama and the "I'm everything to everybody" campaign that he ran, you'd have to expect him to be popular. But, the American people have been gripped by an almost irrational exuberance about Obama's presidency. It has been so over-the-top that it's reminiscent of the post-WW1 phase of history where people actually believed the hype about having just fought the war to end all wars.
Today, instead of understanding that we have an untested President taking over the controls of a lumbering, inefficient, unreasoning beast governed by its unquenchable appetite for power and taxpayer money, you'd think that Superman had just flown own from Krypton to save us all."
Read the whole thing. But John is absolutely correct.
"The price tag for President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records, with some estimates reaching as high as $150 million. Despite the bleak economy, however, Democrats who called on President George W. Bush to be frugal four years ago are issuing no such demands now that an inaugural weekend of rock concerts and star-studded parties has begun."
$150 million??? GWB's inaugural 4 years ago cost $40 million. And the complaints were relentless. More:
"In 2005, Reps. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and Jim McDermott, D-Wash., asked Bush to show a little less pomp and be a little more circumspect at his party.
"President Roosevelt held his 1945 inaugural at the White House, making a short speech and serving guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake," the two lawmakers wrote in a letter. "During World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural, saying that such festivities would be undignified."
The thinking was that, with the nation at war, excessive celebration was inappropriate. Four years later, the nation is still at war. Unemployment has risen sharply. And Obama pressed Congress to release the second half of a $700 billion bailout package in hopes of rescuing a faltering banking industry."
If you keep reading the article, it veers off topic (veers left if you will). The article goes on to mention television spots, celebrities (yawn), etc. Totally goes off the tracks and into the bushes (that would be shrubs - not W's family). And never gets out. I think this is Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) at it's best. It's the flip side of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) where Buch could do no right. Except with ODS, The One can do no wrong. The result is that anyone writing anything negative invariably turns on their internal orb of confusion. See what I mean here:
All opinions in this personal blog are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer, companies that I consult for, family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances or my pets.
Email me at theblogprof "at" gmail "dot" com
