August 17, 2007

IS TWO PARTIES ONE TOO MANY?:

Misreading the Oval Office Job Description (Patrick O'Hannigan, 8/16/2007, American Spactator)

[W]here is it written that the U.S. president must be a uniter, rather than a divider?

Did Abe Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and sundry other chief executives not get that memo? Would anyone care to hear what Jefferson Davis thought his job description was?

If unifying the country to one degree or another is a presidential duty, then why has the U.S. Supreme Court been brazenly trying to usurp that duty since approximately 1973?

Is unity the most important benchmark against which prospective policy should be measured? If so, does foreign policy get an exception?

Does unified mediocrity contribute more to domestic tranquility than fractious brilliance? [...]

RONALD REAGAN, ARGUABLY the greatest president of my lifetime, put a higher premium on integrity, freedom, and vision than he did on unity, which is why he was able to talk tough with Gorbachev, fire striking air traffic controllers, and kill the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" before it strangled conservative radio in a fibrous embrace right out of Little Shop of Horrors.


The level of conformity in America is already such that a Hillary is nearly indistinguishable from a Giuliani. Do we really need to buff off even the minor differences?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 17, 2007 1:39 PM
Comments

This discussion is a spin-off from the folk-enemy, culture-traitor use of the word, "devisive" as a code-word for "Christian."

The last seven years have seen the witches and queers making the point that they will not allow a Christian to govern, and that never again shall a major party dare to nominate such a "devisive" candidate.

Here we see Effendi Obama hijacking the code-word to twist it against Clinton, but the primary meaning persists.

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 17, 2007 8:20 PM
« IN FAIRNESS, HIS LIPS WERE MOVING: | Main | MONEY DE PIEDRAS: »