Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Obama's State of the Union Address (Part 9)

Today we are taking a small sliver of time to address some more minutia from the right. A questions was posted as to why George W. Bush is referred to as King George the Usurper. He was questioning if the honorific title comes from the 2000 election. In being a honest observer, it may be worth a moment to pause and look at what is often ignore in the case of Bush v. Gore.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. -- Constitution of the United States, Amendment 12
While Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) does nullified Amendment 12 to the Constitution of the United States just a tad, it is not from this dubious case, still argued by scholars, that the title is derived. The honorific was bestowed on the President George W. Bush for his propensity to sign executive order rather than take issues before his own congress. It is a literary tool which is used to make the distinction between George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush within the dynastic time line.

President Obama: With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Herein lays the crux of why the decision to allow corporate free spending is problematic. In this day and time when we are dealing with corporate interest, that does not automatically translate to American interest. In the 1995 the Republicans rightly decried a half million dollar gift from the Chinese via Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (see link to left) to the DNC. Now they want the same type of funding to be free and above board so these multinational firms can influence national concerns and U.S. politics. We pretty much can conclude that Bill Clinton sold us out to the Chinese, same holds true for George W. Bush. In Bush's case he literally sold us, in the form of treasury bills, to the Chinese (23.35% of the U.S. debt). The Chinese hold a massive part of our debt and therefor own a massive chunk of us. The question is then whose side are the rank-and-file Republicans on? The pattern pretty much has been set.

Still as Heinlein penned, "Don't ever become a pessimist.... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events." There is much to be said in that statement. There is no point in being angry over what you have no control over.

More to Come

1 comment:

  1. So many places I could start but, in a derivative of a line from the movie Armaggedon, I belive I shall start with, admittedly, sarcastic humor in referece to the "reason" for the honoric. Said comment being: Okay, so they just made it up, that's all you had to say. They made it up."

    Unfortunately, this blog tool doesn't appear to allow copy/paste so I'll not reproduce all of my research but here's the gist of what I found from data in the Register regarding Executive Orders. Basically, I took the recorded number of EOs and divided by the number of years each president served. I actually used 1.1 as the number for the current administration. I am presenting the number of EO's per year rounded to the nearest decimal.

    So, in a nutshell, we have:
    Obama - 38.2
    Bush 43 - 35.5
    Clinton - 45.5
    Bush 41 - 41.5
    Reagan - 47.6
    Carter - 80
    Ford - 42.3
    Nixon - 57.7

    So, who are the clear winners since they began recording the EO count with Hoover? That would be
    FDR - 466.0
    Hoover - 252.8
    Truman - 112.0
    Carter - 80.0
    and rounding out our top 5
    JFK - 71.3

    Now, there are a couple of presidents left out but you can either look it up or ask me if you want the numbers but...guess who is dead last in the number of EO's issued per year in office. Can we have a drum roll please..............
    That would be George W. Bush aka Bush 43 or possibly even Bush Jr or even Junior or Dubya. But, unless there was criteria in there that I missed...perhaps the subtlety of "propensity to sign Executive Order *rather* than..." ???? then I fail to see the logic. Was it the "nature" of the orders that were signed rather than the number? Now I'm not a huge W supporter/defender, but I do believe that keeping the record as straight as possible is only fair.

    Oh, and in case anyone is does this break down by party for the top 5?
    R (RINO, Rep Lite, Dem Lite...take your choice)

    So, perhaps the moniker/honorific was bestowed, not so much based on actual fact, but rather more on personal feelings....just a thought.