Sunday, November 25, 2012

Jesus, the arrogance. . .

When people tried to explain away Mitt Romney's "47 percent" comment, I--and you--knew the explanations rang hollow.  And the fucker went and proved that the attitude he [and his folks] carried around, and could not escape was:

 exactly what we thought it was: Mitt and his Mittmen think that about half the country is freeloading, accepting handouts and buyouts, and was for sale and got bought.


I always thought that President We-Can't-Wait, current White house inhabitant, was burdened with his own screwed-up philosophy.  A Nixonian sense that the rules, and checks-and-balances, were good to control the less noble, less enlightened mortals, but were an impediment to his vision, and his beneficence, and and his ambition.

We can't wait
to win the political battle -- you know, persuade enough people (whether by reasoned argument or old-time arm-wringing) to confirm a CFPB head
so we'll make a recess appointment when the Senate isn't in recess.  You know, because the enlightened can dictate when the appointment is necessary, even if the Senate went into pro forma sessions because there weren't the votes for adjournment.  And the enlightened can somehow build legitimacy, even if they start their CFPB with handicaps borne of their inability to get the votes.

We can't wait
again, to win the political battle and get the votes
so we'll turn on a dime and use executive orders and administrative edicts to enact provisions of the Dream Act that we acknowledged and announced (less than a year before) was beyond the White House's authority.
You know, because the enlightened know that the immigration policy changes were a good thing [ed. note -- they were and are], and who cares if the policies remain a divisive issue that hasn't been settled through nasty, ugly, impure, tainted politics.

We can't wait
again, to win the political battle --  hearts and minds --
so we'll begin military action against the Libyan government even though as a Constitutional Law professor, and later as freshman senator, I explained unequivocally that the President lacked authority to use military force with Congressional authorization unless there was imminent threat to U.S. security.
And then they claim that we weren't engaged in "hostilities."  Holy Smokes!

My problems weren't particularly with the policies, but with the decision to rend decades of uneasy adherance to stated--and unstated-- limits.  Bush's firing of U.S. Attorneys was tradition-busting kid's play next to his successor's.

Well the people populating the White House now are arrogant fucks who think that they're enlightened and smart enough to create a Kill List and rain death on thousands of people (including U.S. citizens) without any constraints, but the possibility that unwashed, impure "others" might exercise the same wanton, unrestrained, absolute power kicked them into high gear.  They were enlightened, but it was important that there be rules to constrain others.

Now that the election is over, and there's no longer a lesser of two evils argument for defending this shit -- this arrogant dictatorial attitude -- I hope that good people of all parties and all political views will call these fuckers on it.

I was happy for a couple'a weeks that the election was over.  Facebook friends and acquaintances went back to weird, funny posts, or song reviews, or kitty pictures, instead of ramming countless articles on how great their guy was, and how evil the other guy was, down everyone's throats.  Co-workers talked about sports or family instead of ranting.

But that respite now makes me uncomfortable.  Because we don't have an administration that ruthlessly wields its political power (from mandates or just the power of the position itself) to implement its ideas, but sidesteps that by just . . . dictating them.  And to learn that they thought some constraints would be good only when they became concerned that others would dictate is sickening.

You go, Milhouse!

PS     and if you don't thin

Update   They got to me

Update Number 2: the developing press reports begin with the conceit that they were doing successors a favor by implementing some defined rules.  The quotes then establish that there was a fear that udefied "levers of power" might be in the hands of unsuitable [read: not their] hands 

No comments: