The rise of Ron Paul in the Republican primary season has raised questions about what Americans expect from the executive office. The accepted interpretation of presidential powers and executive effectiveness centers on the “use” of the office. “Active” executives, such as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, are usually considered “great,” while those who did “little” in office round out the list. For example, a 2010 Siena Research Institute survey included both Roosevelts and Lincoln in the top five while Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower and Harry Truman were in the top ten. The bottom dwellers included Andrew Johnson, John Tyler, James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce. Grover Cleveland and Martin Van Buren were also in the bottom half.Author Brion McClanahan, author of The Founding Fathers Guide To The Constitution (yep, that wingnut alarm in the back of my head just went off) then uses this as an excuse to defend former Presidents John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren, James Monroe, and (perhaps most egregiously) James Buchanan (presumably for low taxes, low tariffs, and lower spending than other chief executives – McClanahan does defend his selections of course, as he should).
When considering John Tyler, our 10th president, I think we should also look at the following (from here)…
He sided with the Confederate government, and won election to the Confederate House of Representatives shortly before his death (and Texas was annexed under his administration - maybe better left with Mexico? :-).And what of Grover Cleveland? Well, from here…
He vetoed hundreds of private pension bills for American Civil War veterans, believing that if their pensions requests had already been rejected by the Pensions Bureau, Congress should not attempt to override that decision. When Congress, pressured by the Grand Army of the Republic, passed a bill granting pensions for disabilities not caused by military service, Cleveland also vetoed that.Oh, and there was that fathering-a-child-out-of-wedlock business, but that happened before he was elected to the White House (God knows what Fix Noise and their pals would do with that now, though).
I think we should also consider the following about Martin Van Buren (who came after Andrew Jackson)…
He oversaw the "Trail of Tears", which involved the expulsion of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw and Seminole from Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina to the Oklahoma territory. To help secure Florida, Van Buren also pursued the Second Seminole War, which had begun while Jackson was in office. The war, which would prove the costliest of the Indian Wars, was highly unpopular in the free states, where it was seen as an attempt to expand slave territory. Fighting was not resolved until 1842, after Van Buren had left office.The one selection where I don’t have much of a bone to pick, as it were, with McClanahan concerns James Monroe. However, the following should be noted from here…
As Secretary of State, Monroe dismissed Mordecai Manuel Noah from his post as consul to Tunis in 1815, for the apparent reason that he was Jewish. Noah protested and gained letters from Adams, Jefferson, and Madison supporting church-state separation and tolerance for Jews.He also brought slaves with him to the White House, but that apparently was a common practice back then (repugnant still, though, I realize).
Monroe also said the following (to his credit)…
"It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising their sovereignty. Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin."And finally, this brings us to James Buchanan, the only president who came from our beloved commonwealth. As noted here…
Knowing that secessionist fervor was strongest in South Carolina, Buchanan made a quiet pact with South Carolina's legislators that he would not reinforce the Charleston garrison in exchange for no interference from the state.[53] However, Buchanan did not inform the Charleston commander, Major Robert Anderson, of the agreement, and on December 26 Anderson violated it by moving his command to Fort Sumter. Southerners responded with a demand that Buchanan remove Anderson, while northerners demanded support for the commander. On December 31, in an apparent panic and without consulting Anderson, Buchanan ordered reinforcements.I think that Buchanan’s predecessor Franklin Pierce had at least as much to do with the runup to the Civil War as Buchanan did, though, truth be told, you could argue that no one could have prevented it (kind of the way that Calvin Coolidge was at least as much at fault for the Depression as Herbert Hoover because of his inaction…I realize, though, that all of this is conjecture in the end).
This probably would be a more appropriate topic for President’s Day next month, but I guess now is as good a time as any to comment on this subject too.
With his new defense strategy President Obama has charted another step on his road map for American decline. His inconsistent, lead-from-behind mentality has diminished our standing in the world. As our exit from Iraq last month demonstrated, the commander in chief is more concerned with political appearances than with well-thought-out strategy.Hmmm, John Fleming, John Fleming – why does that name sound familiar?
The men and women of the United States military do an extraordinary job of executing their orders. They have been stretched throughout the past decade, but their service has paved the way for freedom in Iraq, while keeping terrorists from using their familiar haunts in Afghanistan to plan and carry out attacks on innocent Americans.
Oh yeah, it’s because he’s one of these supposedly oppressed millionaires in the House whose $6.3 million swag is apparently only worth $400 grand, and he was all “woe is me” about it here (cry me a river, dirtbag).
Oh, and by the way, as noted here, the exit of our troops from Iraq had nothing to do with President Obama. It was negotiated in the Status of Forces Agreement under Dubya (and before you start blaming Obama for not enough troops in Afghanistan, take a look at this to see how President Hopey Changey has sent more of our people over to The Land Where Empires Go To Die after years of us shortchanging the war effort under Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History).
Criticizing Murphy for opting out of the only bar exam that tests students’ knowledge of Pennsylvania law, a spokesman for (Philadelphia prosecutor Dan McCaffery, another candidate) asserted, “Not taking the Pennsylvania bar exam automatically disqualifies (Murphy) for attorney general. It’s a fatal flaw.”Uh, yep – and as noted here…
Maybe it will be for voters; we’ll see. But we don’t think it should be.
We further think the spokesman’s comments are a cheap shot because requirements for the job of attorney general do not include trial experience. In fact, the only professional qualification that the Pennsylvania Constitution mandates for attorney general is to be a member of the state bar.
Murphy's also taken some hits recently because he never sat for the Pennsylvania bar exam, but rather became licensed to practice in the state through a very common process known as "reciprocity," which involves passing another state's exam and then gaining sufficient legal experience. Speaking as a lawyer, this kind of criticism is manifestly stupid—if Pennsylvania thought it necessary for all lawyers practicing there to take the PA bar, they'd make that a requirement. But they don't, and it's not. That said, things play differently on the campaign trail than they do at bar committee meetings, and McCaffery has been making a big deal of this story.To help out Patrick Murphy, click here (and as mentioned in the Daily Kos post, good luck to Dem Kathy Boockvar, who has lined up to challenge Mikey the Beloved for Murphy’s old seat…click here to help).
No comments:
Post a Comment