Bush Calls Out "Purveyors of False Populism," M.O.W. Thinks "Oh, the Irony!"

Like many of you, we watched President Bush give his last State of the Union last night. We found it amusing that Mr. Bush seems to think that everything is going just great, mostly, and if only Congress will pass his magic bullet stimulus package without delay and if they will only stop putting earmarks on all of the really awesome bills that he wants passed, then everything would be just perfect.

M.O.W. would like to be clear that she has hated, continues to hate, and will forever hate George W. Bush--both the man and the presidency. She can't even look at his smirking little face without getting very, very angry. Indeed, we believe that he is a criminal who belongs in jail. Our hatred is almost enough to make us say something unpleasant.

We have many reasons for opposing Mr. Bush, but our top five are:

1. Complicity in stealing the 2000 election.

2. Getting America into a holy war for oil.

3. Consolidating power in the Executive Branch and perverting the Constitution for his own gain.

4. Failure to recognize and solve the problems with the war, the economy, health care, the environment, etc.

5. His false populism.

Our dear friend Stirling Newberry has an excellent post along these lines over at the Agonist today, and we would not like to repeat what has already been said so well by him, but we would like to focus a little on our number 5--Bush's false populism--especially as it was evident in last night's SOTUS.

Last night President Bush offered a rousing justification for the actions of government:

"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures."

Yes! How could we not say yes! to this Mr. Bush? Indeed, Americans are nominally empowered to make wise decisions and improve the future, but we say, what are you doing to empower the people to make decisions and improve the future? You know very well that you have not, you are not, and that you shall not empower the people in anyway. In fact, you know that you have run a presidency designed to empower you at the expense of the people. In fact, your championing the power of the people here is merely "eulogistic covering"--as Kenneth Burke would have called it--for you to hide behind in order to advocate for your own agenda, which has very little to do with empowering the people to improve the future and has much to do with you handing out gifts and graff for your preferred constituencies: churches, corporations, and rich folks.

You do not care about empowering the people Mr. Bush, admit it.

Yet, the front half of your speech and your conclusion were riddled with such talk of trusting and empowering the people. Indeed, you only did not "trust the people" when you spoke of Social Security, Immigration, and your War on Terror. Each instance when you did "trust the people," you used your supposed trust of the people to advocate for your pet projects, which benefit not the people, but churches, corporations, and rich folks.

For, example:

"We must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy."

"On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market."

"We must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options."

"On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance, and empower parents to demand results from our schools."

"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas."

"We must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology."

"We must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow."

"We must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries."

"We must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says."

"We must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need."

"The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Gouverneur Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."

"By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong."

In each of these instances Mr. Bush you have used our desire for democracy and control of the government and our lives against us. You promise us the power that you do not intend to deliver.

We find your talk of trusting the people hypocrisy, Mr. Bush.

M.O.W. would like to share with our fellow Founder-stalkers what we feel a real president who wants to empower the people sounds like.

Watch this darlings:

We are pleased to announce that M.O.W. officially endorses Illinois Senator Barack Obama for President. We are convinced by his message of hope and common sense and we expect great things from him. We believe--and we hope that we are correct--that Mr. Obama is not a hypocrite like Mr. Bush and that he truly does desire to empower the people to control the government.

Election 2008: Madeleine K. Albright Lays it Down

Dear Founder Stalkers,

We quite found former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright's January 13, 2008 Boston Globe piece to be very thoughtful and thought-provoking. We wonder, if we were to use Secretary Albright's 10 points as the criteria by which we should judge who should be the next president, then who would come out on top?

Clinton, Obama, Edwards or someone else? Please discuss.

more at twiigs.com...

Executive Power, Part II: The 2008 Presidential Election Edition

We are very concerned about the 2008 Presidential election, especially because of what the last Administration has done to pervert the balance of power between the branches (see our post on Cheney's Law below). M.O.W. knows that there are serious problems facing the nation; indeed, how could she forget with CNN reminding us that the "planet is in peril" at every opportunity. Yes, we must choose our next president based upon how well we believe that she or he can solve problems, for America--and the world--faces more problems today than perhaps it ever has before in its history. Let's face it, loyal founder-stalkers, we are beset on all sides with impending disaster: the economy, health care, Social Security, education, the environment, race relations, the un-ending War on Terror, and more each demand real solutions in the next eight years. We have real problems that need solved, and how.

The temptation, therefore, is to promote someone to the office of the presidency who is a known problem-solver. Yet, M.O.W. believes that we must be very careful about who we chose, for a balance must be struck between choosing a president who is energetic and one who will abuse their power and further consolidate power in the Executive Branch. We know that there are many, many problems facing the nation and that Americans may be tempted to vote based solely on who has a workable plan to fix Social Security or the environment or end the War on Terror, for example. But, M.O.W. strongly believes that the presidency itself is in as precarious a position as the environment or the economy and she would urge her fellow Americans to consider how their candidate would handle power once it was theirs.

We are not alone in our worry. Rachel Morris over at Washington Monthly has an excellent article about the possibility of a Rudy Giuliani presidency and what his track record as NYC Mayor portends for his use of Executive power. She argues that if we can read the past as prologue, then "of all the presidential candidates, Giuliani is most likely to take the expansions of the executive branch made by the Bush administration and push them further still." This is a thought that makes M.O.W. very, very nervous.

Like most Americans, we were grateful for Mayor Giuliani on September 11, 2001. We felt, unlike President Bush, that Mayor Giuliani seemed like a leader. He appeared on tv at regular intervals and said things that made sense: he needed these services here and there, he had co-ordinated rescue efforts here and there, we should stay out of the city, donate blood, help out, etc. Yes, M.O.W. was impressed with Giuliani on that day, especially when contrasted with what President Bush said--"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world"--as if saying something as inane and insipid as that would actually help anything or anyone on that day. Thus, M.O.W. can easily see the appeal of a Giuliani presidency: he seems like the kind of guy who would solve problems and get things done.

And, we need problems solved right now.

But, let us remember that we need to resolve the problems with the constitution too and if Rudy Giuliani is the kind of leader who gets things done by fiat and refuses to act within the restraints accorded to the office by the constitution, then his presidency would be harmful to the nation. History is full of examples of people giving power to men who promise to solve problems and who become tyrants, dictators, fuehrers.

M.O.W. is watching the presidential race very carefully. She plans to ask each of the leading candidates what they would do with power should it become theirs. We encourage our fellow founder-stalkers to do the same.

Frontline: Cheney's Law

The Frontline special called Cheney's Law has once again reminded M.O.W. of why it is so important to maintain the balance of power between the three branches. We have long believed that the Judiciary and the Executive, which are the two least democratic branches, are also the most dangerous branches, precisely because they are less directly controlled by the people. These two branches of government have the potential to conspire together, as they apparently have for the past 6 years under the Bush/Cheney Regime. We believed then that the coup d'etat of 2000 was portentous, and as Frontline demonstrates, we were correct: the same people who disregarded both the will of the people and the constitutional mechanisms for deciding the presidency in 2000 are precisely the people who would later consolidate power in the Executive Branch and use that power to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

Abuse of power comes as no surprise.

Yet, the thing that makes M.O.W. so very sad is that Bush/Cheney have been permitted their coup d'etat. We have allowed them to usurp the power of law. We have allowed them to tyrannize the people. No one has stood up to them. Where is the opposition party? Of what use is the two party system if no one will stand up? Of what use are the three branches of government if each branch does not check upon the others?

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that one would not be able to find "the King of America," because in "America the law is King." Cheney has explicitly reversed Paine and the rest of the Revolutionary generation's understanding of the correct ordering of law and leader: he has put himself above the law, and what is worse, he has put himself above the constitution. M.O.W. fears a day soon when she will hear "Long Live King Cheney!"

Where are the real patriots when you need them? Who will defend the constitution from these attacks?

Who, indeed.

Keith Olberman Gets it, Gives it to King George

Founder-Chic is pleased to present MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's indictment of President Bush's latest tyrannical act: the 'commuting' of Scooter Libby's sentence.




As Mr. Olbermann rightly argues, the Constitution is clear on this question: when an Executive exercises his prerogative powers for party ends, then s/he ceases to be the President of the United States and is only the president of his party.

Where is the concern for the common good, Mr. President? You were supposed to be above party and above faction. You were supposed to care about the health of the republic. You were supposed to uphold the Constitution. You were supposed to promote and protect democracy, not promote and protect the Republican Party.

Shame on you Mr. President.

Founder-Chic joins Mr. Olberman in calling for the resignation of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

more at twiigs.com...

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Fourth Branch Edition

We try not to get involved in petty political issues. After all, Founder-Chic does not like to use her fine powers for evil. Nor, however, do we like to see the U.S. Constitution so carelessly perverted. That document has enough problems of its own, we believe. Therefore, we've decided that a brief Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction is necessary to clear up this nonsense about the Vice-President not being a part of the Executive Branch. Fourth Branch, indeed!

Fact or Fiction: The Vice-President is NOT a part of the Executive Branch, as current VP Dick Cheney claims.

Verdict: FICTION. Let's turn our attention to the September 7, 1787 Constitutional Convention Notes, shall we? (pg. 596) Things were wrapping up; folks wanted to go home; everybody was bitchy--you get the idea. They were discussing this new post that they had just made up called the Vice-President. No body knew exactly what it was or why they made it...all of a sudden, poof! presto! there is a Vice-President. Now, what does the Vice-President do?

Article 1, Section 3 (in the final version) of the Constitution states, "The vice President shall be ex-officio President of the Senate."

Gerrymander, "opposed this regulation. We might as well put the President himself at the head of the Legislature. The close intimacy that must subsist between the President & vice-president makes it absolutely improper. He was against having any vice President."

GM, "The vice president then will be the first heir apparent that ever loved his father. If there should be no vice president, the President of the Senate would be temporary successor, which would amount to the same thing."

Shermy, "saw no danger in the case. If the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member by being made President must be deprived of his vote, unless when an equal division of votes might happen in the Senate, which would be but seldom."

The states eventually voted 8 to 2 to approve the Vice-President as president of the Senate, even though he had a "close intimacy" with the President. John Adams was the first V.P. and was miserable--both at the job and in the job--earning himself the nickname "His Rotundity."

Therefore, Mr. Cheney, I believe that you are, in fact, a member of the Executive Branch. And, remember this: information wants to be FREE.

Oh, and here is a cute little Jon Stewart YouTube on this whole thing.

xoxo
M.O.W.