Wednesday, December 21

On George II's throne, and why he should keep it

I think that King George the Second should keep his office. There, I said it. And yes, I know it's my problem that those pigs were flying around today. Let me tell you why:

First of all, I completely disagree with the throne he's been building for himself. I mean come on, he is using "just a piece of paper" to justify his actions.
If you've been living in a box for the last week, here's what you need to know: The president has authorized spying on American citizens in the United States without court approval. He can get that approval, retroactively up to 72 hours after the fact even. And why didn't they get that retroactive approval? They were too lazy.

This is a horrible abuse of power that would make Stalin coo in approval. Bush seems to have said "fuck it" one night-- what with low approval numbers and a self- destructing party-- and is now living as he was raised to: A spoiled brat who get's his way. He's a cowboy sheriff in his head: He's going to do what he wants to keep the peace, "an' no one ain't gonna tell him otherwise."

Now, why do I think this is a good thing? Because think of this: There is a growing call for the President's impeachment. There's a hell of a lot more here than a hummer in the office, and indeed it might be the best way to go, given his actions. However, I think some reactionaries are not looking far enough ahead.

Think wwaaayyy back to government class in high school. Remember the chain of command? Guess who moves into the oval office if George II leaves: That's right, Vice President Cheney. As bad as W is, Cheney is almost unarguably the brains of that Administration. He's also much more sinister and political than W. I don't want him as the President. (Think Cheney can be kicked out too? That moves in the Senate Pro- Tempor, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. The infamous Senator behind the Bridge to Nowhere and the ANWR drilling schticks. This guy is absolutely horrible-- as opposed just plain horrible that is typical of the Republican Congress)

I've been rambling, so here's my point: King George (and the rest of the Republicans, for that matter) is making it very easy for the Democrats to take Congress. The Republicans, drunk with power, have been making payments to their rotten constituents (Think the Shiavo debacle, the CAFTA supposed free trade agreement, and the Bankruptcy "Reform" bill). These, and many, many others have alienated the moderates and fired up the Democratic base. Barring Jesus coming around and saying he's a republican (not likely), or the democrats dropping the ball, Congress is going to be in the right hands for the first time in 6 congressional sessions (12 years).

Past 2006, we need to keep King George II around as well. By removing him, we remove the cancerous growth that he represents; bringing the Republicans out of their culture of corruption (at least in the eyes of the average voter). Besides, with a Democratic Congress, King George II can't do much of anything, spending his last years in the lovely category of lame- duckness. We still want him around for 2008 and the eventual takeover of the Executive branch. It will be harder for the Democratic Party with a relatively clean republican party to fight against.



At 1:07 PM, Blogger Sara E Anderson said...

If all Democrats can do to get elected is say "at least we're not that guy," we're screwed. Also, think about the way Conservatives still invoke the specter of Clinton whenever they want to get their base excited. I think Bush has given us enough bad memories that we don't need to wait around for more. (Consider that he's pretty much said he's not interested in silly things like laws.) There are a lot of domestic issues that Democrats can really trounce Republicans on, and a Democratically-controlled congress can also let out a lot of damning info that's been kept bottled up during this administration. I say you're not thinking big enough.

At 9:23 PM, Blogger Vander said...

I very much agree that a democratic congress can do so much to bring down Bush, but I contend that YOU are not thinking big enough (hehe). I want Bush to be the anchor that holds the republican party down. Yes, we are going to need more. That's what hurt Kerry, all he had was the anti- Bush. But it wouldn't hurt to have as many heavy chains on the Republicans as possible.

At 9:55 PM, Blogger Sara E Anderson said...

I think I didn't clarify myself on Clinton. The way that Clinton still comes up in debate shows that your embarassing guy doesn't have to be a current president to do you and your party damage. Given Bush's pattern of collecting as much power as possible in the executive branch and his flagrant disrespect for the law, he will only be a liability to Democrats (and society in general) while in office.

At 9:57 PM, Blogger Sara E Anderson said...

I should add that Bush's bad poll numbers have not meant good ones for Democrats. Dem numbers are just less bad.

At 2:32 PM, Blogger Vander said...

This is true, but I don't see Bush as the center of the trouble. I still see him as the 'pretty face' for other, much more influential neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld.

As for the anemic dem numbers, it's a symptom of the disease that are the old democrats. We need to get some new blood, 21st century democrats in congress. I want the Kerry's, the Liberman's, and the Clinton's out of there. We need more Obama's and Hacketts in there to do some real good for the american people.


Post a Comment

<< Home