Executive Orders - Since George Washington, 1789

First Executive Order Proclaiming Thanksgiving, October 3, 1789, George Washington (Library of Congress)

Once again, I'm very disappointed and concerned that friends of mine apparently believe (and posted on FB) the insane rantings of Glenn Beck, who, along with Bachmann, Palin, and others, are accusing the President of assuming "dictatorial powers" as the President has clearly and forthrightly stated that where Congress won't work with him, he will issue EO's (that's how we abbreviate them since I went to law school 30 years ago) under any legal authority he has.

The Lincoln Analogy

Obamacare pales in comparison to the importance of freeing the Slaves. And shutting down the government is nothing at all like Civil War. But the principles are exactly the same.

President Obama came in inexperienced and made mistakes - so did Lincoln. But there was an overriding principle of promoting Constitutional government of, by, and for the People - all of us People - not any particular faction, party, or philosophy, except for this: The Constitution is not some stale, old parchment perpetually framed in the National Archives and in the context of the 1700s. No, the principles that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and that all our individual ideals and aspirations have value as we learn to work together within the framework for government that our Founders were inspired to construct should last the eternities.

Check those words again, all men are created equal. Well, for one thing, it now includes women, too - and children. The 'all' also has a bit more meaning than it did originally. It's not just white male property owners anymore. Go find those words in the Constitution! (spoiler - they're not there!) No, those words come from the brain and pen of Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence (in committee with Ben Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston). The concept has always been important to the American Spirit, but those words were not in the Constitution. There needed to be a phase-out of the concept of State Power as opposed to the rights, protections, and even responsibilities of individuals.

Bachmann Backs Romney

Thank you, Michelle!

Not for supporting Romney so much, but for actually showing a little respect to the President of the United States. In her declaration of support for Romney, she reportedly said:

"There is no question in my mind Americans will go to the polls and they’ll be saying `Mr. President you’re fired!’ "

Did you catch that? She called him "MISTER President!" Wow, just wow! I guess she forgot all that "he's illegitimate and not-one-of-us" stuff she was promoting earlier.

Iowa Scorecard

Well, Romney was only eight votes from getting Rick-rolled. (Sorry. Couldn't resist. Don't say I didn't warn you!). And I heard some punditry that Romney actually lost against his 2008 Iowa vote total by an even less whopping six votes! That does not bode well for the Republican Party to take back the White House.

The best part about being an unpaid pundit is that I can't get fired. Actually, I didn't do that badly with my predictions. I aced Bachmann quitting. And Perry is next, he just hasn't figured it out yet. And I said the winner would win it by a squeaker, I just had the top three all jumbled.

You Really Ought to Give Iowa a Try

My predictions are:

Ron Paul will squeak out a win in the Iowa Caucus creating all kinds of headlines. Romney will come in second which is still a win. Iowa is not his crowd and Paul can't win the nomination. But Paul's supporters are more motivated than Romney's. Gingrich (again, finally and deservedly) will be soggy toast even if he stays in until South Carolina. Santorum will "surge" just enough to think he can keep going and crash in the next contest. Bachmann and Perry will end their campaigns. Huntsman will come in dead last but not quit because he's got the cash to go to New Hampshire.

Not Beating a Dead Horse Republican Debate

Sorry. Not live-blogging tonight as my wife and I are working on Christmas Cards and watching Home Alone movies. There is some live-blogging that's pretty good over at Andrew Sullivan. Apparently so far, Bachmann scored a point referring to "Newt Romney" [she means both of them] as being just too liberal for her party. Gingrich is maintaining his front-runner arrogance saying the only reason Romney is not a career politician is because he lost to Ted Kennedy. Romney is a little flustered. Santorum says we need allies in our challenges against the Soviet Union. (Hunh?)

LIVE Blogging Republicans on Foreign Things (CNN National Security Debate)

Banned to the bedroom. I was all ready once the visiting teachers left to go down and blog from the family room but my wife said I should stay here because she really didn't want to watch those guys. And she's a registered Republican!

There are some like Senator Marco (Sort-of-a-son-of-refugees) Rubio who say that this debate season has not been a good idea for the Republican nomination and maybe the party as a whole. What about the idea that the Republicans have not been good for debates? I mean, good grief!

LIVE Republican Values Blogging ("Christian" Edition)

Don't know if there's enough Diet Coke in the world to keep be going through these two hours. Even Romney is passing on this Iowa Values Debate. But we'll give it a try. It's not on TV either, but there is a live webcast here. This is in a church. It is purposely a "Christian" test of the Republican candidates (in spite of Art. VI)

Ron Paul challenged on "so help me God." His oath is to the Constitution and Rule of Law - before God. Cain needs God. Bachmann on Washington kissing the Bible. "Without His Hand" we won't get back on track. She got baptized in Iowa (that's both political and religious pandering). She was a sinner and needed Jesus.

Stay Tuned: LIVE Republican Blogging Tonight! 11-12-11 Spanish Inquisition Edition

The last one proved so entertaining and popular, even if I did miss the best part live (you get three guesses- well at least two). We're looking forward to 8 p.m. Eastern tonight for the next Republican Presidential Debate. I finally found a schedule of all the debates. Of course they could let me down by ending up boring again. Yet with the newt now climbing in the polls and attention focused on him, besides all the fall-out from last Wednesday, it really can't help but be entertaining.

So, I'll try to be here live-blogging. Tune in elsewhere to watch or on the internet link above. And keep clicking here for live commentary updates later tonight. (I'll try to get my work done in time - both the laundry and case preparation).

What Free Market?

It's fine if you believe in a theoretical or philosophical free market - even if you believe than any decision on the economy should move more toward that freedom. I think I understand that position. My personal view is that a free market subject to regulation by a democratically-elected representative form of government is preferred. I respect and believe in the right of individual property and its protections. I am not a Socialist. But could someone please tell me where that pure, free market has ever existed or how it ever will exist except in pure theory? And, by what authority?

Will Republicans Play the Cain Card?

This is fraught with danger. And I recognize the difficult history of race relations in my own religious tradition. We are doing so much better now and there were always heroes like Mitt's Dad, Michigan Governor George Romney, who really was a champion of Civil Rights and may actually have marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. more than just figuratively.

Bloomberg Republican Debate LIVE-BLOGGING

Well, we'll give it a try. My wife is using my netbook because she needs two screens to do her homework to re-certify as a substitute teacher. She already has a few gigs lined up as they still have a shortage of science teachers. With federal pay frozen, tuition, dental, and medical expenses spiking in the family budget, she is going back into the work force. So, Republicans- What are you going to do for us? Oh yeah, cut taxes, cut aid to schools, cut social services, kill health care reform, maybe some more wars. Yeah, we get all that.

Anyway, I'm using my boy's hand-me-down MacBook because our antiquated desktop PC is too darn slow. This keyboard is kinda funky though.  I think I did find the Bloomberg channel - not one I watch much (if ever).

Ponzi Perry's Pity Party

Rick Perry almost won me over today when he expressed surprise at the reaction from some in the crowd at the tea party Republican debate last night who cheered about people in comas without insurance being left to die. But then I remembered that ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya. And Perry as much as anybody is responsible for stirring up tea party conservative extremism.

One thing you can say is that he is stubborn enough not to flip-flop on most things. He's sticking to his guns (I don't know if they're the blanks or laser-targeted ones) on the Ponzi nature of Social Security. The reason why he is wrong on this even if it makes libertarian sense (watch me do my Jedi lawyer tricks) is that it is not a Ponzi scheme because it is legal. Congress made it so. Of course it is not sustaining itself financially through payroll deductions. It didn't do so in the beginning either. It was only created that way as a "legal fiction" to help sell it politically at passage and continuing over the years so we would take responsibility for it - as President Reagan and Tip O'Neill did in the 1980s. It was fixed then and can be fixed now. All it takes is political will and responsibility. And if you want to challenge the constitutionality, I think the statute of limitations has run on that. Actually, there is no technical limitation on Constitutional Law except that the arc of history generally bends forward - unless, of course, you're entertaining the crowds at tea party events.

Republicans & Airplanes: LIVE Blogging (attempted)

From the odd venue of the airplane hanger at the Reagan Library. (If they don't believe in Science, well, except for Huntsman and maybe Mitt, how do they explain mechanical flight?)

What a coup that MSNBC snatched Michael Steele. He reminds me of that guy from our freshman dorm we parodied (very kindly) in the end-of-year skits. He had so much fun with it, he joined right in!

Peggy Noonan is good to have - solid Reagan Republican who has it out for the tea party.

Rick Perry, Gunnin' fer Libruhls!

Well, to be fair, he may have been shooting blanks at the "rain gods" with a
little Texan, anti-drought humor  ("Har-de-har!" and "Yippee, Kiy-oh!")

Due to Governor Perry's rise to the top in the polls, I thought I'd better check him out a bit. My first reaction is that he seems an awful lot like a recent president except that Perry appears to be a "real" Texan and no poser. And I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing.

All my initial reactions were negative, so I was really trying to find something to like about him. Then I ran into that 800-pound gorilla, again.

A Mormon in the White House: It'll Be Close, But No Cigar

I've been trying to draft up an update on the current state of the Republican field for President 2012. But it's been by fits and starts. It's been especially difficult, with the crazy Bachmann win in the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll, Pawlenty dropping out for being less than boring, and Governor Rick "Anti-Mitt" Perry fresh off his latest Evangelical Prayer Crusade now announced for the race.

I am ready to go out on a limb, even if a limb with an option. It's will be either Perry/Huntsman or Romney/Bachmann.  That's my limb, there will be a Mormon on the ticket. And I'm not promoting this either as both of those tickets would have serious problems not likely to get my support. My preference for Huntsman is well stated. But Perry is beyond the pale.

The President Is Playing the Lollipop Guild for Suckers

Yes. While it is an artificial and unnecessary crisis, it is a real crisis with significant risks. But it is not all as it seems. And it is certainly not as the Lollipop Guild (AKA tea party) believes or wants it to be.

Republican Field Update - End of June (well, at least the end of the newt)

Bachman officially in and it will be interesting to watch her make the play for the Sarah crowd. She's only made a few official gaffes like mixing John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy. And she in under increasing scrutiny for farm income from the family farm taking farm subsidies, her husband's counseling practice that qualified for Medicare patients, and questions about any government support of her foster-care parenting. Not that any of these things are bad. They're not. But they are part of the evil government she wants to be President of.

Sarita Palinista is not in (and won't be) but she continues her celebrity events when she feels like it. Josh Green at the Atlantic points out that her popularity could take a severe blow when she does announce that she is not running. I still think she'll be able to pull off some kind of speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada.

Republican Debate June 13, 2011: Live Blog (attempted)

Here we are giving this a try again. John King with CNN is excited. Santorum is peppy in his intro ending abruptly with his 7 children. Bachman also lists 5 children and 23 fosters (nobody will beat that). Gingrich invoking the "Obama Depression."Romney also has kids and kids-in-law but why the self-deprecation about getting it right? Oops Paul just beat Bachman having delivered THOUSANDS of babies. Pawlenty is married and then he sort of lost me (cuz he's kinda boring). Cain- it's about his grandkids too because he's a problem solver.

NH old guy gets to ask a question about jobs. Hispanic guy apparently. Republicans don't have plans for jobs. What are those plans? Mr. Cain? get the economy "boosted" government has put all the money in the caboose. Put the right fuel in the engine which is the private sector.

Romney In - Sarah Becomes Huckabee

I wish I could get a message to Mitt. I would tell him that he's a great guy. I really liked him as a moderate governor of a liberal state. It was good to save the 2002 Olympics.  He made a lot of money and maybe could help our economy grow. His dad was a great guy. His family's great. He was probably a great bishop and stake president. He went to my alma mater. But Mitt, please stop embarrassing yourself!

It's official. He's running for President. And this time, instead of trying to out-macho the neo-cons on torture and war, he's trying to recast himself, and even his Massachusetts mandated health insurance in a Tenth Amendment, states' rights way to appeal to the Tea Party. While I admit that is a really good, clever argument in attempt to justify Romneycare (which was a good thing), will anybody really buy it? I think it only appeals to the theoretical states-rightists, maybe the idealistic Libertarian wing. Does anyone think he can out-tea-party the likes of Bachman and Palin?