Will Bush* be the last American president?

[rogerashton]

Let me begin by saying that the abolition of the presidency could be a good thing. An office that was, on the whole, rather weak in the 19th century has become too strong in the later 20th century to be compatible with a republic. It is at best an elective dictatorship. This dates, I think, from the Korean war, when Congress ceded to the presidency the power to wage undeclared war -- but we can disagree about that. Today, it is a dictatorship -- and arguably no longer even an elective one.

So my question is, will * screw up so badly that the political system is fundamentally changed?

I think it is quite possible. Unfortunately it probably will not lead to a change for the better. What seems most likely is that a right wing junta will be substituted for the presidency -- without even the pretence of elections -- and yes, that would be a change for the worse.

[Alpharetta]

1. Jeb is his likely successor

All Jeb has to do is separate himself from those who end up taking the blame for *'s failures.

[itzamirakul]

2. Clinton was the last American President...

Bush is the first American Dictator...

[shesemsmom]

4. My thoughts exactly!!!!!

[BlueEyedSon]

5. Amen to that!

He was the last "elected" president....

[eric144]

3. constitution

Having just read a history of the constitution, my understanding is that the American president was given considerably more power than the evil King George the founding fathers ranted against.

As an outsider (British), I genuinely fail to see that the United States is even a democratic political system never mind the best in the world that Americans seem to believe it is, and politicians repeat ad nauseam.

For example, the executive branch is appointed by the president and there seems to be a tradition that his appointees aren't challenged except in extreme circumstances. Judges are politically biased animals as became disasterously obvious in 2000.

The presidential candidates need vast sums of money to run, much of it from vested interests who expect a quid pro quo. That really isn't democracy at all. Same goes to a lesser extent for senators and congressmen. The lobby interest takes care of most of the rest of the influence that can be brought to bear on politicians.

For me the political and financial history of the USA was foreshadowed at the very very beginning when Alexander Hamilton (first treasurer of the United States) pulled off a giant insider trading currency scam to line his own and his friends pockets at the people's expense.

http://www.counterpunch.org/scaramella03302004.html

Canada seems to have turned out a lot better

[rogerashton]

7. While I agree,

the balance of power has shifted a good deal since FDR, who would have taken the country into war against Germany well before Pearl Harbor if he had had the power that * has.

To the others -- perhaps I should have written, the last person even to pretend to be an elected president.

[radwriter0555]

6. Clinton was the last real President. Bush is merely his appointed

successor, not having actually earned the title of President.

I still call him Governor bush...

[Historic NY]

8. In the beginning there was a movement to set Washington up as King..

he of course refused and put down a mutiny of the officer corps.
In doing so he reasserted the case of civilian control, IE Congress. We have evolved differently from that time forward. Some Presidents exercised the power of the bully pulpit to promote change, while other sat on their laurels. Washington knew that seizing power and forcing the will of the army upon Congress would lead to a disaster. He could have easily assumed the title of King, but what would that have made him for all his exertions. The Presidency is not dead, it gets reinvented, reshaped, sometime for the good and sometimes for the bad. While most of the office is codified, the man occupying the office, shapes the policy. It can be changed by the next occupant and thats what makes the presidency. I agree Congress sometimes abdicates its responsibility, mostly due to a strong perception of the presidents power and support from the ruling political party. Our experiment in Democracy is always changing, we rely in a system of checks & balances built into the Constitution, to call the time-out when things get carried away. To lose faith in the Constitution, would be tantamount to surrendering ourselves to a King or a dictator. I think Washington back on that March 15th day realized that, to replace one king with another would be a disaster. We can replace a president w/o a coup.

http://www.revwar75.com/ob/newburgh.htm

http://www.revwar75.com/ob/address.htm

http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall97/wshngton.html

[Blue Wally]

10. Experiment in "leadership by committee"

During the Revolution and during the years under the Articles of Confederation, Congress "ran" the country under a committee system. It didn't work very well and was the genesis of the framers of the Constitution writing in provisions for a strong executive. If you read the thoughts tof those framers, they felt that the executive would be a creature of the Congress as they thought of the Electoral College as more of a nominating process with the president to be chosen from among the nominees by the House of Representatives. This has turned out not to be the case as the development of political factions/parties (unseen by the framers) made the electoral College decisive.

[eric144]

13. We can replace a president w/o a coup.

I doubt that you can these days with Diebold in charge of the elections.

I think the reason Mr Soros is putting money into the political process and the reason the Ohio result was chellenged in congress is that the Democrats are planning to create a powerful movement of citizens in the next four years based on opposition to future wars.

The only way they will win is if the movement is so strong, stealing the election won't be feasible (credible) at the next election.


"to lose faith in the Constitution, would be tantamount to surrendering ourselves to a King or a dictator"

That's the problem. Many Americans seem to believe they created the perfect political system in the eighteenth century and that even 200 years later, no one else has done any better. To them, it gives the USA some kind of moral authority, even to create clones of itself. I don't think the rest of the world feels that way.

In my personal opinion, Bush illustrates how horribly wrong the whole experiment has gone.

[franksumatra]

9. he's sucked all the dignity out of the office forever

and proven that old bromide that 'anybody' can grow up to be president. even an total idiot, with absolutely no qualifications for the job.

[hang a left]

11. Bush is a puppet, a front man.

After him there will be another. It has become clear to me that the front man is no longer chosen by the people.

[franksumatra]

12. if anyone is actually president, it's big dick cheney

even little kids can see this

[Is It Fascism Yet]

14. no, he will never be president of any kind: Clinton was the last Am Pres