Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
can we have "None of the Above" as a choice?
Reagan. Why should death be a limitation, either.
Why should death be a limitation, either.It certainly doesn't stop people from voting in Chicago.
Yeah, but isn't Chelsea Clinton/Mezvinsky next?
How 'bout 40 years off?
If I were Barack, I'd be watching my back. The Clinton Machine has him in their sights.And Clinton versus Bush? Why would we want to spend 4 years looking at the National Inquirer with its Clinton Bimbo of the month on the front page?They trashed the White House and walked out with stuff that wasn't theirs. He pardoned a bunch of real criminals who should have gone to or stayed in prison.Please. We've had enough. Go run the UN. Write children's books. Build Habitat houses. Teach something at Yale. Anything. But not shred the Constitution for your aggrandizement.
Nixon's, unlike Obama, The One!
Of course, I wouldn't vote for either man!While I also DID NOT vote for McCain! Would not vote for Obama.And, in all probabability, whether Donald Trump runs or not, I'm going to write his name in.Why? Because I can!I can vote for whomever I want.And, the "Pizza Guy" was also never on my list.Even though I didn't think Cain was harassing black women.
Hey Drill SGT -- are you back from wherever? When'd you change your avatar?
Wonmder what Hillary thinks about Bill trying to muscle ahead of her in line?Oh who am I kidding.
The American people in their divine wisdom kept the sleaze Clinton in the White House after a 4 year exposure to his oleaginous mendacity. With such non-standards why not a handoff from Clinton dynasty to Bush dynasty to Clinton dynasty to Bush dyna...? The only hitch is the complete collapse acomin'.
Since Bush only won one election, he gets two more by these rules, right?
Yes, by all means, let's have more great policy like sweeping EnRon and DotCom under the rug for the next Administration to handle, let's have more great governmental concepts like subprime mortgages, let's have more great military initiatives like picking a fight with the warlords in Somalia and then cut and run when we take some casualties so we can encourage a psycho like bin Laden who Willie can refuse to extradite when offered up on a silver platter.If he'd stayed in Arkinsaw, he could have been governor for life. Now that he realizes he blew it, he wants the same thing on the national level because he figures all the sex-starved women who voted for him twice are still stupid enough to do it some more.
Clinton was a great politician but He never really had and sill does not have any good policy ideas.
That just shows how far diminished is that scalawag Clinton from the greatest man in the world.
I actually kind of like the idea of someone being able to serve again as president, after a break. Term limits should be decided at the ballot box. I still figure out why FDR was elected three times. That was freaky. Don't see it happening again.
JAL said... Hey Drill SGT -- are you back from wherever? When'd you change your avatar?I've been around, but not commenting much, I had to pick up another hat at work. avatar? The Wife retired after 30 years in the Army and Guard. I no longer have a family member serving, so we folded the Blue star (and the older 2 star flag) and put it away.PS: the new one is a Muslim potrait of Mohammed (Persian 14th century, as I recall)
It is very interesting that a mostly liberal person like Ann has built up such an apparently conservative audience. In part, it is just that the blog is interesting and smartly written. It may also reflect that conservatives have a respect for, and maybe even a yearning for, liberals who will intelligently and honestly address issues.The Clintons would love to push Obama overboard, but they cannnot have their fingerprints on anything. Plus, I suppose they are satisfied with a longer term plan where Obama is beat this year and Hillary runs in 2016. I doubt that she would win, but strange things happen in American politics, e.g., Reagan, Clinton, Bush II and Obama. And Joe Biden as VP?
I'll sit this one out.(either would be better than what we've got)
If you could have any president in American history, who would you choose? Why?
Kansas City says, "It may also reflect that conservatives have a respect for, and maybe even a yearning for, liberals who will intelligently and honestly address issues."Just so. Many of us are former so-called liberals who didn't leave the party as much as the party--and its evolving leftward, anti-liberty, anti-individual ideology--left us. We think of ourselves as principled and intellectually honest, so we appreciate it when we see it in others, even if, like AA, they still let smoke get in their eyes.
prairie, it was 4 times.Scarier yet.
I write in Herman Cain. He is more able.
I think we need three new amendments to the Constitution.28) Mens rea shall be a valid defense in the case of any federal or state regulation not enacted by the appropriate legislature and signed into law by the executive officer.29) Every citizen of the United States, and every foreign citizen legally residing in the United States, shall have an inalienable right to self-defense.30) In every election for federal office the voters must be provided with the opportunity to vote for "none of the above" as an alternative. In the event that "none of the above" receives a plurality, the office shall be declared vacant, the election must be rerun in four calendar months, and all of the candidates for that office shall be debarred from contesting for that office for a period of ten years.I'll need some help with the wording, but I think you get my gist.
Good question by Kirby.I am somewhat stymied. Truman, maybe, but I think his rebound perhaps has overrated him. Eisenhower, maybe.Both Truman and Eisenhower seem to be honest for politicians and they had success, which perhaps could be transferred to any time.Polk is interesting because he expressly limited himself to one term, established signifcant goals, and met them.I love Reagan, but he was a man for his time, probably not for any time. I also like Grant, who has been unfairly and inaccurately maligned, but he was a man for a different time.Final answer, George Washington. He was a man of accomplishment. Turned down opportunities for greater power. Personal bravery. He led the successful revolution and the founding of the country. And seemed to be a man of principle.
Bill Clinton and a Republic Congress? Sign me up! Things were good then.
Split the difference: George ClintonOf course, we'd have to accept a Parliament. I'm down. "Paint the White House Black"
Big Mike, #30 is a keeper.Myself, I'd make 28 term limits for Congress and 29 term limits for the Federal judiciary.
@TDSGTYeah, none of the above is my choice too. Clinton set up the subprime crisis and made corrupt political appointments and is currently looks way out of touch, or dishonest. Given who he is, I pick dishonest. Bush never vetoed anything, didn't push needed legislation effectively, and hung on to his appointees way past their sell date. And the mere thought of Clinton making more judicial appointments makes me want to curl up and die early.I don't know who I would pick out of the current crop of candidates, but surely there are better qualified people out there than Clinton and Bush.
Why stop there? Why not 4 or 5, Bill? Hell, we're on our way to becoming a third world country; a tin pot dictator-for-life-or-at-least-until-the-next-coup would complete the transformation.Bill must be pining for that intern poontang.Thank God George Washington realized the necessary check on presidential power. Now term limits on Congressfolk; that's something I can get behind.
chuck said... Clinton set up the subprime crisis and made corrupt political appointments and is currently looks way out of touch, or dishonest.My biggest beef with Clinton was his fixation on popularity and his unwilingness to spend political capital (as only a Dem could do) to fix the impending entitlement issue, that he knew was coming. My Bush issue, Cronies
@ Drill SGT :)Tried to see the avatar but couldn't enlarge it easily. Think I remember it from that guy's page last year who collected the pictures of Mohammed. Congrats and thanks to your wife.Family member is headed to A'stan in January. I am somewhat worried this time unlike the 2 previous deployments to Iraq.I would like a CIC who cared.
Hearing the dreck out of Clinton's mouth is making me really apprehensive about the Obama post-presidency. He's gonna spout all sorts of shit like this.
Can I vote for The International House of Assassins (formerly of Pancakes as the pancake business is not nearly as lucrative as disposing of ex-Presidents).IHOA: when an ex-President just won't shut the fuck up.
Ugh. Please please please no more Clintons or Bushes. Or Kennedies or Roosevelts. Hereditary titles are soooo 300 years ago.
Clinton was a great politician but He never really had and sill does not have any good policy ideas.I thought welfare reform was pretty solid. Nor do I mind him stealing it from Republicans. In fact I can think of several Republican policies I'd like to see Pres. Obama steal and implement.
A disbarred politician who can't practise law to be the Chief Executive of the United States, head of the Justice Dept., the person to decide who the Justices and judges will be. Hmmm. How low could we possibly sink?
Are we talking about 1994-2000 moderate Clinton or current progressive populist Clinton? Also, are we talking about 2004-2008 ineffectual, distant Bush, or current gracious, non-politicking, non-Rovian Bush?Either way I'm not sure we'd have a choice. Clinton would run for a third term because he's the teflon man and scandal never affected him the way it does other people, and because his ego still drives him to be a political kingmaker...Bush has seemed to be pretty much done with politics.
The objection I have to Bush is an objection to the Democratic Congress in 2007-08. And what I like about the Clinton years is the Republican Congress in his last six years. It's not a bad question, but we have a tendency as a society to overlook the critical importance of Congress.Also, I wonder if Hillary throws a lamp at his head. What a selfish, selfish bastard.
his unwilingness to spend political capital... to fix the impending entitlement issueThat's what Hillarycare was supposed to do. Ration care so there'd be fewer people collecting SS and Medicare.
That's an okay idea, as long as some time off is defined as more than two decades.
I'm still waiting for my Bush 41 second term.
I want an amendment declaring that no individual with a law degree can serve in government (appointed or elected) on any level.Then close the law schools for at least 50 years. Then, if anyone with a JD is still alive, kill them.
MadisonMan wrote:That's an okay idea, as long as some time off is defined as more than two decades.Admit it -- you're pining for those halcyon days of Jimmy Carter.Embrace your dream! He's eligible!
Better poll:Bill Clinton or Barak Obama?I've said this before: Clinton hands down. And we'll supply him with all the interns he can handle. Just unfuck the current nightmare.
The biggest question that I want Bill Clinton to answer, is what does he think about Herman Cain's problems. Does he have any advice? Could he provide Cain a telephone number for the bimbo eruption group?
I think he figures that Cain will make it more acceptable for him to fool around in the Oval Office now...
One six year term for president. Enough to sit astride a couple of congressional cycles, but without the need for re-election. Never able to be re-elected to federal public office and 50% tax on all lobbying income afterward.
This is worrisome, all these Democrats talking about changing our laws to grab more power. First there was the governor of one of the Carolinas talking about doing away with elections, now this. Not to mention their open embrace of anarchists and other protestors prone to violence in class warfare. I am very worried about the 2012 elections.
I want an amendment declaring that no individual with a law degree can serve in government (appointed or elected) on any level.This! Lawyers can only be hired as political advisers. Even then, they can only wear heavy roughspun robes that must conceal most of their face. When they speak they may only do so with heads bowed and into their hands and then ONLY to their employer. And they have to refer to said employer as "sire". Hissing will be encouraged.
Clinton would be happy to run.Bush would be happy to not run.If they did, I'd vote for Ron Paul.
Isn't this what Putin is doing next year?
Ugh. Between the syphilitic hillbilly or a tangle-tongued compassionate conservative wimp who'd make a better Secretary of War than president? NOTA isn't strong enough to wash that bad taste out of my mouth.Kansas, your suggestions are intriguing. I'd have picked either Eisenhower or Polk myself (I'm reading the new book "Eisenhower: The White House Years" right now; if you still think the enemy media caricature of Ike as a well-meaning but goofy chief executive has truth, this book will blow your prejudices away).Washington's an excellent choice, but I think even more a "man of his time" than Reagan; his characteristic aloofness would not go over well today - though I absolutely agree with his disdain for Congress.For me, I'd want a president who would get the government out of the way. McKinley or Coolidge would be my choice.wv - 'biver.' Justin's nickname for the MILFs chasing him.
Washington's an excellent choice, but I think even more a "man of his time" than Reagan; his characteristic aloofness would not go over well today - though I absolutely agree with his disdain for Congress.Give me a President that sends a letter to Congress rather than subject us to the D & P show that the State Of The Union has become."Hey! I've got an idea! We got our asses handed to us in that last election...on a historic scale...so let's make sure the opposition agrees, in the spirit of bipartisanship of course, to mix the seating together so nobody can see just how few of us there really are."
Clinton is a liar and is not worthy of the office of the president.
Carrie is exactly right about Clinton's lying making him unfit for office. One of the saddest parts of the Clinton presidency was that he got away with sticking his finger in our face and lying to us in order to save his job. He not only got away with it. There was no significant amount of condemnation for it. The message he, and his party and friends in the media, delivered to the country was that it was okay to lie to get/keep something of value. It was a moment for someone in the democratic party to stand up and say no, we cannot support someone who sticks his finger in our face and lies to us. There was not a single democrat with the character to do that. The democratic party, and more important, the country suffered as a result. And now, Clinton is treated as a successful president and a subject of honor. It was a bad and sad moment for the country.Clinton is remarkably bright and an incredible political talker. He might even be very smart on policy (the record is less clear on that). But ultmiately, he had an insignificant presidency except for the ethical damage to the country. And he almost got his wife elected president, which would have compounded the damage.
Clinton seems too frail now. He'd be better as Hillary's advisor.Bush 2: No.I'm still naively surprised that the quality level of the mainstream Presidential candidates is so continually low and has been so for my conscious lifetime. It makes me almost understand Obama fever - if I had only been able to buy into it, but alas, I was not. I do understand the desire that people had, however, that allowed them to project onto him the qualities they deeply wished were there.And that is beginning to include the cabinet and advisors as well.Where are the geeks? I don't mean wannabes like fat, crazy old Al Gore, I mean the real thing. Shouldn't the first female president be Asian-American? I mean, really now. Yes, a very small percentage of the population, but a very high percentage of the competent, top-tier college-educated. In 2011, we're still farting about with "diversity" in the form of Obama or useless Preppies and various levels and colors of skeeve to solve 21st Century problems? Please.I was happier before I paid attention, back when I was young and could still believe in libertarian principles. ;-)
I'm still naively surprised that the quality level of the mainstream Presidential candidates is so continually low and has been so for my conscious lifetime.See what has been happening to Cain? How about what happened to Thomas?Why in the world would anybody competent want to sit back and have to catch javelins to run for an office anyway?
A rapist socialist versus a Jesus-loving socialist.Oh my.But the guy who raped Juanita Broaddrick is more popular than the religous nut, so I'll go with him. That's democracy!
Post a Comment