Apparently there were not already enough paranoid fantasies about President Obama circulating amongst right-wing conspiracy theorists. All that socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, Manchurian stuff is getting old and losing its capacity to invoke fear. So now these psycho Chicken Littles have a new nightmare to ponder:
At Fox Nation they are all worked up about a bill just introduced by a Democratic congressman. Rep. Jose Serrano is proposing to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution that mandated that presidents could serve no more than two terms. To the Fox Nationalists that means that Obama is plotting to convert America into a monarchy with him on the royal throne.
To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, “Nobody has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of America’s Fox News viewers.” But the overarching stupidity of this misadventure truly boggles the mind. And that’s even if you set aside the fact that they are implicitly admitting that Obama would be reelected forever if he were permitted to continue running. Darn that democracy.
However, Constitutional amendments generally take years implement, They need to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. If the Fox Nationalists think that’s going to occur at all, much less while Obama is still in office, they are in serious need of intravenous Xanax. What’s more, this amendment has been offered by Serrano in every congress since 2001, shortly after George W. Bush was elected. Was this Serrano’s attempt to crown Bush, or did he have secret knowledge that in the future an African without a birth certificate would inhabit the White House?
Republicans have also proposed repealing the 22nd, including Rep. Guy Vander Jagt in 1986, thinking it would allow Ronald Reagan to seek a third term. And speaking of Reagan, he was so supportive of this idea that he said he “would like to start a movement” so that people could “vote for someone as often as they want to do.”
Term limits were never a good idea. They are an undemocratic and artificial constraint that insults voters by treating them like children who cannot manage their own affairs. The problem with longevity in political office is the result of self-serving, gerrymandered districts and the fact that elections are dominated by wealthy special interests. If these corrupting influences were removed from the process, voters could be trusted to elect people who represent their interests and to remove those who do not.
And the beauty of democracy is that the idiots who buy into the nonsense that Fox Nation peddles would be overwhelmed by responsible citizens with reason and common sense, attributes that Fox works so hard to eliminate from the electorate.
23 thoughts on “Fox Nation vs. Reality: The ‘King Obama’ Delusion”
“Term limits were never a good idea. They are an undemocratic and artificial constraint that insults voters by treating them like children who cannot manage their own affairs.”
Mark, isn’t this the entire belief system of progressives – the part that discusses “insulting” voters by treating them like children who cannot manage their own affairs. That sounds like you in a nutshell.
Careful Steve, you are dangerously close to proving Mencken’s point. And it’s probably not a good idea for wingnuts to mention nutshells. It only serves as a reminder of their nuttiness.
Steve in York, always flogging a straw man
Funny, had that one item not been in your article, I would have just agreed with you on something so misleading from Fox Nation (since I had seen this over the weekend on some other site and found the same facts about this representative you noted), but I couldnt’ resist. One day, you’ll finally open your eyes and see progressivism and yourself for what you both are – big government proponents that have no faith in the people to “manage their own affairs” without government help – pretty much as you noted above.
In short that opinion about “libruls” being “big government proponents that have no faith in the people to “manage their own affairs” without government help ” is just that, opinion.
And it’s in no way more poignant that anyone else’s opinion despite how hard you try
You don’t like the sound of that accusation clearly – maybe you need to open your eyes. I’m not about NO government, but I do believe it needs to be scaled back quite a bit in all areas – not just social or entitlements, but military and this war nonsense. I get no sense from anyone here that there is any chance of compromise on the government, so say what you will about what you think you believe, when progressive leaders like the mayor of NY stop regulating lives through soda size bans, then we can start to compromise.
It’s only a threat when the OTHER party controls the Presidency.
Of course, now the Rethuglicans are threatened because this bill is being presented (yet again) during the term of our illegitimate, atheist, Muslim, Catholic-hating, reverse racist, Kenyan native born in Australia, demonic, evil socialist communist, militant pacifist despot guy.
Interesting, though, that Reagan supported this idea.
This idea was also floated during George W. Bush’s 2nd term (imagine!). The typical response was, “Good, then Bill Clinton can run against W. and hand him his sorry ass.”
…….were never a good idea? Dude….you know better than that. You know damn well what power can do to a person. Congress is in DESPERATE need of term limits, SHORT ONES. And I’m pretty sure that term limits for the most powerful office a human can hold on this planet is in fact a good idea. Well, in my opinion that is.
And Steve, you seem to be unable see that government assistance is only a small part of progressivism as a whole. You also seem to think that assistance is something that progressives think should be used permanently by those that need it. Very few that are on some kind of assistance actually need it permanently in order to survive. It’s designed to help people help themselves. I don’t argue that abuse and fraud are a big, big problem, but why can’t you see past all that shit? Dude, you’re a little obsessed with the whole government assistance thing….why? I mean, it’s not like poor people on welfare are living the high life cause being lazy is just so fucking awesome. You’re fixated on something small relative to ALL of progressivism. How big a problem do you really think government dependence is??
Well, we actually agree on your first paragraph if you can believe that. I’ll give you my opinion on progressivism – the government has a responsibility to help people in all aspects of life in society – when the government finds something is wrong, it has an obligation to do something about it. I don’t believe that in general, but would probably agree with it in certain specific circumstances when warranted. I don’t believe the government is obligated to do anything other than what is constitutionally noted – and you only need basic reading comprehension to understand the constitution when you read it as I do from time to time. Yes, people may suffer at times, but I would argue that the average person, when given a choice, will help those who need it when they need it without government programs. Yes, people would be more responsible for their own well being, but I agree with the idea that things get more screwed up when government gets involved – especially on economic matters.
You are wrong. Progressives don’t think that the government has a responsibility to help people in all aspects of life in society.
I wasn’t trying to insult you, I’m just stating what I’ve inferred from listening to progressive talkers like Sam Seder (he did NOT use the terms I used) and Mark of course. I think you are wrong to believe this to not be true, but to each his/her own.
You didn’t insult me. You are just wrong.
OK, since I’m not a progressive, please tell me exactly what you believe and how I’m wrong – I’m always interested in learning what a progressive believes, i’ve heard it from those I mentioned previously, but maybe you are different.
Sorry – this is the only reply button I had. Your latest post did not contain one. And really, a comment section will not be able to do justice to what I think. I have had forum conversations that went back and forth for days on this topic.
It may be that you are thinking that progressives tend to read the part of the US Constitution that talks about establishing justice and promoting the “general welfare” in a (excuse the pun) liberal way. “General welfare” is a term that needs some interpretation. Most people I know don’t read this welfare as the same as what is commonly called welfare, but more as what are systemic problems that need to be solved. This can be extended to many domains. Establishing justice, too, can be interpreted differently.
There are a couple of angles here: Are there any rights being violated? Whose? In what manner? What is the State’s (i.e. society’s) interest in regulating the matter? What problem does it solve? Progressives do see a role for government in our life and are worried about the ability of corporations (not small business) to infringe on us (either through pollution, lack of transparency about their goods and services keeping us from making good choices, lack of health and safety for workers, bribes to politicians locally and nationally).
But to return to the point, I don’t believe nor do I know any liberal/progressive/democrat who does, that the state is required to solve all our problems or that we have no responsibility for our own lives.
Oh good, my reply posted below yours… so ignore my first sentence.
thank you for the response. I agree that the “general welfare” words have been brought up as meaning something very broad, and I believe general welfare has to do with things that are needed and beneficial to the people – such as clean water, air, infrastructure and things along those lines. Maybe you feel you’re different and maybe you are, what I see and read here is absolute state supremacy in our society by the likes of Mark and other. This is a limited forum, so the opinions are going to be limited too.
Steve, you are so incredibly full of shit I just can’t hold it in anymore. You are either mind-numbingly stupid or you are deliberately misrepresenting my views. Either way it’s a pitiful situation – for you.
I enjoy having a substantive discourse and most of the people who comment here bring something of value to contribute, but you just spew such vacant excrement that I wish you would find another blog to annoy.
Well, there is one thing I said in that response that was a bit too far and I’m not convinced is right and that is the “absolute state supremacy” comment. That is probably overstating what you believe, but only in degree. Absolute, no – but some degree of state supremacy beyond what I would consider normal, yes. You justify all sorts of presdential power/action so long as it’s a democrat as it is now, but you never call this president out as overreaching or anything that would suggest he is ignoring right that we have – example from the past year – 1st amendment with respect to state interference in religion – specifically the catholic church and birth control, you defended that on the basis of some kind of societal need or something like that, which is total BS. You have been and continue to be a hypocrite, just accept it.
I forget where I heard this but I believe it succinctly describes the governments responsibilities/limitations to its’ people : “The constitution prevents the gov’t from doing bad things to you but does not prevent the gov’t from doing good things for you.”
Just remember, in a democracy the majority rules but the majority cannot infringe on others rights simply because they are the majority. By insisting you pay extra to help others in times of need is not unconstitutional. We the people believe we should make allowances because the private sector can’t, or more often won’t provide for those in need.
I guess it depends on what you consider and how you define “good thing” government does for you – I’m sure there are some areas of agreement and some not. there are some very clear lists of powers given to each branch – such as listed in Article 2 section 8 (I think, I don’t have my copy in front of my), which defines the responsibility of congress. you can read it very literally or not, but I do not remember it being worded in any way other than just spelling out the powers assigned to each branch of the government and how they are composed plus the list of ammendments. I’ll need to pull out my copy as it’s helpful to read up on it periodically.
Correction it is Article 1 Section 8 – not Article 2 as noted above.
Is this bi-partisan? A Dem wants to abolish term limits, and the Repubs already call him the “annointed one.”
Comments are closed.