Blind Ambition Is Not a Presidential Job Qualification
Nobody who wants the presidency too badly ought to be trusted with it.
Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.
Are you depressed about the shape of the 2012 presidential race? Maybe you're not depressed enough.
Nobody who wants the presidency too badly ought to be trusted with it. George Washington struck the right note in his first inaugural: "No event could have filled me with greater anxieties" than learning of his election.
Yet, as the powers of the presidency have grown far beyond what Washington could have imagined, the selection process has changed in ways that make it vanishingly unlikely that a latter-day Washington will seek the job.
Unfortunately, the modern presidential campaign calls forth characters with delusions of grandeur, a flair for dissembling, and a bottomless hunger for higher office.
Barack Obama's audacious ambition is by now well-known. "He's always wanted to be president," one of Obama's oldest friends, presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett, has admitted.
In a November 2007 interview, then-candidate Obama commented, "If you don't have enough self-awareness to see the element of megalomania involved in thinking you should be leader of the free world, then you probably shouldn't be president."
So, only "self-aware" megalomaniacs should get nuclear weapons—that's one way of looking at it. Judging by the 2012 field, it may be the best we can do.
In a famous 1979 television interview, Democratic presidential contender Ted Kennedy flubbed a softball question: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's sputtering answer damaged his campaign.
Despite extraordinary efforts in two campaigns—spending millions of dollars of his own money, it's not obvious that Mitt Romney has a clear answer to that question, either. Mitt's "main cause appeared to be himself," a longtime Republican observer of the Massachusetts governor told the authors of The Real Romney.
"Commander-in-chief of this country," is how former Sen. Rick Santorum describes the job he's applying for—and he sees the CINC's portfolio as broad enough to include hectoring Americans about their sex lives: "The dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea…these are important public policy issues."
Clearly, anyone who wants the job badly enough to campaign as exhaustingly as Santorum has—living out of a suitcase on the long march through all 99 Iowa counties—doesn't simply want to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and otherwise mind his own business.
But maybe we shouldn't be surprised that the modern process calls forth people with inordinate ambition and grandiose visions, like Newt Gingrich, who has bragged that "I first talked about [saving civilization] in August of 1958."
As the Atlantic's James Fallows put it recently, "an abnormal-psych study could be written on every president of the modern era except the one who never ran for national office, Gerald R. Ford." With apologies to Groucho Marx, anybody who wants to belong to this club shouldn't be allowed to be a member.
In his terrific book See How They Ran, historian Gil Troy writes that "Originally, presidential candidates were supposed to 'stand' for election, not 'run.' They did not make speeches. They did not shake hands. Republican detachment from the political arena was good and dignified; actively seeking office and soliciting votes was humiliating and bad."
The Jeffersonian ideal of the "mute tribune" was imperfectly observed, Troy notes, but it was something to aspire to, and candidates who violated it were occasionally punished at the polls.
Amid the tumult of the 2012 race, it's hard to imagine returning to the era of the "front porch campaign," when candidates were hardly seen and rarely heard.
But we ought to strive to make the office less powerful, and thus, a less attractive prize for those who hunger for power.
Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is appropriate here.
Goddamn, Bill Ward had some awesome hair back in the day.
Incredible album from start to finish.
Yes, that is a fantastic album.
My neighbor just met a bisexual man on ---datebi*cOMit's where for men and women looking
for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment.
It's a nice place for the people who have the same sexual orientation.
Voting is merely participating in a rigged, bullshit game where you have no statistical effect but when you participate you give it legitimacy. Fuck that.
Ummm then is that why the current clown should not be trusted?
....or any one of the thousand other reasons not to trust a liberal.
Only "liberals" can't be trusted. Thank Zod Romney, Santorun, & Newt all say they're conservative!
Kulture war bullshit!!11! Voting is a rigged suckers game!!1!1! U r a partisan!!! YEAH ANARCHY, THAT WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS!!11!!OMG
YEAH TOTALITARIANISM WILL SOLVE ONE PROBLEM!!!
'Cause it's one or the other!
" only "self-aware" megalomaniacs"
The unaware megolomaniacs would be better????
If you create a position of extreme power, celebrity, and visibility, the worst people will gravitate to that position. If you create a position that has unfettered access to young boys, the worst people will gravitate to that position. If you create a position where you can shoot dogs and beat people with no repercussions, the worst people will gravitate to that position.
This is simple, obvious stuff.
Dave knows what he's talking about.
Dave? Dave's not here, man.
No, man, it's Dave! Dave Mustaine!
Isn't he that one dude who's Rick Santorum?
Stop othering me!!!
Dave?
Wearing a sweater-vest?
Fuck Megadeth. Unbelievable the lead singer would endorse Santorum over RP.
That is fso ucked up.
Let me add a little nuancy thing or two to your otherwise correct observation:
All people gravitating to the positions you describe in sentences 1 and 3 fit the profile.
However, there are some decent people who seek to be coaches and priests.
Yeah. They just want to be with the little boys.
Furthermore, compare the damage wrought by presidents, cops, drug warriors, soldiers, etc. to coaches and priests.
Not. even. fucking. close.
Or the number of teachers who molest kids.
Only if you measure damage from a top-down perspective. I imagine the teachers hurt the kids they gave special afterschool anatomy lessons to far more than President Bailout did.
I mean look at Warty. Do you really think Reaganomics did that to him?
Steve Smithonomics?
Actually, it did. Way to bring up the horrible memories for Warty, Hugh. You're a fucking monster.
It's OK, Warty. It's OK. We won't let the mean man remind you of the abuse again.
I don't mind remembering the abuse, actually. It started to get really fun around the time I cut the mean man's fingers off and made him eat them.
Yeah, but the thousands killed because of the drug war were hurt even more than the kid who got diddled.
People do actually like children for reasons that are not sexual, you know. The thing that I hate most about pedophile panic is that so many people immediately think of nasty things when they see an adult man with children who aren't his own.
I did volunteer work back in the late 80s that involved kids. I'd be scared to do that today, just because of the weird stigma associated with it. Really, how many of these volunteers are molesters? Surely it's a tiny number. I hope so, at least.
Yeah, it sucks. I don't have any kids, but I like kids. They are fun and interesting; I just don't want to have to take them home with me. But except for a few close friends and family members with kids, I am very hesitant to get involved.
Perhaps I lack imagination because I can't imagine how anyone woudl be sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, let alone act on such an attraction. But I can't imagine either that any significant number of people who volunteer with children are child molesters.
There are times I get quite distressed over how fucked up our species can be.
True story Zeb. The DVD release of the original season of Sesame Street has a warning label saying it is not appropriate for children of all ages. No kidding. The reason is that the first episode features a young girl who goes home with a nice older man and meets his wife. And we can't have children seeing that kind of thing.
We are a totally sick society.
I coach kids track & have for 4 yrs now. Once my son moves on to middle school, I'm going to have a hard time letting it go.
And the sad thing is: the kids absolutely love me, as do their parents and the teachers at the school. & it's sad that when those kids want to hug someone for pushing them and supporting them more than their parents do, that I've got to turn away. It's also sad that I have to explain to every adult at the meet that the one kid I hugged is actually my son, because of the funny looks I got when he broke 6 mins in the mile and I got excited and hugged him.
I can remember coaches slapping us on the ass when we made a great play when I was a kid playing basketball. I can also remember being physically put in a squat and shown how to play defense properly, which took touching of the lower back and chest. Neither of those things is acceptable now.
It's a shame.
It is a total shame sloopy. These assholes have basically ripped the fabric of society. So much for all that "it takes a village" bullshit.
"People do actually like children for reasons that are not sexual, you know."
Not true. Anyone who enjoys being around children who are his own is a pedophile and should be shot on sight.
...who are NOT his own...
It's why we Santas wear white gloves. It makes it real easy to see that we're not fondling the little ones. Yup, take away the red suit and it starts sounding just a LITTLE creepy - "Come sit on my lap, little girl, tell me what you want and I'll give you some candy and an new anatomically correct doll."
In a famous 1979 television interview, Democratic presidential contender Ted Kennedy flubbed a softball question: "Why do you want to be president?"
I imagine the same reason I would want to be president - unlimited blowjobs from plump young chicks.
And really, can we ask any more of those who serve?
Apparently...
She wasn't plump when she was servicing the presidential staff. Maybe she gained the weight from swallowing.
In a famous 1979 television interview, Democratic presidential contender Ted Kennedy flubbed a softball question: "Why do you want to be president?"
"Um, becuase my daddy wants to be?"
"I am tired of unfunny presidents! This nation deserves a president who reminds them of Diamond Joe Quimby!"
X-cept, um, daddy had been dead 10 years at the time of the Roger Mudd interview.
More than that. Daddy died in 65 if I am not mistaken.
He suffered the stroke after JFK had been elected - I think in late 1960 or 1961.
However, I stand by the old man leaving us in 1969. But, I could be wrong.
You are right. He hung on until 1969. Don't know where I got 65
I know he was still alive at the time RFK was shot, but I think he finally went to the place where old Nazi sympathizers go shortly thereafter.
La Plata,Argentina?
He was an awful guy. He made most of his money insider trading. Then took over the SEC and outlawed all of the things he did to make money.
Well, he would know best all the crooked insider tricks of the trade, wouldn't he? It takes a thief to catch a thief sort of thing. Not that I'm defending the guy or anything, he was a scumbag.
Well he was a crook. But he made up for it by being an anti-Semite and lobotomizing his mentally handicapped daughter because she was embarrassing the family.
He was portrayed as a not-so-bad president in the alternative reality Fatherland. That pissed me off. I figured the real Joe Kennedy would've continued the cover-up of the Nazi atrocities.
He would actively joined the other side as President. He was a fucking Nazi. His Presidency would have made the US into the Irish Republic.
Not to mention, when he was Ambassador, working with those in England, including the Duke of Windsor, who wanted to oust Churchill and make peace with Hitler in 1939 - 1940.
To be fair, that was pre-Holocaust, but to be even fairer, he was an anti-Semite.
Yes Pro. But it wasn't pre Nuremberg Laws. It wasn't pre Krystalnacht People knew what was going on.
So, to come full circle, I think Hauer need to reboot Fatherland and correct.
1969. I looked on this newfangled Internet thingee.
My personal (and probably meaningless) assessment of Presidential ambitions in my lifetime:
Nixon - power obsession combined with a paranoid manicheism
Ford - whoops
Carter - really wanted people to pay attention to him
Reagan - true believer
Bush I - legacy capstone
Clinton - power obsession combined with massive sense of entitlement
Bush II - drive to exonerate father's legacy
Obama - megalomania and presumption of superiority
The last President who had any sense of humility and understanding of the gravity and general undesirability of the job was Eisenhower. But he was the last President who had ever had to make big decisions that decided other people's fates before he was President.
Carter had humility. But then, he should have.
He really didn't. He was horrible arrogant prude who thought America wasn't worthy of him.
Yes, but then I wouldn't get to say that line.
Reagan was a true believer of his own meglomaniachal vision. No different than the rest.
Maybe, but at least his megalomaniacal vision did some tangible things to reduce the scope of the state on certain issues.
No one else on that list did anything near as significant that was commendable.
...to reduce the scope of the state on certain issues.
Citation please?
They must be referring to massively ramping up the drug war, or possibly using interstate highway funds to blackmail states into doing what the federal government wants. Or maybe colossal military spending. It must be one of those things, right?
hence the use of the word "certain".
He indexed the federal income tax and stopped the fed from destroying the dollar, at least while he was in office.
Reaganomics
For something that apparently didn't exist, it sure does get a lot of the right people angry.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but I find this argument persuasive.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rot.....ard60.html
Heh, it is difficult to argue with Rothbard.
I tend to think that, where Rothbard describes Reagan's "libertarian rhetoric, statist policies", the majority of modern presidents have varying degrees of statist rhetoric and outright Orwellian policies.
A fair enough distinction I suppose.
I've always been a Reagan fan, but that essay was a great read.
You mean like creating new cabinet level agencies and refusing to abolish the others he promised to abolish?
You mean escalaating the drug war?
You mean presiding over the then largest exapnsion of government in the history of the world in just 8 years?
You mean the guy who didn't meet a federal debt he didn't love?
"refusing to abolish the others he promised to abolish?"
You mean he was dictator instead of President? Must have missed that. The way I remember it, his plans to reduce the size of government were dead on arrival in Congress.
I'm not sure congress is required to make cabinets non-entities, since they are an executive function. He could have just dismissed the secretaries and not appointed new ones, or instructed them to not aggressively pursue their mandates. Instead, he created new ones.
The whole, "He really would have done better if the EVUL democrats didn't hold him back!" argument is the same crap California dems push. "No really we'll accomplish all our goals, once we have an absolute, permanent, filibuster-proof supermajority! That's what's holding us back!"
He actually did do a lot of that, especially at EPA and Interior. It is funny to listen to libertarians scream about what a horrible dictator he was and then go listen to liberals talk about how he subverted the executive by appointing people whose mission it was to subvert the functioning of their departments.
He functioned with a Democratic House his entire Presidency and never had more than a small majority in the Senate. The fact that he was able to reform the tax system not once but twice and win the Cold war under those circumstances is remarkable. Congress has a lot of power too. And are just as responsible as the President for the state of government.
And stop reading Rockwell. It will rot your brain.
He actively created new cabinet posts. That's not something passive that congress foisted on him, he went out of his way to create and grow gov't, just in a direction that he preferred instead of the dems.
"He actively created new cabinet posts."
I would like to know what those were. The last three cabinet positions were the Department of Education created by Carter, the VA created by Bush I, and DHS created by Bush II.
Reagan didn't create any cabinet agencies. Mike is confused there.
I thought he did the VA, but I was mistaken. There's still plenty of other things to dislike him for; the massive increase in the debt, the ramping up of the WoD, this little mercantilist gem, etc. (and before you note that it started off as a democratic amendment, Reagan signed it, and there were enough reps in the senate to block it if they had wanted to).
Congress controls the budget. So they get the debt blame as much as Reagan. Reagan shut down the government multiple times trying to get Congress to cut spending and was killed for it in the media. Also Reagan greatly extended the life of Social Security with the 1983 commission. A lot of the social security surplus that Clinton later got to claim as a government surplus was the result of that commission.
"Don't try to get Ronnie off the hook by blaming Congress. Like the general public ? and all too many libertarians ? Congress was merely a passive receptacle for Ronnie's wishes. Congress passed the Reagan budgets with a few marginal adjustments here and there ? and gave him virtually all the legislation, and ratified all the personnel, he wanted. For one Bork there are thousands who made it. The last eight years have been a Reagan Administration for the Gipper to make or break."
Congress passed the Reagan budgets with a few marginal adjustments here and there
That is just not true. His budgets are where the term "dead on arrival in Congress" came from. And Congress forced bit tax cuts on him in 1982. Congress spent an average of 3.1% a year more than Reagan asked for during his 8 years. Take 3.1% a year for 8 years and you get the majority of the debt you are talking about.
http://www.presidentreagan.info/reagan_budgets.cfm
To be sure, most problems are the fault of Congress, even with a bad president.
Yeah, a lot of neocons seem to have issues with Rockwell.
Flag on the play. Use of a word without knowing what it means.
Are they still claiming Reagan "won" the Cold War?
Good god.
I didn't say on everything, or on most things, or even a plurality of things. For good reason. He screwed up a lot of shit.
He also did a few things right, particularly with regard to economic policy.
Is there anything on that level that anyone else on that list can point to?
Not saying he was a good president.
Just a lot less worse than the others.
Leave it to many of us libertarians to make great the enemy of good. Reagam isn't the small goverment revolutionary that many conservatives make him out to be. But can anyone honestly say that since Eisenhower there was a president who was better than him? Maybe Ford, but thats only because I cannot think of a single thing he did, for good or ill, save pardon Nixon.
DON'T LET THE PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD VOTE REPUBLICAN ARGH!!!
What's your metric for "largest expansion"?
I will always give Reagan kudos for not playing footsies with the Soviets. Anti-communism is always a good thing in my book.
But perfect president? No. From the one or two biographies I've read about Reagan, his main obsession was with stopping communism - all the 'smaller' domestic issues were just fleas in the grand scheme of things.
I'm willing to persuaded otherwise, but the bulk of the evidence I've seen is that Reagan was more motivated by belief in his policies than belief in Ronald Reagan.
Late to the party, but I think you mean 'delusions of adequacy'.
I wouldn't trust any of those creeps to mow my lawn, let alone babysit a child.
No on who wants power can be trusted with it.
But we have created a system where only those people who really want it can ever get elected. Gee, what a surprise things have turned out so badly.
Considering the nature of the job and the expectations that people place upon the officeholder, plus the fact that you can't even tell a tasteless joke without a million people ragging on you, no one sane would want it.
It is the campaign finance laws that make it the worst. It used to be you could get a few rich guys to back you and spend your time campaigning. Now you have to spend your time begging for money $1000 at a time and associating with sleazy influence peddlers whose single positive trait is their ability to bundle lots of maximum donations together. Only connected insiders, usually idiot sons and daughters of politicians, have the ability to do it.
Part of the beauty of checks and balances is to limit the damage that can be inflicted by such weasels. I don't believe the founders were that naive about the ideal of "the reluctant officeholder."
With the connivance of the Presidents and Congress, and the acquiesence of the SCOTUS, "Checks and Balances" are becoming a fiction.
Wouldn't be a problem if the federal government had truly limited powers. The whole system is predicated on that principle, and without it, the whole system fails.
Well the issue is that even an office of limited powers attracts the most unscrupulous, who will slowly chip away at the boundaries limiting their power. If the American people had higher standards this could be checked, but as it is they are easily bamboozled by smooth-talking politicians.
Need more checks and balances.
Start with the 17th Amendment.
Can't argue with either of these points.
This is why I was more of a Fred (Thompson) Head in 2008. People I talked to were incredulous as he didn't have the "fire in the belly" to be Prexy. Exactly, and that's the point.
Um, there are four people competing for the Republican nomination. Only one of them is running because he WANTS to "make the office less powerful" (as you suggested), drastically cut the federal budget, and reduce government's control over people's lives. And you left him out of the article.
W. T. F. ???
Who'll Slash the National Debt? Only one Presidential Candidate.
http://tirelessagorist.blogspo.....-debt.html
You have to pretty much be pathological to want to be president. Ron Paul is the incredibly rare exception to this rule since he won't let his personal ambitions or ego dictate what he feels should be an office with clearly defined and limited power. He's running for the sake of a set of ideals, not his own gratification.
The guy is so honest that he won't lie about his feelings about military intervention, even though it likely has cost him the presidency. Rather than that appealing to a population victimized by constant lies, he gets rejected.
Just how victimzed is the electorate? Apparently many people want to be lied to. No honey, I won't hit you ever again. Yes you can have a unicorn for your birthday.
I don't get it at all. When we got downgraded and the government did virtually nothing, I thought maybe we'd gotten a nice little wake-up call. Instead, it's business as usual.
You don't get it because you're a rational thinker. The rest of the country just hit the snooze button on the wake up call untill they get a rude awakening.
BTW, What did you think of First Man in Rome?
Haven't started it yet, but I have it on my shelf (from the library). I'm in the middle of Massie's Dreadnought right now. I'm thinking there might be a bad war coming, but I'm not sure. Don't tell me!
That is one of my favorite books Pro. How do you like it? If you like it, read Castles of Steel. It is basically a sequel where you find out how everything turned out.
It's good so far. I've read him before--Peter the Great--which I found to be excellent.
He has a new one out on Catherine the Great. It is next on my list to read. He is a great author.
Yes, I need to read that one. She's a very interesting monarch--loved the tyranny, yet also seemed to hold some Enlightenment ideals. Probably more in the "I'd really like to help the serfs, but they're stupid Slavic peasants, you know, not Germans" vein.
http://www.opensecrets.org/org.....cycle=2008
List of Democrats who take money from the evil Kochs.
I'm not sure if it makes me hate Democrats more or the Koch brothers.
Use the Party pull down menue and select "all", three pages, most team Red.
May I offer into evidence?
President Barack Obama proudly embraced his auto industry bailout Tuesday, telling a raucous labor audience that assertions by his Republican presidential challengers that union members profited from taxpayer-paid rescue are a "load of you know what."
I don't get it; if they didn't benefit, why is he bragging about "his" bailout, in the explicit expectation they will vote for him out of gratitude?
Busted!
Look for an apology and retraction any day now.
Well they didn't benefit benefit from it.
And it is not "profit" if you are entitled to it by the laws of God. Since union members are entitled to everything, they by definition cannot have profited.
http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/
Obama plans to fuck active duty military healthcare. That is pretty rich from a guy who is willing to send said active duty to war. All for $1.8 billion in savings. That covers what? Two or three crooked green loans?
He is a real asshole, and even talks of slashing benefits and pay for retirees and people injured on duty.
People injured in wars that fucker refused to end. And taking care of all of them properly doesn't cost shit in the grand scheme of things. A few billion. That rat bastard pisses away more than that on his fucking golf games and Queen Michelle's vacations.
Let me be clear. They became soldiers in order to die and I am sending them to where they can die.
As for their healthcare, as soon as GE starts making band-aids, I'll make sure all of our fine men and women in uniform get their own box.
Saving the environment is way more important than providing active duty military members with healthcare. Besides they can always go through the federally regulated exchanges obamacare set up, right?
And besides, most military members are gun toting right wingers who only joined the military to play with guns and shoot "brown people" anyway, right? They're not gonna vote for him, so fuck them.
What amazes me the most about Obama supporters is how many of them went bat shit crazy over BOOOOSSSSHHHHH or any pol with an R after their name when they hear about favors for big money donors/ "special interests", but when he does the same thing their response is either "RAACCCIIIISSTTTTT!!!!!1111!!! or "nothing to see hear".
Anyone who votes for the bastard in November can shut the fuck up about how they support the troops.
Best Easter gift ever: *Read news headline* -- "President Obama hit by hotdog van carrying Obama 2012 campaign flags, not a single fuck is given. NFL news on page 11."
People joke about Biden, and rightly so. But no way could he be worse than the jug eared Jesus.
In a campaign style setting, union president Bob King praised Obama as "the champion of all workers" who "saved our jobs and saved our industry," an introduction that elicited chants of "Four more years!" from a crowd estimated at about 1,700 UAW members.
That stuff about how the UAW was a prime beneficiary of the bailout is just hooey, though.
Ask anybody.
Four Less Years!
Four Less Years!
Four Less Years!
Four Less Years!
Four Less Years!
Now, where did I park my time machine?
Clinton - power obsession combined with massive sense of entitlement
I've always thought that was Hillary's half of the power-couple equation, and all Bill really wanted was the personal freedom to be a whippin'-his-junk-out-at-you, take-it-or-you'll-get-it, honorary-Kennedy rape-bro, and he was wise/sociopathic enough to realize that the easiest route to living his dream was by helping his wife live hers.
It's a more uh charitable interpretation, I think.
Millard Fillmore Quote: "An honorable defeat is better than a dishonorable victory."
Biggest accomplishment:
The Compromise of 1850 was a last attempt to try to solve the slavery and state issues. Fillmore supported the Compromise of 1850. The compromise was only able to hold the Civil War off until 1861.
http://americanhistory.about.c.....llmore.htm
There was nothing honorable about the fugitive slave act.
Just saying, there went America's most compromising President. Not much to show for it.
My point too, here was this great compromiser and where did all that moderation lead him?
The problem is he was compromising with lunatic slave owners. Chamberlain was a great compromiser too. And in anther era with a different enemy might have been remembered as a great man.
"Taylor and Fillmore disagreed on the slavery issue in the new western territories taken from Mexico in the Mexican?American War. Taylor wanted the new states to be free states, while Fillmore supported slavery in those states to appease the South. In his own words: "God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil ... and we must endure it and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the Constitution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_Fillmore
You guys are so behind the times. Don't you know anything? With Barack Obama, the transition has been completed. No longer do we have presidents, but sovereigns.
His Extraordinary Majesty, Supreme and Holy Autocrat of All the Peoples of the United States of America, High Emperor Barack I Obama, by the Grace and the Mandate of God Almighty, has ascended. Drop to your knees and beg for favor, for the God-King is infinitely wise and merciful.
HAIL!
You forgot fidei defensor.
I could live with the ambition, if they just had SOMETHING to back it up with. But they're fucking morons. Why do the statists expect me to worship such appallingly bad and stupid people?
Why? Fuck you that's why!
When did a line from a 30 year old Mamet play become a catch phrase here?
Fuck you, that's when!
And with that, the thread flatlined _____________________________.
And now, a word from the Gas is Too Damn High Party spokesman.
But there's another reason for the wild rise in gas prices. The culprit is Wall Street. Speculators are raking in profits by gambling in the loosely regulated commodity markets for gas and oil.
A decade ago, speculators controlled only about 30% of the oil futures market. Today, Wall Street speculators control nearly 80% of this market. Many of those people buying and selling oil in the commodity markets will never use a drop of this oil. They are not airlines or trucking companies who will use the fuel in the future. The only function of the speculators in this process is to make as much money as they can, as quickly as they can.
What could possibly go wrong?
I'd speculate in Idiot Futures, but the supply is infinite.
I'm stealing.
Perhaps the "Speculation-is-Evil" people will one day try to explain how, if nothing affects price but speculation, do commodities ever become targets for speculation.
One of these days, the price of oil will drop like a rock. It will be the speculators again.
Maybe we should nationalize the oil industry and sell gasoline at a loss, like Hugo Chavez.
Or we could try rationing- you know, like the retarded 900 character limit for comments. That rally works great.
Too badly? How about anyone who wants the job?
Datebi* C' O 'M ?????????c o m m u n I ty?????????????bi s e x u a l and b I ?c u r Io u s In d I v I d u a ls ? You'll find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.?Join it right now and have fun?Totally Free To Place Profile and connect with hundreds of thousands of singles like you now!
?"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."
Perhaps the "Speculation-is-Evil" people will one day try to explain how
Thank you very much