Revealing, Repealing and Appalling.

"Deeply disappointed" by the SCOTUS votes
"Deeply disappointed" by the SCOTUS votes

April 2012, President Obama in his own arrogant fashion, crossed a very, very dangerous line. He, in a matter of words, called out our Supreme Court, in his typical, crooked, Chicago thug style of politicking, by suggesting our judicial branch of government, may not live up to its integrity of given powers. I think maybe I should have used the word “intimidate” in lieu of “suggesting”.

"We must pass this Bill FIRST, before we know what is in it!"
"We must pass this Bill FIRST, before we know what is in it!"

In case you missed it, it is regarding his Health Care Bill. The bill that was SHOVED down Americans throats, that even the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was not sure what the bill contained, but we must pass it first before we know WHAT exactly is in the bill. A bill that at the time, had 61% of our citizens of this land, that desperatly wanted it repealed.

He reminded our justices, that they were “an unelected group of people” and how “unprecedented and extraordinary” it would be if they were to “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” that was “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”.


During his days while applying to Harvard
During his days while applying to Harvard

Now, maybe Mr. President NEEDS to be reminded of the function of the United States Supreme Court. Perhaps he missed that part of his Harvard Law education, where they discussed the powers and duties of the highest court in the land. Just to be perfectly clear about this unprecedented attitude by Mr. Obama, a federal appeals court has ordered this administration to shed light on these extremely bold statements that he shared with everyone regarding his “understanding” of the constitutionality of our SCOTUS. That it IS their function to interpret and expound on the constitutionality of laws written and introduced by congress.

Chief Justice John Roberts labeled the political atmosphere at the 2010 address "very troubling" and said partisan rhetoric and gestures aimed at the court left him questioning whether his colleagues should attend.
Chief Justice John Roberts labeled the political atmosphere at the 2010 address "very troubling" and said partisan rhetoric and gestures aimed at the court left him questioning whether his colleagues should attend.

To make this situation even worse as far as I am concerned is his perception of this form of our checks and balances. A couple of years ago at his State of the Union address, he humiliated these judges on national TV, in front of the world, who had over ruled another issue that he disagreed with. His complete lack of respect IS “unprecedented and extraordinary”.


"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court, according the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troub
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court, according the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troub

As if I needed more reasons NOT to like our President, he has out done himself this time in a shameless fashion. I am more concerned now of the state of the union than ever before. For a President of the United States to disrespect the Constitution and the liberties of freedom, is unconscionable. All of us, including or resident of the White House MUST respect the decisions made by the SCOTUS, even if we disagree with the final decision. We must have faith in our system that due process will prevail for the greater cause of our freedoms.

I am very proud that he has been called out on his remarks and has to provide and answer to support his claims or offer an apology. I’m not holding my breath for either, but I have SOME satisfaction that it was done. Chief Justice Roberts was quoted as saying:

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according the requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

I think he sums up the attitude of this administration and another sign of his "lack of leadership" that his country needs so much at this time. I stand firm with my belief, that he was nothing more than a freshman senator, with the ability to rouse up a crowd, who managed to get the media adore him, and wound up in the most powerful position on earth. This man is not ready for such a task, and he proves it quite often.

And that my hub friends is my latest and greatest RANT regarding this President. Please feel free to share your thoughts.

Chris

Did the President "cross the line" with his scathing remarks regarding the SCOTUS?

See results without voting

Comments 79 comments

teaches12345 profile image

teaches12345 4 years ago

He's a one man band taking a stand in this land! Please, let's change this thing in November! Voted up and shared.


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

Chris, great to see you writing my friend. We can only hope this whole attack on the SCOTUS will come back to bite him in the butt. This was a demonstration of arrogance in the highest degree by our President. I feel he truly can't believe anyone would dare challenge him on any decision he cares to make. Let's just hope we can put this behind us in November.


Rambler1 profile image

Rambler1 4 years ago from East side of the free world.

The President doesn't have any respect for the court and he wonders why a large and growing number of people disrespects him.


lifelovemystery profile image

lifelovemystery 4 years ago from Houston, TX

He has a "complete and utter lack of respect for the law".


SubRon7 profile image

SubRon7 4 years ago from eastern North Dakota

Way to go, CM!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

teaches12345

I am with you on making a change this november...it MUST happen.

Thanks for dropping by.

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi Mike,

Without a doubt, he is the most arrogant President I have ever known or even heard of. The media is so far up his rear, he thinks he can say or do anything he wants with no ramifications.

He MUST GO!!

Thank you sir for your visit!

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Rambler1

I know I have grown to disrespect him about as much as I can disrespect ANYONE. I still respect the office, but not the man.

I appreciate your comments,

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

lifelovemystery

Ditto my friend, Ditto!!

:)


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

SubRon7

Thanks Ron, good to see you!

Chris


Rambler1 profile image

Rambler1 4 years ago from East side of the free world.

I still respect the office of the President, but when when we disregard the system for political gain is where the crap needs to stop.


lifelovemystery profile image

lifelovemystery 4 years ago from Houston, TX

Remember in November and vote for Real Change.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Right on Rambler1!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

lifelovemystery you got it right!

thanks for coming by!

Chris


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 4 years ago

Clearly, he is coming apart and can no longer try to pretend that he respects this nation. Great rant and an awesome one too!


Jason R. Manning profile image

Jason R. Manning 4 years ago from Sacramento, California

Hi Chris, good rant, keep drumming. You know what is particularly sad about this attack on the SC? It is the fact that the simpletons don’t care, the underlining fact remains; the only way this president is going to get voted out is because of the price of gas. $5 fuel will be his demise, not the trampling our rights, not the destruction of our world security or the lost respect of our allies. Nevertheless Chris, keep drumming, change IS coming. Cheers mate.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Actually, I'm pleased with this. His narcissism was fully exposed by this little temper tantrum, and even many on the left are now appalled by his audacity. Now we know he has no respect for either the legislative or judicial branches of our government. We also know he has no respect for our Constitution!

Obama hurt himself badly with this outburst, so I view it as inevitable. All would-be dictators expose themselves sooner or later.


The Frog Prince profile image

The Frog Prince 4 years ago from Arlington, TX

Chris - Obama crosses the line just about every day when he gets in a pout. The Lame Stream Media just seem to cheer him along. It probably wasn't a very good idea to open his big pie hole as he did since the final vote hasn't been released.

It has been suggested that Kagan spilled the beans to her old boss which I can probably believe.

The Frog


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks Bpops! You are instrumental in helping me develop my "rants"...keep up YOUR good work.

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Jason, It is sad, but you are very correct....so many folks are apathetic to our trampling of the constituion, but make them pay $5 bucks for gas, and BOOM! look out.

Hey, the bottom line is we got to get him out!

Cheers Jason!


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Will, I totally get your point! This one was a biggie!

It will be hard to do damage control on this one, despite the silence of our lame stream media. He is his BIGGEST enemy....and he has a lot of them.

Chris


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Frog, I too, suspect that Kagan, ran to him, spilling the beans....and he jumped the gun and spouted off...like the immature leader that he is.

Kagan should recluse herself in the first place...but that is a whole new hub by itself.

I appreciate you Frog,

Thanks


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 4 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

" It has been suggested that Kagan spilled the beans to her old boss which I can probably believe."

"...I too, suspect that Kagan, ran to him, spilling the beans"

I wondered if he had been tipped off, but Kagan never occurred to me. Good point.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

she is a former chicago resident, a Harvard Law student..and has always adored obama....and it is FACT that she was personally involved in advising how to defend against challenges to the healthcare law, during its development by the administration.

she is a mole, in MY very OWN personal opinion. she should have removed herself from the case, but she WANTS this bill to pass...despite if it is NOT constitutional.


J Elaine profile image

J Elaine 4 years ago from Northern Minnesota

When I watched and heard him make those comments I was absolutely floored. Another 4 years of Obama will destroy this country.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hello J Elaine,

He floored many of us....personally, I am getting tired of picking myself up off of the floor after he continues to make one outrageous remark after another.

Lets put it to an end this Nov.

Thanks for your comments,

Chris


BobbiRant profile image

BobbiRant 4 years ago from New York

Well, I have as yet to see the politician with 'great powers' to make things nicer for America. Humans have limited powers, limiting favors to their close friends and benefactors. All politicians are the same, none have any more big powers then you or I.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast)

Chris, you said, in regards to Obama's statement

"He reminded our justices, that they were “an unelected group of people” and how “unprecedented and extraordinary” it would be if they were to “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law” that was “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”.

Isn't that what the right wing GOP complains about all the time when one of their pet peeves is in the wringer? They refer to it as an activist court. I guess it just depends on what side of the ideological divide you find yourself....

Cred2


lifelovemystery profile image

lifelovemystery 4 years ago from Houston, TX

For our President to attack the Supreme Court for a decision that has not been handed down is nothing short of a temper tantrum. Obama feels like he has the right to scold everyone. The man has no class, and is clearly threatened by their decision. If they overturn it, he is done.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi Cred,

I do not think it it the place of the POTUS to "suggest" to the highest court of the land, on HOW they should "do" their job. He talked down to them on the Citizens United case, in front of National TV. He is arragant and pompus.

lifelovemystery, you are absoluty correcty.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, CM,

You hit a grandslam with this rant. You knocked the ball all the way out of the park and into the streets, while the bases were loaded.

Also, you are quite right by describing Obama as a "thug."

And, at this point in time, the only thing I will say to that is Barack had better watch out, he'd better not pout, because there are a whole lot of people out here who can "out-thug" his a_ _, and I am one of them.


Sueswan 4 years ago

Hi Chris

A great rant.

Obama definitely crossed the line with his scathing remarks to SCOTUS.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi Sue,

Thanks for dropping by!

and you are 100% correct as far as I am concerned, he HAS crossed the line.

Chris


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

It is an unwritten rule that the CEO of any large company support the rules and policies of that company, even if he disagrees with some of them. For the President to not support the Constitution and the Supreme Court clearly shows how unqualified he is to lead this country.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Old Poolman,

I second what you wrote.

And one more example of Obama's being unqualified to lead this country is the fact that he is "celebrating" the one-year anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Now how tasteless and unpresidential is that?


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 4 years ago from Rural Arizona

And yet he has a fan club who think he can do no wrong. I guess their idea of a great leader and our idea of a great leader are just much different.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

He is spiking the football, something he said he would never do. He is trying to capitalize off of an event that ANY/ALL presidents would have done. The Navy Seals are the only HERO's involved in the killing of Osama bin Laden.

This man is about as tacky and classless as there has ever been.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson had no respect for the Supreme Court, in fact he went out of his way to marginalize it and make it entirely impotent in the way he handled Marbury v. Madison. Andrew Jackson did the same when Georgia exerted its State's Rights in trying to ethnically cleanse the Cherokee out of their state and the Supreme Court declared the U.S. Constitution wouldn't allow them to do that; Jackson disagreed and wouldn't enforce the courts order. He ultimately was forced to change his stance on that because he was facing the disunion of the U.S. over this question. Nevertheless, the way that he did it allowed Georgia to have its way which led to the infamous Trail of Tears, the Cherokee's Battan Death March, both are heroes of the Right.

While I think Obama did a rather stupid thing in the way he phrased his remarks, it was one of those "I can't believe my ears" moments, I find it hugely ironic that somebody from the Right is taking him to task for it. Rather, I thought you would be praising Obama to high heaven and calling him one of your own.

It won't take much push back to that last statement to roll out volumes of conservative damnations of SCOTUS, that has been going on since 1801, for overstepping its bounds, sometimes, it seems, quoting Jefferson and Jackson in their derision of the Court.

You must know Chris, that what you accuse Obama of is standard conservatism 101 and has oft been repeated many times by almost every conservative who is worth his or her salt before Obama ever uttered those idiotic words. I wonder if he thought to himself "Oops, that didn't come out right" because the way he said is "fingernails on a blackboard" to any Democrat.

You might tweak Obama for his tastefulness, but you can't for his originality.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Old Poolman, you do know don't you, that it took the Court almost 60 years before they got any semblance of respect from the conservative Presidents and Congress that ruled America for the first 100 plus years, don't you. In fact, it wan't until the 1950s, when President Eisenhower, to the horror of all conservatives, sent federal troops in to back up the Courts order for Central High (I think), in Little Rock, AR to allow nine black children into an all-white school, that SCOTUS was finally accepted by all Americans, and not just the liberal ones, to be the final arbitar on what the law and the Constitution says. 1950s, can you believe!


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

First, back in the 1957 when Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, there was no such thing as "conservatives" and "liberals," or the "right" and the "left."

Politically, there were Republicans (nearly all of whom were whites who resided outside the South, along with the majority of blacks in both the "North" and the "South").

And there were Democrats (a group that was largely comprised by northeastern and middle-western ethnic whites -- mainly Irish,Italians and Polish -- along with nearly all the members of labor unions, socialists and communists and their sympathizers, and Southern whites who were often called "Dixie-crats).

Furthermore, the event in the 1950s that engendered ill feelings among many individuals towards U.S. Supreme Court was in no way connected to what transpired in Little Rock.

The ill feelings grew out the U.S. Supreme Court's 1955 ruling in favor of a suit filed by the NAACP regarding segregated public schools -- and that case was known as Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

In fact, after that ruling was made, giant billboards could be seen all over the country (in the "North" as well as in the "South") that contained big bold letters that read, "Impeach Earl Warren" -- and, of course, Warren was the Chief Justice of SCOTUS when that court ruled against the racially-segregated public school system of Topeka.

And back then, the ones who opposed that court ruling, and paid for all the billboards, were not called "conservatives," they were called "segregationists." And the vast majority of the "segregationists" were white Southerners who supported the Democrat Party, as well as the white Northern labor union members and white "suburbanites," groups that largely supported the Democrat Party.

And you are quite right. Presidents being critical of SCOTUS or hostile towards that body is nothing new. However, many are upset over Obama's "admonishment" of that court because he wants it to rule in favor of a law that would FORCE all Americans to purchase a particular thing -- and something like that is not supposed to happen in a "free country."


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I am sorry @Feenix, I must categorically dissagree with your characterization of "there was no such thing [back then] as "conservatives" and "liberals," or the "right" and the "left."

"Conservativism", "Liberalism", and "Progressivism" (I wonder what us Moderates are called, "Moderatism"?) are not names of parties but terms that embody a set of ideals. Conservatives, liberals, and progressives will then join the party of their choice or no party at all. It is those "ideals" and beliefs which define a person, not their party, and those characteristics have been around before there was a U.S. Constitution.

I don't particularly care if you are a Democrat, Republican, Libitarian (although that does almost define its members, Whig, No Nothing Party member, anti-administration, or pro-administration (parties weren't allowed during Washington's presidency. It is the political views you hold that interest me, because it is those views which cause you to act one way or another. AND, it is those views, ideals, and beliefs that have always been and will always be.

So, yes, there certainly were Conservatives, Liberals, Right and Left and that is why I generally write in terms of Conservatives, Moderates, Progressives, and Liberals because what constitutes those labels is unchanging.

As to the Brown v Board of Education, yes, that was the decision which Eisenhower was sending in the troops to defend. I am writing a series on SCOTUS, the first of which is published, it deals with Marbury v Madison, the principle of Judicial Review which Conservatives (although my poll may prove me to be wrong) almost unanimously agree is not a power SCOTUS has or at least should have. It is the results of this ruling, of course, which, whether he intedended to or not (sort of an etch-a-scetch moment, don't you think), which Obama made his comments about.

Of course the Democratic Party is marjority White, that is because it is made up of a cross-section of Americans. A 2011 poll suggests 63% of Democrats are White, not of Hispanic descent, and 37% non-White, the population, btw, is 72% White and 28% non-White.

On the other hand, a 2009 survey shows the Republican party is comprised of 89% non-Hispanic Whites, (63% conservative, 26% not conservative). I can imagine, with the further polarization that has happened since 2010, it has gotten even more lopsided, although it only has 11% to go before it is "lily-white".


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Hi My Esoteric,

I appreciate your comments, and your brief history lesson. I tend to like the way feenix put it, especially in his last paragraph. It is the attitude and the Chicago style thuggary that Obama has extended towards his desire to "get his way" is what set off my rant. A dose of intimidation, is something that is expected of him by those who cannot find a way to warm up to him. His divisional attitude he has carried on his shirt sleeve since his inaguration. Telling republicans they can come along for the ride, but to stay out of the way....if republicans bring a knife to a fight, the dems should bring a gun...that mentality of bullying his policies through legislation is what sets me off.

It is always a pleasure to hear your side of the issues, and you are one of my favorite "lefties" (lack of better words, lol) to hear from. You have a way of making your argument makes SOME sense to me.

Chris


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

I will say it one more time. Back in the 1950s, people were not labeled as conservatives, liberals, moderates or centrists. And that is because those descriptions were not even in the American lexicon when it came to politics.

Additionally, and although they did not tend to call themselves such, the vast majority of 1950s Americans (whether white, black, brown, yellow, red, or mixed heritage) had conservative views when it came to socio-economics and politics.

The only types who could have fit into the liberal/progressive pigeon hole were the relative few who comprised such groups as communists, socialists, anarchists, Libertarians, and beatniks.

A perfect example of what I am talking about is during the 1950s, the Democrat Adlai Stevenson ran against, and was defeated by, the Republican Dwight Eisenhower two times.

And you will not find one 1950s news report or article in which Stevenson and his supporters were labeled as liberals, progressives, moderates, centrists, or the left. And you will not find any in which Eisenhower and his followers were categorized as conservatives, right-wingers, moderates, etc.

The widespread use of the terms conservative and liberal did not emerge until sometime in the 1970s, and the mid-to-late 1970s, at that.

Getting back to what I said about the majority of 1950s Americans being conservatives -- they most certainly were conservatives, because the vast majority were opposed to abortion, believed that there should be prayer in the public schools, had a dim view of government welfare programs (in fact, most people who were on welfare did everything they could to conceal it, largely because accepting government handouts went against the standards of self-sufficiency that had been instilled into them by their parents and grandparents) -- and the majority were also in favor of strict law and order, including the death penalty - and I could go on.

Back in the 1950s -- and I know what I'm talking about because I was there -- if you had asked the average man or woman on the street whether he or she was conservative, liberal, progressive, moderate, or a centrist, that person would have glared at you with a puzzled expression and asked, "What in the hell are you talking about?"

Now if you had asked 1950s folks whether they were socialists, communists, anarchists, or apolitical, the vast majority would have understood that question and given such answers as, "No to all of the above, I'm an American," or else they would have answered, "No to all of the above, I'm a Democrat," or "I'm a Republican."

And a few would have come right out and answered, "Yes, I'm a communist," or, "Yes, I'm a socialist," and so on and so forth.

Finally, I must say that if the likes of Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy were around today, they would have to be Republicans.

The ways in which those men stood on the issues were closer to that of today's Republicans and had hardly anything in common with the stands taken by the likes of Dukakis, Kerry, Clinton and Obama.

The truth is, most of the leftist-power elite actually have socialistic and communistic views when it comes to most of the issues, but they throw everybody off by giving themselves such handles as liberals, progressives, moderates and centrists.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thanks for that feenix,

I think of terms such as a Rockefeller Repulican for those who were moderate and Goldwater Republicans for those who were far right. FDR, sort of defined the liberal movement for the democrats...Truman was more conservative.

It is a whole new ballgame now....it seems repubs and dems are gone, and you are either conservative, moderate or liberal....AND we have the libertarian with a conservative or liberal twist.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

CM, you are quite right. You told it like it is.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

How about the Progressive "Bull Moose" party of President Roosevelt, was he a communist?

I will also offer this, feenix, from Wikipedia - Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".[2][3] The first established use of the term in a political context was by François-René de Chateaubriand in 1819, following the French Revolution.[4] The term, historically associated with right-wing politics, has since been used to describe a wide range of views.

Got to get to work, more later


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

My Esoteric,

I think feenix was eluding the fact the terminolgy Conservatve, was not prevailent in the 50's as a household name. Russel Kirk got the ball rollingwith his "The Conservative Mind"...then a few years later, William F. Buckley Jr, expanded the movement, and it really did not take root until Barry Goldwater arrived in the 60's...and Reagan sort of defined it in the 80's...at least that is the way I found it to be.

But you are correct, it has been a word associated with a political philosophy for yeas.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Thanks Chris, I was getting to that but had to do a little research first. I offer some excerpts from Widipedia.

Abraham Lincoln, 1859:""The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminently 'conservative'. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the Government themselves expected and looked forward to."

In the 1830s, "Daniel Webster and other Whig leaders referred to their new political party as the "conservative party", and they called for a return to tradition, restraint, hierarchy, and moderation"

Roosevelt and his supporters bolted, then formed the 'Progressive Party', popularly known as the Bull Moose Party. TR's running mate was California governor Hiram Johnson.

In the 1930s, "Without a qualifier, the term "liberalism" since the 1930s in the United States usually refers to "modern liberalism", a political philosophy exemplified by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and, later, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society."

Lester Ward, (1841 - 1913), noted author in 1886, "As a political approach, Ward's system became known as 'social liberalism', as distinguished from the classical liberalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which featured such thinkers as Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.

These are just a few examples of the use of the terms conservative, progressive, and liberal long before the 1950s. I was also very much alive and aware of politics in the mid-1950s, I supported Eisenhower in school elections, and was quite aware of at least the terms conservative and liberal, although progressive came later when I learned about the 1913 Progressive party; maybe it is a Califonia thing.

Now, you are quite correct that the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' didn't come into everyday use until Kennedy and then Goldwater, and wasn't cemented in our conscience until Rush Limbaugh. But to say those terms didn't exist and weren't understood as to what they meant prior to that time is simply to deny historical references.

Question, if you consider John Adams, a Federalist and supporter of the U.S. Constitution, a conservative, what do you call George Mason, who was an anti-Federalist and opposed the Constitution until his dying breath? Clearly, these two patriots had opposing ideas on what America was to be about.

Where did all of the American conservatives go after Eisenhower? Did they change their mind and move to the left?

In any case, whether the terms themselves were in popular use prior to 1970 or 1955 simply doesn't make one whit of difference. They are the terms we use today to define how people believe.

Finally, I seriously doubt, Adlai, Harry, or John would ever consider being a Republican, even if the Republican party would have them, which they wouldn't. Hell, conservatives don't even want Olympia Snowe in their party because they consider her a RINO.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

I'm waving my white flag ... waving my white flag.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Thank you feenix.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

And I thank you for being a gentleman and for sharing some information and bits of history I was unaware of.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

Somehow I missed this one! Sorry to get in late! Great hub! voted up! Stay after them my friend!..........we got your back! LOL!


sheila b. profile image

sheila b. 4 years ago

He thinks like a dictator, acts like a dictator, and wants to be a dictator.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

I assume @Sheila is referring to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld trio.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

Why can't you be cool?

This hub is about Obama and Sheila's comment is about Obama.

Speaking as one oldtimer to another, the manner in which you twisted Sheila's remark is boyishly mischievous and condescending.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Boyishly mischievous, possibly, but certainly not condesending. Of course I knew she was talking about Obama, but my point was my statement is as rediculous has hers.

Neither Bush nor Obama took the Presidency to become dictators and neither acted or are acting like one either. Both did or are doing what they thought best for America for both follow in the footsteps of those who philosophically came before them, for Bush, it might be Andrew Jackson (Jefferson was too much of social liberal to qualify) and Obama's muse might be John Adams.

To call, let alone believe that any President of the United States is a wanna-be dictator only expresses a total lack of understanding of how the political process works on the part of the person making such a claim.

Also, by making such a stupid claim on my part, I was hoping she would realize that hers is similarly idiotic.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

It is not your job to show anyone else on this site that what he/she writes or wrote is "idiotic."

And besides, what is "idiotic" to you is not necessarily "idiotic" to someone else.

Sometimes, we have to release a little of the air from our balloons.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

First of all, thank you sheila b. for your comments...and I fully understand where you are coming from.

Esoteric, though I get your point, and we all know there is plenty of safety measures in place to keep a dictator from every gaining power...I think Obama has expressed himself as a very narcissistic leader, who has went to extremes to circumvent the process to sneak by orders and appointments, to garner strength...and to further an agenda to move us in a very liberal direction.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Chris, yes I understand, but why single out Obama when almost all Presidents have done exactly the same thing throughout history, the last one prior to Obama is G.W. Bush. He totally stonewalled Congress when it went Democratic; he also made out of session appointments; he misled Congress and the country about the real threat of Sadam Hussain.

As far as narcissism goes (I find him arrogant, rather then narcissitic, myself) I would think Nixon or Johnson would take the cake, of recent Presidents anyway. Thomas Jefferson told James Madison to simply ignore anything the Supreme Court said or did, regarding Marbray, which Madison obeyed. Abraham Lincoln suspended, on his own, part of the Constitution during the civil war (later determined to be a Constitutional exercise of executing authority. The list goes on, as you expect ... so why sigle out Obama with such a terrible characterization?


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

I cannot remember Bush ever BLAMING a bad situation on others. He did not blame our bad economy on 911 or Katrina (even though they DID have a direct impact upon it.

Obama has been on a constant attack to defend every thing that he has been questioned about. He blames everyone but himself.

Such as: “George Bush left us a $1 trillion deficit, and so it’s a lot harder to climb out of this hole when we don’t have a lot of money in the federal coffers.”

ignoring the fact, that HIS democrat spenders had been in charge of the purse two years before he took office.

I can go on and on about his blame game...

He made his own promises, and when he could not keep them.......he passed the buck.

Of course, I am a conservative, and it is rather easy for me to single out this man's character as one that I find rather repulsive, and not in the best interests of our country.

As far as Bush misleading our Congress and country regarding Hussain... well, I cannot let that one go, as it has always amazed me on how quick the left forgot how Clinton, Albright, and many members of congress URGED the world how dangerous Sadam Hussain was...how they MUST be stopped.

Then after months of several UN resolutions (one after another)...it was voted on unanimously in Washington to take action....which we did....and only THEN, after NO WMD's were to be found, as to when the infamous "blame game" came into play...

So as I see it, it seems to be a pattern of covering ones ass by the left when things don't go according to their plan....they have a history of "blame game"....and Obama has so very egotistically upheld his portion of the game.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

For starters, Bush was handed a plum and turned it into a lemon. Obama was given an impending catastrophy and managed to limit it to a disaster; of course Bush never complained, he had nothing to complain about to start with.

Why should Obama blame himself for the recession? Why should Obama blame himself for the 4.6 million Americans who lost their jobs before he took office? Why should Obama blame himself for another 2.2 million lost jobs in the three months after he was sworn in?

Even the most optimistic of economists didn't see things getting better inside a year, if Obama took strong measures ... but, of course, Conservatives made sure he wasn't allowed to; but I doubt you can find even one economist of merit who believed America could even begin to recover inside two years if Obama did what his Conservative predecessors did back in the 1800s, that is nothing.

How another pesky problem facing America, the wars. Should Obama blame himself for two completely mismanaged war efforts prior to taking office? Should Obama blame himself for seven straight years of neglect in the theater where we were attacked from, Afghanistan? Do you think things got better or worse during those seven years Bush turned his back on the real problem?

Should Obama blame himself for the turning virtually the whole world against the US because of our administration's unabashed arrogance?

I have run out of things because fixing those three broad areas of dismal failure are enough to consume any Presidents time. I just don't quite understand why the Conservatives believe Obama should take that history and place it on his back.

What Obama should blame himself for is 1) stopping the economic disaster from becoming a total meltdown, 2) slowing the avalanche of job losses and turning them around to job gains in less than a year (don't you find it simply a miracle that he was able to limit further loss of jobs to just 1.8 million) faster than any other President in history facing a crisis of this size, 3) getting America in good standing with the rest of the industrialized world, 4) ending the Iraq war, and 5) turning a lost war in Afghanistan into one that we will probably win.

What isn't factual about the quote you attribute to Obama.

What president in history ever kept 100% of his promises? The fact that Obama has been able to keep, in full or partly, 47% of his promises in three years against unparalleled opposition from the other side whose sole, stated goal is to make 'Obama a one-term president' and to stop him from fulfilling even one promise. BTW, 27% of his promises are still in the works, according to Politifacts.

Clinton, et al, did not put troops on Iraq's border (a good move which he should have maintained, nor did they orchastrate a campaign (as was revealed in subsequent investigations) to lead America and the world into a war with Iraq ... only Bush and team did that. I was in conversation with a Conservative friend prior to Bush's invasion pointing out all of the doubts about Bush's "proof" which were easily available in the news, doubts which were later proved to be real, btw; he just called me an unAmerica commie.

The resolutions you refer to were orders to stop what, as it turneout, Sadam wasn't doing, save for the horrific massacre of his own people, in the first place. Congress didn't tell Bush go to war, they gave him the latitude to do so if he found there was compelling reason to do so, same with the UN; there is a big difference between the two.

If you add "and the right" to your last paragraph, I absolutely will agree.

Ahhh, that felt good, lol.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Oh, and in the two years the Dems were the majority in Congress, because of the Conservatives abuse of the filabuster rule, nothing got through Congress without their approval.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

You wrote, "Oh, and in the two years the Dems were the majority in Congress, because of the Conservatives abuse of the filabuster rule, nothing got through Congress without their approval."

And the founders of this great nation set things up to go that way.

In fact, anyone who wants to live in a place where everything just sails through a parliamentary/congressional body should relocate to Cuba or North Korea.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Sorry Feenix, the right to filibuster (spelled right this time) is a Senate rule, specifically SR XXII, and not anything the founders built into the Constitution. That means, if the Senate wanted to, they could do away with the filibuster if they so choose. Already the Dems have talked about trying to do so, but but a few Dems, seeing the precedent has been set by the Conservatives, see the Rule as a way to a way to control the Conservative agenda if and when they regain control.

I suspect that if the Conservatives do regain power in the Senate and the Dems abuse the filibuster rule as badly as the Republicans are doing so today, then there will be enough votes (2/3's is needed due to another SR) to do away with what was once a good idea.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

My Esoteric,

Who said anything about what the founders built into the Constitution?

It's all about the ways in which those men set things into motion.

As an example, the Constitution does not call for the U.S. to have two major political parties that oppose one another, but the founders certainly did set up things to be that way.

And why did they do that?

It was because they had the wisdom to know that a government comprised by "warring factions" would go a long way towards keeping the nation from being one "extreme" or the other (i.e. extremely right or extremely left).


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Good Morning ME,

First of all, let me go step by step with a few responses.

You make the claim that he was responsible for

“1) stopping the economic disaster from becoming a total meltdown”

Pumping some $85 Billion of American Tax Dollars to bail out companies WAS NOT acting in the best interests of Americans, but rather to gain political power. Our forefathers recognized the potential of business’ falling into heavy troubles and put BANKRUPTCY into place to allow a legal process to reorganize.

Never did they dream that it would be the government’s responsibility to BAILOUT business.

Obama managed to gain control over the auto industry by this move. He then set some guidelines up to produce the Chevy Volt to try to shove his “green initiative” down our throats, before the technology was ready.

We sold less the 9,000 volts. Add this to the tax credits he passed out to try to “sell” these crap cars; we lost another $1.5 billion dollars.

Also, the ½ Billion dollars we lost on companies like Solyndra, trying once again to gain political power instead of doing what we needed to be doing.

So excuse me if I don’t pat Mr. Obama on the back for keeping us from a meltdown. He COULD HAVE done it better. GM and Chrysler could have done what ever other business had to have done. File Chapter 11.

The $85 Billion would have been a nice tax break for hard working Americans, who would have utilized that cut and spurred the economy.

Which would have fix your second part --“2) slowing the avalanche of job losses and turning them around to job gains in less than a year”

This all the time I have to cover right now, but felt pretty darn compelled to respond to at least a couple I feel very, very strongly about.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Chris, and I am glad you do respond because at least you bring up debatable points. You say Obama could have done it better. What would have been better, presuming you aren't one of the ones who believe America needed the cleansing 1929-style, or worse, depression would have provided?

I also presume you believe it when the vast majority of mainstream economists from both Parties (and history) say that there would have been a catastropic, world-wide depression had not something been done by the government(s). So, I am curious what your "something" would have been.

Actually, in the stimulus, Obama gave Americans and American companies a $288 billion tax break, much more than the $85 billion you suggest, it just didn't all go to the rich, it went to regular Americans instead.

As to Backruptcy and forefathers; they just gave the federal government authority to make uniform backruptcy laws over all of the States, nothing more. The first actual bankruptcy law was in 1801 and was repealed in 1803, then enacted again in 1841 and 1867, only to be repealed not long after their enactment. The first permanent bankruptcy law wasn't put on the books until 1897.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

ME,

You ask me "Obama could have done it better"...I say yes,

His stimulus package that exceeded $787 BILLION, was to instill the confidence needed to restore economy growth...it clearly failed. Now, I realize it was an effort, with a liberal ideology in it. Billions was given to failed companies such as Solyndra, Solar Trust of America, LSP Energy, and Beacon Power just to name a few. All were given American Tax Dollars, and they failed.

The tax break was very weak...do you realize he could have given every family (approx 115 million households) a Check for $5,000...1/2 the amount of the Stimulus. That would have jumped started the economy much more than what we ended up with...and would have created jobs, instantly.

The tax cut he gave us is about $37 a month...which does NOT instill consumer confidence.

I say the catastrophic depression that was forcasted, was more hype than truth.

Opening up oil and gas on federal lands, the keystone pipeline all would have instantly increased jobs, and the economy. It WOULD have kept our price per gallon below $2 bucks...which would have kept inflation down, and spurred MORE economic growth.

Obama made speeches during his campaign WANTING the price of gas near $5 bucks a gallon...he thought that it would stimulate the chevy volt sales, to keep his GM bailout looking good.

My Esoteric, I just think he failed, and failed miserably...I think he had great intentions, but did not have the experience or the right people in place to tell him what is best.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

Chris,

Clearly, you and I look at the following set of events differently.

- Stock market is crashing in Feb 2009

- Layoffs are at 700,000/month and climbing in Feb 2009

- Obama announces the stimulus in Feb 2009 and implements it the beginning of Mar 2009.

- Stock market rebounds in the middle of May 2009

- Layoffs are cut in 1/2 from the April 2009 rate in May 2009 and continue general decline until Jan 2010 when more Americans found jobs than were laid-off.

Now, I understand you look at this scenario of fall and improvement as having nothing to do with Obama's stimulus and may, in fact, believe this recovery would have been even better if Obama had not invested $797 billion in the economy at all.

On the other hand, I see a direct connection between the stimulus and the increase in the stock market and the decrease in layoffs because I know the economy would have become much, much worse before it got better after having run its course.

* If $228 billion in tax cuts and incentives produced such paltry results, why do you think only $85 billion would have been better?

* I think you know I have been putting together a book on recessions and depressions of the last 200 years which is why I knew what was going to happen if nothing was done because I have documented 20+ recessions and depressions where nothing WAS done, and saw the disasters that resulted. In any case, I am taking it you think Rebublican economists Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Bush's Sec of Treasury, Henry Paulson where just hyping it up when they told Bush in Oct 2008 that a depression, and not just any old depression, but a historic one (this is according to Bush himself in an interview I listened to) was going to happen if he didn't do something; TARP was his response.

* Opening up the oil and gas on federal lands would certainly produce jobs, but at no faster rate than what Obama experienced. Further, there is not enough oil there to significantly effect oil prices in the short-term and only modestly in the long-term while, at the same time, depleting our future ability to react at the point that the world does start running short.

Keystone, when completed, would have virtually no impact on domestic gas prices because almost all of the oil and refined by-products are slated to be sold overseas and will not be made available in any significant amount to the domestic market. To have $2/gal gas, oil would have had to permanently fallen to about $60/bbl, down from $100. Do you really think, given the turmoil in the Middle East, that would have actually happened? For gas to get that cheap again, peace would have to break out.

* Using your figures, the total would be $575 billion, only (lol) $300 billion less than the stimulus. So, what is the likely outcome if Obama had done as you suggest? First, millions of umemployed workers would have had their unemployment benefits run out, the total that went to the vulnerable was $82 billion; second, $290 billion would not have entered the economy via tax breaks and incentives; third, no jobs would have been created by government action; and fourth, tens of thousand state jobs in education would have been lost at the worst possible time,

What would have been gained? 1) for those who were unemployed, maybe 10 additional weeks worth of unemployment benefits; 2) for those who were poorly employed, $3500 they could really use (they got $1500/family from the stimulus, which includes your figure of $38/month in reduced payroll taxes (it is actually less than $3500 because many families qualified for a $1000 tax credit for education); for families with good jobs, $3500 to reduce debt; for the rich, enough money for a short vacation.

Only in cases 1 and 2 would the $5000 go directly back into the economy. In case 3, reducing debt doesn't contribute to economic activity. In case 4, the vacation would probably be overseas. What ever new jobs would have been created would entirely depend on whether business felt like it or had enough trust that the economy wasn't going to get worse. In any case, nobody really knows what they would have ultimately done.

* Just like Obama NEVER promised unemployment would stay below 8%, he also NEVER said he WANTED gas to hit $5/gal. Please provide the links to those quotes.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

@feenix, it just makes no sense to me that having spent so much time trying to craft a governmental structure that was practical and could actually govern without becoming oppressive had it mind that a minority group could permanently bring government legislative operations to a halt. That idea, it seems to me, flys right in the face of what they had in mind. They wanted a Congress that worked like it did prior to 2000, not as it does (or should that be doesn't) today.

The Conservatives have changed how Congress works, and it is not good. In 1994, the Conservative House of Representatives began the practice of totally shutting out the opposition from its deliberations to a degree never before seen in the last 100 years; the Dems returned the favor from 2006 to 2010. Conservatives continued the practice in 2010.

Conservative Senators began, in 1994, putting holds on judicial appointments also to a degree that has never been done before; again, the Dems returned the favor in 2006 and today, the Conservatives are using the filibuster to stop judicial appointments in very large numbers.

That simply can't be the way our founders hoped that things would work.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 4 years ago

Love the title and couldn't agree more with what you said. Voted up.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 4 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Thank you Bibowen


SassySue1963 3 years ago

@myesoteric I hate to break this to you, but if any Party was shutting out another Party from the legislative process in 1994, it was the Democrats. They held both Chambers from 1993 to 1995. Just sayin'. Sometimes facts are not your friend.

So no, there is no "pay back". What the Democrats did for this President's first 2 years in completely shutting out one party from the process is unprecedented. And even now, when they lost the House directly because of Obamacare and not listening to the people, they act like they are some majority, which they are not.


SassySue1963 3 years ago

I might add that the best times for the United States as a country (although some might not like it) are when we have a Democrat President & a Congress where Republicans control both chambers of Congress. 2nd is when we have a Republican President and a split Congress. Third is when we have a Republican President & Republicans control both chambers. Fourth is a Democrat President & a split Congress. Dead last, and our worst times, are when we've had a Democrat President and both chambers are controlled by Democrats. Historically speaking.


CMerritt profile image

CMerritt 3 years ago from Pendleton, Indiana Author

Interesing theories. I would like to see a Conservative White House and Congress, just once.

I agree the Clinton/Gingrich era was pretty good.

Reagan proved you can get things accomplished with an opposing House and Senate.

Thanks for commenting Sue.

:)


SassySue1963 3 years ago

Yeah I forgot to put Reagan in there - it is a pretty even tie with a Republican President & a split Congress. That does cover all the years of our existence and not just modern history.

While I understand completely about wanting to see a conservative Prez & Congress at least once, right now I'm very much more concerned about 2014. This particular President with control of Congress will send the country down the poop chute in a hurry.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 3 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL

So the 1960s were worst times? Worse than the 70s; worse than the 2000s?


Brenda Durham 3 years ago

Great hub, C Merritt.

Yep, Obama bullied the Supreme Court.

Amazing, isn't it?!

But then....the Supreme Court has been teetering on the brink of total corruption for a while. Obama just made everything worse.


SassySue1963 3 years ago

@myesoteric Again, facts are not your friend. Kennedy did pretty well from an economic standpoint, but he took the Republican approach to jump start the economy.

He cut taxes on businesses and passed across the board tax cuts for all Americans. The tax rate for the wealthiest Americans fell under Kennedy from 91% to 63%.

Enter Johnson and "the Great Society" bundle. The only reason it did not have an immediate impact on the economy is he managed to push it through Congress without any taxes or revenue geared to pay for it. By the end of his term, inflation was already rearing its head.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working