Why The Founding Fathers Would Want Obama's Plans to Fail

Home | Community | Message Board

You are not signed in.
New Account

Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post

Pages: 1

Luddite
I watch Fox News

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946

Why The Founding Fathers Would Want Obama's Plans to Fail

#9946604 - 03/10/09 05:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

According to this article the founding fathers set up the government to help protect us from Obama's chains.

Why The Founding Fathers Would Want Obama's Plans to Fail

By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/10/09
James Madison was not specifically contemplating Barack Obama, or Nancy Pelosi, when he wrote Federalist No. 63. But reading the document — one of the seminal arguments in favor of adopting the U.S. Constitution — it’s clear Madison knew their type. And he knew they would come along again and again in American history, if Americans were lucky enough to have a long history.

Obama and Pelosi, along with their most ardent supporters, are the types to see a crisis, like our current economic mess, as a “great opportunity,” as the president put it last Saturday. They are the types, after a long period out of power, to attempt to use that “great opportunity” to push through far-reaching changes in national policy that had only a tangential connection, if at all, to the crisis at hand. And they are the types the Founding Fathers wanted to stop.

In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, “may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.”

For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63:

“There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”

Now is the time for the salutary interference of temperate and respectable citizens, otherwise known as the 41 Republicans in the United States Senate. It is their job to help the president in areas where there is widespread agreement that he should be helped, and hold the line on everything else.

Of course the economy is in crisis. But if Obama had his way, everything would be treated as if it were a crisis. Health care is a crisis. The environment is a crisis. Education is a crisis. In truth, those other areas are not crises, and the Senate’s job is to delay action on them until Obama’s power to stir popular passions fades. Then, whatever legislation is truly needed on health care, etc., can be undertaken in a more reasoned and measured way.

Five years ago, in the 2004 presidential race, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg did some research on behalf of candidate John Kerry. Greenberg wanted Kerry to be more bold in advocating wholesale change, so he convened a series of focus groups to test the public’s reaction to a number of aggressive policy proposals.

Greenberg found that voters would accept boldness on an issue or two, provided they were really important. But when a candidate promised bold action across the board, the people balked. “While voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception,” Greenberg concluded. “All together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust.”

In our current situation, the people elected Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities in Congress. They didn’t elect them to do nothing. When action is needed to deal with the economic crisis — it would be nice to have a financial stabilization plan, Mr. President — they will support it.

But they didn’t elect Obama to change everything, either. With Pelosi eager to go along with the president’s every wish, it’s up to temperate and respectable citizens to distinguish the crisis from the non-crisis, and act accordingly.

In other words, it’s up to the Senate to slow things down. Just like Madison planned.

http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/Why-The-Founding-Fathers-Would-Want-Obamas-Plans-to-Fail-40992107.html

--------------------
http://www.theamericanright.com/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446
http://www.climatedepot.com

Extras:

Similar Threads	Poster	Views	Replies	Last post
The United States is NOT Capitalist... ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )	trendal	17,954	133	09/28/09 01:34 PM by Phred
The Founding Fathers and Christianity	TheOneYouKnow	1,156	9	03/15/04 01:09 PM by afoaf
The Founding Fathers all grew hemp	mabus	851	3	03/02/04 03:58 PM by MAIA
Our founding fathers sat here. pics inside	timetravel	894	1	01/11/04 02:11 AM by HagbardCeline
Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed' ( 1 2 all )	RadioActiveSlug	2,302	33	04/01/03 06:59 AM by Innvertigo
Botulinum found in Iraq probably came from US	Edame	610	1	10/17/03 04:16 PM by Xlea321
Why has Africa failed? ( 1 2 3 4 all )	enimatpyrt	5,115	74	01/03/04 09:32 PM by winelover
just found this... ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )	Anonymous	3,286	124	09/09/03 12:46 PM by luvdemshrooms