Perhaps, it was. To you and to others. Not necessarily so, for me.
I can't tell you how many times I've written the thought in my head, perfectly crafted it, sent it on its merry way, only to learn that it perfectly failed to do the chore it was assigned to do. That's simply the tyranny of language.
My fault. Your fault. Nobody's fault.
Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I do appreciate it and I do respect your thoughts. I hope this reply demonstrates that.
Now, you said the U.S. was not a dictatorship. Perhaps you meant something different than how I interpreted your sarcasm.
Ah, the perfect thought gone wrong. It wasn't sarcasm. It was bent humor with what I thought was a relevant point.
As President, there are only specific things McCain or Clinton or Obama can do as President. They can negotiate treaties but that can't ratify them, for instance. All Presidents are assigned credit or blame for things that really became reality only through legislative acts. Then, the power of President as a reflection of his ideology and character is his willingness to sign or veto the legislation.
In Roman times, the Senate would elect a dictator for a supposed temporary term who could override their powers to legislate. Of course, temporary didn't always turn out so temporary. The point was that McCain could only be the fundamental danger some think him to be if he had power over the Congress.
Here in Free Republic are so many people with whom I'm politically compatible and we're at odds. By magic, I guess you were supposed to know what I'm working out in my own mind.
I stand by my original assertion: John McCain as POTUS would be an imminent threat to the U.S.A. as we know it.
Somewhere in what I've written above I hope comes the rejoinder that what you assert is impossible. It presumes unchecked powers he simply wouldn't have.
And if he circumvented the will of the Party, say by executive order or administrative powers (i.e., allocation of resouces) or an unwillingness to use his veto against Democratic legislation, I doubt the party would be there to support and finance a second term.
... global warming regulation, the border, amnesty, Law of the Sea, "League of Democracies," ...
“I stand by my original assertion: John McCain as POTUS would be an imminent threat to the U.S.A. as we know it.
Somewhere in what I’ve written above I hope comes the rejoinder that what you assert is impossible. It presumes unchecked powers he simply wouldn’t have.
And if he circumvented the will of the Party, say by executive order or administrative powers (i.e., allocation of resouces) or an unwillingness to use his veto against Democratic legislation, I doubt the party would be there to support and finance a second term.”
McCain would wield power that few Presidents have, by virtue of being a nominal member of one party while ideologically aligned with the other. Republicans wouldn’t fight the POTUS of their own party, not if they wanted to keep their political careers. Democrats wouldn’t fight McCain, at least not much, because they ideologically support most of what he wants to do anyway.
Because he is philosophically a Democrat while wearing the label of a Republican, McCain would be a uniquely powerful and therefore uniquely dangerous. He would be able to do far more lasting and significant damage than either Hillary or Obama, because one party would fight them, while no party would fight him. Add to that the fact that McCain is old and sick and probably doesn’t have eight years in him, and there is virtually no check on him. He can do almost anything he likes because he literally has nothing to lose.
If McCain wins, we will have effectively lost the two party system. With so many RINOS in power already, we are dangerously close to losing it now. With four years of McCain, the transformation of the parties into “totally socialist” and “slightly less than totally socialist” will be complete, and there will be no party left that even gives lip service to the Constitutional foundations upon which this country was based.
I, for one, will not be a part of that, and I think it is childish and shortsighted for any conservative to do so just to get a win in the “R” column in November.