Did I say it was an endorsement? I’m simply saying that it’s not unprecedented.
It’s slightly different in this case, but I’m not gonna quibble over the details. It’s close enough.
It’s important to remember that the question poses a morality question phrased in utilitarian terms, that is, an action is right if it results in net happiness for a great number of people, therefore, any questions as to whether a president violated any laws or principles or codes is completely irrelevant, so long as most people, his or her constituency, do not suffer.
Also, remember that questions of causation are not part of the original question. Leaving a nation worse off does not mean that a president is directly the cause of the massive problems, it only means that he is unfortunate not guilty.
Airman, I knew about Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus when I agreed about the enemy combatant thing. What makes it insidious is precisely that it goes mostly unremarked, meaning that, unlike Lincoln, this one could easily continue and fester basically forever, especially since it won’t affect most people. God help the ones who get caught in its net, though. Their situation will basically be hopeless.
I am well aware that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus. He was acting entirely within his powers under the Constitution, to wit:
Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus temporarily because the nation was convulsed by rebellion and pro-Southern “copperhead” riots; almost half the counrty’s territory was in the hands of a hostile power. Is the “War on Terror” really an “invasion” or “rebellion”? Do you really believe this is a good justification for apparently endless martial law?
Bush has permenently reclassified Americans as “enemy combatants,” thus revoking all of their rights as citizens. Jose Padilla is not scheduled to get due process when the war ends, as were those imprisoned during the Civil War. Also, Lincoln imprisoned mostly rioters, bounty jumpers, and pro-Southern agitators. In other words, people actually had to do something in order to get locked up. Now look at the Padilla case:
From CNN
A man has been permenently stripped of his rights on secret evidence that suggests he planned to commit a crime. And the Bush admin says all it needs to remove his rights is a short note from Defence Undersecretary Mobbs. No hearing, no judge. Not even a secret hearing, or a secret judge. Just a note from some Pentagon hack.
So the executive branch can now condemn people using secret evidence. No appeal. No lawyer. Much different from Licoln’s temporary suspesion of habeus corpus. I don’t see how this is different from an executive version of the unconstitutional “writ of attainder.”
For God’s sake, even Viet Dinh, the law prof. who wrote the Patriot Act, says the admin’s interpretation of the law is “unsustainable.”
Or as another lawyer put it:
And any president who overthrows 800 years of democratic tradition is leaving the nation worse off. 
I missed the Taney decision you mention, Elvis. Maybe the preview function would be a good use of Hamster Juice every once in a while.
Why is Woodrow Wilson let off the hook for his police state actions during the first Red Scare?
Wilson was a piker. The Red Scare was mostly a round-up and mass deportation of that decade’s Suspect Race of Foreigners, spiced up with some violent attacks on labor. Bush has deported more people, and had idiotic mass registrations of Middle Eastern men to boot. All in addition to his other hijinx I mentioned above.
Another possibility: maybe Hillary meant the record 2003 deficit: $374 billion, or 3.5% of the GDP. Reagan had a higher deficit GDP percentage (6%!), but this is not a good area in which to emulate the Gipper.
What makes people think Bush will be leaving in 2004? He may still have another 4 years in office.
Still, since Bush came to office during the greatest economic boom in history, it will be hard for him to leave office with the country “better off” even under the best of circumstances.
The fact that he ran as Reagan Lite, but governs like Franco.
Hillary may have been referring to unemployment. I was watching some news show a couple of days ago that claimed that GWB’s would be the first administration in history would suffer a net loss in jobs.
What about Hoover?
Yep, that would be since Hoover, a line I’ve used and that Sam Stone referenced above.
There’s still a chance he could avoid that title, but it dims with every passing month.
Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke in September 1919, and his wife and advisers were too busy hiding his condition from the public to rein in Palmer and his henchman, J. Edgar Hoover from their totalitarian tactics.
Harding was an incompetent boob who was oblivious to the avarice of his cronies in the cabinet, but his lack of ability did not harm the country overall.
Buchanan was another bad president, but he can’t fairly be blamed for failing to ward off the Civil War; sectionalism and the slavery question made it inevitable.
My candidate is Grover Cleveland, whose inept fiscal policy (mainly concerned with keeping the gold standard) helped deepen the effects of the devastating depression of 1893 and and who further established the precedent for suppression of rights by the government by sending federal troops to break the Pullman railroad strike in Illinois in 1894.
A full answer:
Andrew Jackson singlehandedly ruined the economy in the 1830’s through his economic actions (namely, abolishing the National Bank and giving its’ funds to banks run by his supporters).
Still, neither of Jackson nor Cleveland defecated copiously on the Constitution, as GWB has. Unless the Seminole Indians that Jackson sent down the Trail of Tears had citizenship. If that’s the case, I think Jackson will have officially trumped GWB.
“Oll Korrect” my ass.
It should be noted, for the record, that Cleveland took the extraordinary action of actually opposing the annexation of Hawaii during his term, something that would be simply unimaginable if anything similar happened during Dubya’s term, and he did it in terms that were clear and unmistakeable:
Anyone who can imagine that last line coming out of the present occupant of the White House is smoking some powerful ganja.
Dubya, certainly Reagan, possibly Nixon, LBJ or even Ike, on the other hand, could be counted on to wave the flag and yell “Support our troops!” or some other such nonsense.
Link: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1876-1900/foreignpolicy/hawaii.htm