President Bush wants to become a dictator?

Great Debates
41

If that were true, then the backlash would have existed all during Bush’s Presidency. To the contrary, 90% of Americans said that they approved of the way that George Bush was handling his job as President in the latter part of September of 2001. This country was behind him despite the far right’s reaction to President Clinton and despite the questionable election of 2000. He alone is responsible for the 50% drop.

Further, despite the distraction of the Starr investigation and the impeachment, President Clinton’s approval ratings for how he was doing his job remained high. If I recall correctly, they were 60% and over during some of the worst of it.

If Bush hasn’t drilled in Alaska, it hasn’t been because he didn’t try. The NRDC has fought him tooth and nail on the issue of protecting the Alaskan wilderness. Meanwhile, he has opened 58 million acres of public lands to road building, logging and drilling.

:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0120-01.htm

If the Bush Administration hasn’t been more secretive, then why doesn’t he make himself more available for question and answer sessions with the press? I learn more about our country’s policies by watching Tony Blair’s news conferences than I do anything coming out of the White House.

I swear, if I hear him talk about “sauverney in I-rak” one more time… :smack:

A lot of people have put up with his communication problems, secretiveness, closed bidding for cronies, deliberately misleading statements, lack of cooperation with investigations, bungled education policies, backdoor judicial appointments, curtailment of civil liberties, disasterous environmental policies, tax breaks for the rich, gutting of the economy, and stubborn determination to take us to war in Iraq no matter what. But I truly think that most Americans will not support a President who knowingly authorizes or allows the suspension of adherence to the Geneva Conventions or makes excuses for those who do.

42

There’s a liberal media? Puleeze. A true axe-grinding liberal media would have been on Bush’s case since day one, instead of giving him free passes on lie after lie after lie, as we’ve gotten in the last four years.

Yeah, they’re now up to, what, 14 stations? I wish they had a substantial market myself, but it’s still a fledging operation at this point.

Yeah, and I’m sure you think Fox News really is “fair and balanced,” too. :rolleyes:

43

putting on the Papal Crown of Tinfoil Hats!!!

FOOLS! Plans for the Presidential Dictatorship have been readied since 1912! The Secret Illuminist Ruler of America Colonel Edward Mandell House put them all in his novel PHILIP DRU ADMINISTRATOR, which set the agenda from his croney Woodrow Wilson up to the present day!
There! I feel much better now!

44

Do you have a cite for bigger protests regarding Afghanistan than regarding Iraq? I seriously doubt it.

45

I posted some links a few days ago. In London there were protests of somewhere between (depending on who you believe) 30,000 to 200,000 people. Multiple protests of that size over a period of a couple of months. There were tens of thousands protesting the U.S. in places like Malaysia. There were protests throughout the U.S., too.

46

  1. It would be a heck of a lot easier to be a dictator than work in a democracy. (1996 - referenced in J.H. Hatfield’s “Fortunate Son”, when Dubya was governor of Texas)

  2. You don’t get everything you want, a dictatorship would be alot easier. (July 1998)

  3. If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier… just so long as I’m the dictator. (Dec. 18, 2000 - shortly after his contentious victory in the Supreme Court that resulted in his becoming president)

  4. A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it. (July 26, 2001)

  5. It’s not a dictatorship in Washington, but I tried to make it one in that instance. We are beginning to see some success in opening up federal coffers for faith-based programs. (Jan. 15, 2004)
    Number 5 is the most chilling.
    source: http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ro6.shtml#dictator

47

Just because you don’t like a president or his policies does not mean that he is a “dictator” or has aspirations to become one.

48

I really doubt that Bush would ever try to overthrow the government (unless God tells him to, of course).

It would be much more likely, on the chance that Kerry won in November, that Bush would sit back while Kerry was stonewalled by a Republican congress for four years, unable to reverse much of Bush’s damage, and then step out in 2008 to attempt another Cleveland, proclaiming that it was clear that Kerry was not up to his own rhetoric.

49

I believe there is very little chance that Bush would attempt to overthrow the government and install himself as dictator. However, I believe that this small chance is greater than that for any president in history. It seems he believes he was called by God to smite Hussein, it wouldn’t be too great a stretch for him, should he lose in a close election, to declare the results tainted by terrorism and that the election was null and void. I’m 99.99999% sure he wouldn’t do such a thing, but if any president would do it, it would be him.

I don’t see him pulling a Grover Cleveland and running for a non-consecutive term. And should he lose big, as seems likely at this time, the Republicans may look toward a more traditional conservative candidate to oppose Kerry in 2008.

50

I think that blowero asked for evidence that these were “as big or bigger than the protests against the Iraq war”. And, in past links you’ve posted in the past, you have shown a remarkable tendency to believe inflated figures of organizers when it suits your purposes to do so. I am glad that you are at least giving a range now although I have no idea where your range comes from (or even which protests…i.e., in what country… you are referring to).

aalanak, those are indeed quite a few telling quotes. Mind you, I don’t believe that they show Bush et al would really take steps to become dictator. I think it reflects a frustration with the inevitable constraints that occur in the democratic process. And, while some such frustration is probably natural, what it does indeed show, particularly by the number of times he has uttered such things, is a certain amount of contempt for the democratic process which dovetails with how this administration has handled its decision-making-- the aforementioned secrecy, the attempts to withhold information from Congress and the public, the limited consulting with people having opposing viewpoints, the constant and repeated distortion of fact and engaging in semantic abuse. [It is also telling that two of the quotes come after he is President when he has faced a Congress that is largely willing to go along with his every whim, so much so that he hasn’t even felt compelled to veto a single bill. Makes you wonder how he would feel if he was actually facing a Democratic majority in both chambers…or even a consistent majority in one chamber!]

What I also think it shows is a President who (and people in the Administration have in fact said this) wants to run things in a more “corporate” way. And, that is very different from a democracy. And, I don’t think it is healthy for our democracy.

So, that’s where I come out on it … No, the President does not truly want to be a dictator. But, he seems to run his administration in a way that shows less respect for the democratic process than any President that I can think of in recent history.

51

Bullshit. Lincoln went considerably further at curtailing civil rights during the Civil War, and one could even argue that FDR was working at being President-for-life, but I’d say the closest the U.S. ever had to a Presidential dictator was John Adams, who had powers granted by the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that Bush43 can only wet-dream about. What these three have in common with Bush43 is that the U.S. was at war or the verge of war. Under those conditions, a dictatorship (or dictator-like Presidential actions) becomes more likely, but that’s just opportunism and not anything specific to Bush43.

Before anyone says “things are worse now than they’ve ever been”, read a damn book or two.

52

Never in my ugliest dreams did I ever imagine that the United States of America would lock people up for any reason or no reason, and refuse to let them see lawyers or their relatives or even admit whether or not we had them in custody.

Yes, I know we’ve done it before. Doesn’t make it right. And I thought we were supposed to be beyond that sort of thing, now.

Does he wanna be dictator? I don’t know. But he sure seems to have a knack for autocracy, and he’s not above lying, cheating, and stealing in order to ramrod his agenda into existence.

YOU make the call.

53

Let’s deal with the three cases you cite:

Lincoln: Yes, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. But the circumstances that he dealt with were so extraordinary that his extreme measures were necessary. Lincoln’s problems make Bush’s seem absolutely pale by comparison.

FDR: He may well have run for as many terms as he could, had he lived longer. Sure, some of his programs were unconstitutional and they were thrown out. Sure, he considered packing the Supreme Court. But in the end, he didn’t try packing the Court and he may not have run for a fifth term had he survived the fourth.

Adams: Contrary to your opinion, I have “read a book or two.” One of them is David McCullough’s excellent biography of John Adams. I recommend it, I came away with a much deeper appreciation of Mr. Adams and a much lesser opinion of Jefferson and Franklin. No doubt, the Sedition act was intended to suppress the anti-Federalists. Note, however, that Jefferson himself used the Sedition Act in People v Croswell in 1803. . Was Jefferson accused of trying to be a dictator?

I stand by my original assessment.

54

That, combined with the quotes provided by alanak, which certainly indicate that he has no objections to idea, even if he has no specific plans.

The third antenna on this particular tinfoil hat is the question: IF (regardless of how big an if it is) Bush were to make a move to end the republic, would the checks and balances system work? Who would oppose his efforts? The legislature controlled by his party? The court who circumvented the democratic process to install him? Or the military who could count on a high level of funding for decades to come with him in power?

I confess to trying on this tinfoil hat in the past, and I sigh with relief as I see that sanity still reigns, with many conservative congressmen finally questioning their support of this particular executive.

Still, whatever the outcome of this election, we need to remeber the lesson of these times. Partisanship has weakened the Republic, just as the Founding Fathers worried it would, and it must be fixed.

55

How can you state one is “as big or bigger” than the other when you only give the numbers for one side of the equation?

56

I hope that you can find those links. I’m sure there was more than one march, but here is what I was able to come up with in a quick search:

From http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1118-06.htm

War against Afghanistan: The march in London was estimated by protestors to have 100,000 participants. Police estimated 15,000 participants.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm

War against Iraq:

Logic explains why there were more protests against war with Iraq. It was a preemptive strike, for one thing. There was more understanding for our efforts to strike back at the Taliban and Al Quaida to try to put a stop to further acts of terrorism organized by Osama bin Laden and his men. It was a defensive move.

57

I’m a closet foil hatter who sometimes dances a jig naked (except for the hat) on the living room floor. Shortly after his election I lifted my head from my daily grind and noticed his actions with Kyoto, ABMs & some treaty regarding bio-weapons. i thought to myself, “uh oh.” and did some quick conspiracy theorizing. I kept it all as a mental exercise, never daring to believe he’d lead us into a war in the Mideast in accordance with the ludicrous plot I’d cooked up. I still mark it all down as coincedence and retrospective confirmation akin to interpreting Nostradamus.

And if he gets re-elected, I will suppress my inner paranoid and believe it is all legit, and thank my lucky stars that this will be his last term.

But if he takes a crack at repealing the term limit amendment, all bets are off & you will see a raving & drooling Inigo Montoya blathering all over the board!

58

Here, from Oct. 13, 2001 (6 days after the bombing began) are some additional estimates provided by the Associated Press of demonstrations that occurred in regards to Afghanistan:

London: 20,000 (police estimate) “in the largest of several demonstrations in Europe on Saturday against the military strikes in Afghanistan.”

Germany: more than 25,000 with the largest being ~15,000 in Berlin and another being 10,000 in Stuttgart.

Italy: “The biggest turnout was in Naples, with about 2,000 people.”

Glasgow, Scotland: around 1,500 people.

Here is a report about the protests in Italy of the Iraq war (in October 2002, several months before it happened):

Now, maybe you will be able to track down some much bigger Afghanistan protest that we missed. But, Sam, we’re going to continue to pester you to actually give us cites to back up your statements because, quite frankly, a lot of your claims haven’t been checking out very recently. And, right now it looks like your claim is off the mark by more than one order of magnitude (in fact, perhaps closer to 2 orders of magnitude)!

59

Just to clarify, the claim that I am talking about is not your one for the numbers of the London Afghanistan protest but the original claim here:

60

I could not agree with you more jshore. The word dictator carries with a lot of unnecessary baggage, and quite frankly I think Bush too lazy to take on the mantle of dictator. But I do feel that he wants to be the CEO of America Corp. There is certainly nothing wrong or inherently evil in the job of CEO, but it is most emphatically not in keeping with American democracy. In a corporation, those who have the most money in the venture in question tend to get the most say. That’s not supposed to happen in a democracy, but the appearance is certainly there that those who give to Bush will get orders of magnitude in return.

So, if he wants to be America’s CEO, let’s look at his past performance as a businessman. Oh. :eek: Maybe not.