Up first…John McCain:
Next…Obama:
Pick one…or don’t
Walter Williams points out the abuse the Constitution will take from our future president (as has happened with so many others):
Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S Constitution.
When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It will be a phony affirmation, but what’s worse is that the chief justice of the United States, who administers the oath, and the average American will believe the new president.
The author’s recommendation?
We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.
Not bad.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Clinton report nearly $109.2 million in income for seven years in newly released tax data.
The Democratic presidential candidate and her husband paid $33.8 million in taxes from 2000 through 2007. They listed $10.25 million in charitable contributions during that period.
Clinton has been under pressure to release her tax returns, especially from rival Barack Obama, who posted his 2000 to 2006 returns on his campaign Web site last week. Neither Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain have made their 2007 tax returns public, though both say they will this month.
From Glenn Greenwald:
On Wednesday, John McCain delivered what was billed as a “major foreign policy” speech and today, David Brooks gushed that it was “as personal, nuanced and ambitious a speech as any made by a presidential candidate this year.” In particular, Brooks said that the speech demonstrates just how different McCain’s foreign policy approach is from that of Bush/Cheney: “Anybody who thinks McCain is merely continuing the Bush agenda is not paying attention.”
The reality is exactly the opposite. Thematically, rhetorically and substantively, McCain’s speech, particularly as it concerned the Middle East, was essentially a replica of the speech George Bush has been giving for the last seven years. It trumpeted virtually every tenet of the neoconservative faith: to be safe, the U.S. must slay tyranny around the world, spread democracy, bring freedom to the grateful peoples of the Middle East so they turn towards us and away from the Terrorists, using “more than military force” — but also military force. We’ll only be safe by controlling and transforming the Middle East to look the way we want it to look.
McCain is a pure neoconservative in exactly the way that Bush and Cheney are, which is exactly why David Brooks, and like-minded ideologues like Bill Kristol, swoon over McCain’s foreign policy “principles.” That’s fine. Brooks is a neoconservative and it’s thus perfectly natural that he would find a neoconservative foreign policy speech to be filled with wisdom and insight. But to pretend that it’s some grand departure from the Bush/Cheney approach is pure deceit.