For Better or For Worse

You seem to know more about LBJ than I do, so I'll take your word for it. If I had been old enough to vote in those days, I would have voted for Goldwater because I had read a book that he had written. His main theme was that we should stop kissing up to the Russians, which made a lot of sense to me. I probably would have voted for Kennedy, even though my family were all Republicans, because I never did like Nixon. This was long before Watergate, and I wasn't familiar with his platform, I just never did like that guy. For some reason, every time I saw him on TV, he gave me the creeps. I liked Eisenhower though, he looked like a kindly old gent who could have been somebody's grandpa. The only two Democrats I remember voting for were George Wallace and George McGovern, mostly because neither of them was Nixon. Even then, I only voted Democrat for president, I voted Republican for every other office on the ballot. I guess you could say that I'm more of a Republican than anything else. I was only a card carrying party member for one year when I ran (unopposed) as a precinct delegate for Ronald Reagan. You know about my history with the American Independent Party and the Libertarian Party but, looking back on it now, that was mostly because I felt that the Republicans had veered too far to the left.

I guess you could call me a utilitarian too, with a couple of reservations. You say that they want to make the world a better place, and I'm all for that, provided that their idea of "better" is the same as my idea of "better". It has been my experience that "different" is not always better, sometimes it's worse. Some people say that the end justifies the means but, if the end itself sucks, it will still suck no matter what means are used to achieve it. The other reservation is about compromise. My idea of compromise is that I give up half of what I want, the other guy gives up half of what he wants, and we both meet in the middle. To many people, however, it means I give up half and they give up nothing. The next time we compromise, I'm expected to give up half of my remaining half, and they still give up nothing. If that's what you have to do to be a utilitarian, count me out.

I understand why Obama doesn't want to consult with congress, what I don't understand is how he is getting away with it. If you or I break the law, we go to jail. Why should it be any different for the president? He took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the united States". If there is anything in the constitution that gives the president the power to change a law without involving congress, I am unaware of it.