Hmm, not quite, not exactly. Bush II—or to be more precise, the people around him—was very keen on expanding executive power. The legal rulings of David Addington and John Yoo are justifiably notorious. There's no way to put a good spin on a White House lawyer declaring that the President of the United States has a constitutional right to crush a child's testicles. So yes, Bush II definitely pushed the boundaries of executive power.
Obama seems more reactive to this Lemur. Faced with a Senate minority that is more than willing to suspend the normal functioning of government to stymie him, he is being boxed into taking questionable steps just to get things done. Big difference.
My hyperbolic warning about Cato and Caesar is over-the-top, but I do think this level of obstructionism from Congress is dangerous. Lots of right-wingers fantasize that if the government is shown to be incapable of managing its own business, then their model of limited-government states-rights reductionism will take hold. And the problem is that once you demonstrate that the government can't work, you do not know which way the people will jump. It's a very dangerous game the GOP minority in the Senate is playing. Moreover, by twisting the Senate rules and (at minimum) doubling the number of filibusters, the Republicans are laying the groundwork for an equal level of obstructionism in a future Republican administration. It's all terribly short-sighted.
Who or where is this Naivety you speak of? I keed, I keed, I know you mean naiveté.
As a rule I give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong.
Bookmarks