Barton: Right Wing Paranoia Proves Obama is Bad

David Barton was asked by a caller to his radio show whether he thought Obama would declare martial law to stay in office beyond 2016. He said he didn’t think that was likely, but the mere fact that right wingers worry about it proves that Obama is “lawless” and is capable of doing that. Oh, and George W. Bush didn’t violate the Constitution.

“It’s interesting that this is the question that is asked by people when they find their presidents to be lawless,” Barton declared. “If you have a president who is not lawless, you don’t ask the question. You know that Ronald Reagan is not going to do a third term; he followed the Constitution. You know that George Bush, you may not like all that he did but he stayed with the Constitution in a very public way … Nobody debated that he was going to change the Constitution for himself, for his own benefit. The fact that you have this question indicates something of the nature of the presidents with whom you’re dealing … Asking the question is the character of the leader who is in office at the time.”

Or it’s an indicator that the right wing is obsessively paranoid about things like this no matter how many times their predictions turn out to be wrong. And they do it to Republican presidents too. Remember all that freaking out over Bush’s alleged executive order on martial law that was nothing more than an updating of procedures on what to do if the nation was attacked? Alex Jones lost his mind over it. The John Birch Society accused Eisenhower of being a communist and a Soviet spy, for crying out loud. There is no limit to their paranoia and it says nothing at all about the president’s “lawlessness.”

"Good point.The churches themselves are seriously hurting for money these days.They can't even keep up ..."

Republican Tax Bill Will Reduce Charitable ..."
"We have created the most advanced civilization with the greatest opportunity for individual advancement...Oh really? ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"Good for them. It's nice that the Papists' are willing to stand up for the ..."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.ranum.com Marcus Ranum

    Projection, pure and simple.

  • http://howlandbolton.com richardelguru

    Marcus

    Or maybe “Projection, puerile and simple

  • Phillip IV

    You know that Ronald Reagan is not going to do a third term; he followed the Constitution. You know that George Bush, you may not like all that he did but he stayed with the Constitution in a very public way … Nobody debated that he was going to change the Constitution for himself, for his own benefit.

    In George W. Bush’s case there was quite a bit of discussion of such scenarios – just that it happened at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Barton, so he might not have noticed it. Or, more likely, he noticed it and is just lying here, as usual.

    In Reagan case there were now concerns, obviously, given the fact that he positioned his own vice-president to replace him – but I think in all cases were you have a term-limited incumbent combined with a not-trivial chance of the other party taking the White House, the third term shenanigan speculations are brought out by at least a handful of people.

  • Phillip IV

    *In Reagan‘s case there were no concerns… Goddammit butterfingers.

  • colnago80

    Given that Ronnie the rat was rapidly approaching senility, there was little chance of his trying to get a 3rd term.

  • Alverant

    “Nobody debated that he was going to change the Constitution for himself, for his own benefit.”

    Yes there was. But not by his own party. Ergo it doesn’t count.

  • John Pieret

    There have been attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment ever since St. Ronnie was president. To be fair, Democrats have tried it too.

    Also to be fair, there was plenty of paranoia in some liberal circles about Bush manufacturing some sort of crisis as an excuse to cancel the 2008 elections. The main difference is that those people were not part of the mainstream Democratic Party who controlled primaries and made the establishment of the party dance to its tune.

  • Artor

    “Third term? What? Is Nancy pregnant? I didn’t notice! How come nobody told me? Where’s my chimpanzee? Oh, here he is…”

    “Umm, Mr. President, that’s your vice president’s kid, George W.”

    “Really? Then why is he flinging poop all over the Oval Office?”

    “That’s just what he does, sir. It seems to be his calling…”

  • richw9090

    “In Reagan case there were now concerns, obviously, given the fact that he positioned his own vice-president to replace him…”

    What? Do you mean replace him if he died in office? The Constitution positions the Vice President to replace the President in that case. Do you mean in the election after the President’s term is over? It has often been the case that the Vice President will run for office to replace the President – but that is also done according to the Constitution and the normal nominating process.

    And you accuse the Republicans of being irrational?

  • D. C. Sessions

    Given that Ronnie the rat was rapidly approaching senility, there was little chance of his trying to get a 3rd term.

    Alternately, that would have been a dream scenario: a popular but totally malleable puppet.

  • Phillip IV

    richw9090 @ #9:

    “In Reagan case there were now concerns, obviously, given the fact that he positioned his own vice-president to replace him…”

    What? Do you mean replace him if he died in office? The Constitution positions the Vice President to replace the President in that case. Do you mean in the election after the President’s term is over? It has often been the case that the Vice President will run for office to replace the President – but that is also done according to the Constitution and the normal nominating process.

    It was just a typo which I caught to late – I meant there were no concerns in Reagan’s case, precisely because he supported Bush’s candidacy and Bush was polling well for the most part. An illegal power grab would have made little sense under those circumstances, so it wasn’t much discussed.

  • Michael Heath

    John Pieret writes:

    . . . there was plenty of paranoia in some liberal circles about Bush manufacturing some sort of crisis as an excuse to cancel the 2008 elections. The main difference is that those people were not part of the mainstream Democratic Party who controlled primaries and made the establishment of the party dance to its tune.

    Some of those liberals used to hang out in Ed’s blog and make their case. It was as absurd as the case President Obama’s working towards a third term.

    The reasons you assert on why the Democratic party never allowed any traction on this supposed Bush conspiracy is one important attribute that allows me to vote for Democrats in good conscious. As the Republican party slid/slides into idiocy and delusion, I wasn’t looking to leave that party just to join another idiocracy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    Conservatives made the same speculation about Clinton, too. It’s become almost a tradition now.

  • Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy

    Rudy Giuliani, on the other hand, tried to convince people to give him an extra three months as mayor of New York after the 9/11 attacks, because apparently 8 million New Yorkers were supposed to panic if someone else was mayor. He didn’t get it, of course, but that by itself would have been sufficient reason to oppose him for any future job, including dog catcher.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Michael Heath “As the Republican party slid/slides into idiocy and delusion, I wasn’t looking to leave that party just to join another idiocracy.”

    Is this why you still refuse to back my Party, the Party Party?*

     

    * Party Party in 2016! Go Party Party! Woo!