« OC Blog News Roundup -- July 4, 2006 | Main | Janet Nguyen On The Flag And Freedom »

July 04, 2006


Chris Prevatt

Two Hundred Thirty years ago, a few subjects of King George pledged their very lives and fortunes on to the principle of freedom from tyranny.

Today we find ourselves, in a very similar place. Our President, who sees himself as a King and ironically named George, has threatened those same liberties which we celebrate today.

May we once again live in freedom from the despotism of tyrant named George, and God Bless the United States of America.


Good grief, Chris -- if you must post a paranoid left-wing rants like that, I think Daily Kos or some other garden spot of the Left fever swamp would be more appropriate.

Calling George Bush a despot just shows you wouldn't know despotism if it hit you in the face.

Iscosoles Kramer

You should read up on wikipedia of what despotism actually means Chris, simply embarrassing


Hmmmm ... so does OCR editorial board member John Seiler qualify as a "paranoid left-wing[er]"?


Although I fully admit it's hyperbolic to refer to George W. Bush as "King George," the vast expansion of executive powers under the current administration is a step (or even two or three) toward despotism and away from a Constitutional system of limited powers and checks and balances.

Bravo to the Supreme Court for striking down Bush's kangaroo courts. Long live the rule of law.

Chris Prevatt

From Dictionary.com

despot (n): A ruler with absolute power.

"Left-wing rant?" I don't think so?

Considering George Bush ordering the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, and claiming the power to ignore laws passed by Congress at will; how much closer to "ruler with absolute power" do we need to get before we can call these actions despotism?



You are perfectly aware that John Seiler is obviously not a paranoid left-winger, John belongs to that segment of conservatives who strenuously object to the expansion of federal law enforcement powers as part of the war on terrorism. A least conservatives like John are consistent in their opposition to expansive federal powers, unlike the loony Kos Left that howls when the federal power is expanded to fight a war against an eenmy determined to destory us, but happily urges the expansion of federal power in the service of re-shaping domestic society to their liking.


I would think a despot would be unafraid to defy Congress by once in a while vetoing an act of Congress. The general Left-wing ranting that Bush is a despot reminds me of Clinton-haters who used to assert that Bill Clinton had critics and people-who-knew-to-much rubbed out in order to silnce them. Both strains are ludicrous.

Bush is not a despot. That is manifestly obvious. The call him such is to adopt a Humpty Dumpty approach to political language:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'



Of course I'm aware of Seiler's views. I brought them out here to demonstrate that Chris doesn't have to be a "paranoid left-winger" to be concerned about overreaching executive power. Your first comment was a knee-jerk "you're a leftist!" response that is not necessarily the case.

As far as Bush's veto record, why would he veto acts of Congress when Congress is controlled by his own political party, and nothing gets out of Congress without Republican approval, as steered by Congressional leaders that love and support Bush?

Is Bush literally a "despot"? Of course not. But he has gone further in eroding civil and privacy rights than any President in recent history. Combine this with complete Republican control of Congress, and Bush is closer to despotism than most of his predecessors.

If the Democrats ever take control of all three branches of the federal government, I suspect they'll go just as far. Power corrupts.


MrWhipple, I understand where you are coming from.

I'm all for a vigorous discussion of the proper balance between a wartime expansion of federal powers versus protection of our civil liberties.

But left-wing rants that simply call Bush a despot and compare him to King George III are ludicrous on their face and contibute zilch to any worthy debate.

You do not think Bush is a literally a despot -- because he is not a despot, or even close to being one.

However, Chris Prevatt clearly does believe Bush to be a despot -- and I think that precludes Chris from serious discussion on the subject (unless he simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word).


"Loony Kos Left?" Either you guys don't read the site very closely or you don't get what Kos is all about. I'd hold up Kos as a mirror image to say a Michelle Malkin or Hugh Hewitt (for your OC angle). News and analysis from a leftward perspective. Just like Hewitt gives it from the right.

The comments to this entry are closed.