If the thought of having a President Obama give you the willies, how about having a President Obama with a Democrat Super-majority in the House and Senate, and choosing Democrat leaning activist judges.
These latter two scare me more than a President Obama, actually.
When Gov. George W. Bush became President, he had a Republican House and Senate—though it was tight in the Senate1. President Bush didn’t issue a veto his entire first term, though he passed through massive amounts of pork-barrel spending and other goodies.
He grew government at an alarming rate. That was the last time that one party controlled both houses. And soon, the Republicans were out of power, because people didn’t like the corruption, and didn’t like all the spending.
The time before that was President Bill Clinton—and quickly the Republicans took over the house and senate to keep him in check.
Now we’re sitting on the potential of having super majorities in the houses—meaning that a President Obama can get whatever he wants, as well as the House and the Senate getting whatever they want. With no filibuster to stop them.
From the Wall Street Journal:
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today’s left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for “change” should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
This is cause for concern.
- If you can recall, it was a slim majority, and Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties to make it 50-50 with Vice President Cheney breaking ties.