Reply #29: He writes [View All]

[BumRushDaShow]

Obama’s achievement represents the final repudiation of the Founders’ intentions regarding the selection, and hence the role, of presidents.

and then asserts as his justification (citing the author James W. Ceaser, who bloviates on the ludicrous idea of "Anti-Americanism" - http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/a_genealogy_of_antiamericanism.htm ):

Note well: The selection of presidential nominees was to be controlled by the Constitution.

and thus concludes with:

Barack Obama completed the long march away from the Founders’ intent. Most recent presidential candidacies have been exercises of personal political entrepreneurship; his campaign, powered by the “popular art” of oratory, was the antithesis of the Founders’ system.

essentially insisting that since, in his and others' opinions, that Obama "completed" some "long march away from the 'Founders' intent, then his election, having not followed the "intent" of the Constitution, should be considered anti-(un)constitutional.

Since he chose to ignore reference to any repuke candidates who also followed the current "modern" political process, most notably his idol 666 Ronald Wilson Reagan, and even ignored the Bush dynasty and their role in the process, then as usual, his faltering reach towards some nonsensical argument to justify the demise of lunatic fringe conservatism by "blaming the other guy" for some diversion from this nebulous "intent" (while not considering that 2008, rife with electricity, telephones, radio, television, satellite, and internet, in is NOT 1808) is yet another epic fail.