Which one is worse?

[base2final]

Here's an interesting summation from the N Y Post:

When I first saw the headline saying Bill Clinton was advising President Obama to “honor his commitment,” I had to laugh. The idea of Monica Lewinsky’s boyfriend as moral referee always cracks me up.

Then I got to wondering. Which commitment was Clinton talking about?

Is it the one Obama made to the Israeli people, that he had their backs and would never let Iran get a nuclear weapon? Or was it his promise to enforce a “red line” in Syria?

Or maybe it was Obama’s promise to “never rest” until we caught the terrorists who killed our ambassador and three other Americans in Libya?

Or was Clinton talking about the many times the president said he would “never rest” until every American who wanted a job had one?

Or maybe he was talking about the pledge to change the tone in Washington? Or to go through the budget “line by line” and cross out the waste driving up the deficit?

You get the picture — any of those whoppers would qualify. But, of course, Clinton was talking about the broken promise of the moment, the one where Obama vowed that “if you like your health insurance, you can keep it.”

It ranks as one of the biggest presidential lies of modern times, all the more so because Obama repeated it 30 times. The fallout of millions being forced from their policies, an experience exacerbated by the hapless Web site, has created a crisis of confidence so vast, it threatens to swallow the second term.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/obamas-latest-broken-promise-is-destro...

[ProblemAgain]

and even a conservative paper writes an editorial condemning the idea

Happily, repealing 17th Amendment won’t be easy to do

• Story
• Comments

Print

Create a hardcopy of this page

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:20 pm

It’s hard for any unconventional idea to stand out in the current topsy-turvy world of American politics, but the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution manages to grab attention.

Recently two Republican candidates for Texas lieutenant governor — incumbent David Dewhurst and state Sen. Dan Patrick — gave their support to un-amending the Constitution and restoring to state legislatures the power to appoint U.S. senators as the Framers originally directed. Voters no longer would directly elect their senators.

Advertisement

Presumably Dewhurst and Patrick have taken their position because that notion has been embraced by many in the tea party, which holds great sway in Texas GOP primary elections. That probably is especially so for Dewhurst, who lost to Ted Cruz in his 2012 run for the U.S. Senate in one of the biggest upsets in Texas political history.

Apparently the theory is that too many Americans directly benefit from federal programs, and the only way to counteract them voting for their best interests — which 17th Amendment critics think is bad for the national interest — is to let state legislators pick the senators.

Let’s generously call this an uphill climb. The task is to convince two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress to vote for a proposal to take away from Americans the right to choose their senators. And if that incredibly were to happen, then three-fourths of the state legislatures would have to go along.

This battle was fought in the late 1800s and finally resolved on May 31, 1913 — happy late 100th birthday, 17th Amendment.

Imagine telling Americans they’re doing such a bad job of electing senators that they won’t be permitted to do it anymore. It’s a scary thought for most of us.

That it’s even an issue being discussed is a testament to the tea party’s strength. And that’s even more the case considering that it has been endorsed by two men seeking the No. 2 position in Texas government, notwithstanding the fact they almost certainly would have no involvement in making it happen.

Only one constitutional amendment — prohibiting alcohol sales — has been undone. It will be a deservedly hard slog for those who want to reverse the popular election of members to one of the bodies that writes the laws that govern us.

— San Angelo Standard-Times