>>>>>>>It is just that I find the attitude of some other conservatives (here and in toto)
>>>>>>>that only conservatives can heal the debt situation as appaling
>>>>>>>as the nanny state ideas of "progressives" and
>>>>>>>religious "arguments" from the whole spectrum,
>>>>>>>beginning with Darwin-doubting conservatives to extreme "sharia to rule the world" POV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please don't misunderstand me, I don't believe for a second that conservatives can heal the debt situation. Far from it as proven when they were given the reins. We're in a decline and the end is known to any who've studied the history of republics. The question is when. The present leaders in DC and Europe are at best going to slow the decline and at worst accelerate it. I would prefer those in power who would apply the brakes as opposed to gasoline until a game-changing leader who can rally the country to fiscal responsibility pokes their head up. No one comes to mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>And I was thinking I was the only one comparing the west to post-catharge Rome
>>>>>seeing the plebs gain more and more power
>>>>>to abolish the balance of power and establishing a non-republican empire.
>>>>
>>>>Not just Rome but Athens, France, Germany...One could also include Texas and California. The question is which way will we go? Collapse from inside (I just don't see an outside nation taking us by force), revolution, voluntary submission?
>>>>
>>>>>And I still say having father son prez, wondering about prez couples
>>>>>and having governour/senator posts often in the same family is a bad way to follow.
>>>>
>>>>Very monarchistic, isn't it? ;)
>>>>
>>>>Here's an interesting comparisson that raised my eyebrow.
>>>>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335141/royal-presidency-mark-steyn
>>>
>>>
>>>I find it interesting that presidential Air Force 1 travel is just now an issue for conservatives.
>>>
>>>According to:
>>>
>>>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/19/politics/bush_legacy/main4735360.shtml
>>>
>>>George W. Bush took 1,674 flights in Air Force 1 for a total of 1,490,698 miles. By my count, that is slightly more than a flight every other day of his presidency. Where was the conservative outcry?
>>
>>Did you happen to notice that the article was comparing the US Presidentcy (not a specific occupant) to the UK Monarchy? There are points in there about Eisenhower & W.
>
>Actually, the only reference to Eisenhower was, "In his recent book Presidential Perks Gone Royal, Robert Keith Gray, a former Eisenhower staffer,..." and the full title of Gray's book is, "Presidential Perks Gone Royal: Your Taxes Are Being Used For Obama's Re-election". Based on the title, I suspect there is not a lot of discussion of Eisenhower's perks.
>
>You were correct in that 2 sentences (out of 54) in the article referred to W. However, the article pretty much discussed a specific occupant, that occupant being Obama.
>
>And, I suspect, the treatment in Canada would have been a little more "royal" if the queen were visiting Canada, instead of the royal progeny. But that's just a guess.
>
>BTW, I do agree with the general premise that presidential perks have gone a little overboard.

If I were penning the article I would not have limited my juxtaposition to the Presidency, but would've gone after all of our Federal Representatives, especially those in senior positions.