Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 361 Editor's Choice: 12
-
We can't wait for another president
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Would it be better to wait until the next president is in office to deal with this?
I don't know that we can trust any of the candidates, certainly none of the republican candidates, to roll back the unitary presidency. I certainly wouldn't trust Clinton or Biden in this regard. Obama's an unknown quantity. Edwards talks a good game, but he voted for the Iraq AUMF out of expediency rather than principle. No idea about Richardson either.
In any case, it is the responsibility of the legislature to reassert its role in our government. Just waiting and hoping that the next executive will insist on giving power back to the legislature is a denial of how our system is supposed to operate.
In Glenn's forward to HWAPA, he mentions that he pretty much ignored politics, because the checks and balances that were in place prevented any really egregious excesses, while the ebb and flow of venality was rather distasteful. (That's a paraphrase.)
There is something really different going on. It has happened before, under Nixon, and the legislature stepped up. In particular, the Republicans stepped up. People like Bill Cohen and Howard Baker recognized our system was in danger. It is profoundly disturbing that the Republicans in the legislature do not recognize the severity or the depth of the threat to American polity. This is the job they were, ultimately, elected to do--to defend the constitution from the other two branches' encroachment.
And now we have people running for president on platforms of torture and lawlessness. To cheering crowds. I don't think those people can win. But we should not be depending on any particular party or person in the presidency. This is an enormous institutional failure, one that is ongoing.
And, yes, the media has its own failed role to account for. For me, smug, smarmy Ben Smith personifies what these people are about. But, in the end, it's the job of the legislature to check the executive. They have failed, miserably, and tragically. At least tens of thousands of people have died because of their failure to play their constitutional role.
-
Gravel would too
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]prunes--
Gravel, I think, like the other not a chance candidate Ron Paul would also, IMO, act to disassemble the unitary executive.
But, as I posted earlier, I agree with your central point--that one cannot trust any executive with this power. It will be particularly risky in 08, because I think the Senate is going become significantly more Democratic.
Now's the time to take these actions. But we need Republicans, especially Republican senators to step up and take the lead. I really thought the risk of losing their seats would motivate a substantial fraction of the 21 sitting republicans up in 08, but they still are cowed by this little man, the worst president we've had, and the worst president I could ever have imagined.
-
the coup
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Suck it up and get on with the coup.
And, see, I really don't get this. Do they really think they're going to have any role in the government after the 08 elections? Their presidential candidates are uniformly awful. The policy positions they're putting themselves on record with during the primary season are very unpopular, and will cost them the independent vote in the general. And just having an R next to your name is going to hurt.
I can't see any chance of the republicans retaining all of their senate seats. Their only hope is that the general popular disgust with the democrats spinelessness will keep people home. (Oh, so you should expect an extremely negative campaign season, meant to enhance that disgust.)
Yes, the US Attorneys that are going to suppress votes are still in place, but it's going to be harder to do that in plain sight. And, besides, you can't move more than a couple of points through theft and suppression--and they are behind by more than a couple of points.
-
Why two years?
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The program had to be signed off on every 45 days. That means Ashcroft had already repeatedly signed off on the program. What changed that made him change his mind, along with other top DOJ brass?
It's my understanding that this recognition came when Comey came on board. Up until then, Ashcroft had been advised that the program was legal. Comey apparently convinced him otherwise. And I think the speculation we've seen in this discussion that the penalties may have played some role in Ashcroft withholding approval.
Of course, this is all entirely speculative because we really still don't know what they were doing, whether they changed what they were doing, and what they are doing now.
This is what I'd consider an unacceptable state of affairs.
-
denning
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, you're correct. We don't know anything, really, about what is or isn't being done, whether the "program(s)" were expanded, then pulled back.
I tried to say that in my post, but apparently failed to say it well.