Having been in government and a close observer of how power is used within government I would say that the 22nd amendment by and large is a good thing. However, I do think the people suggesting it be thrown out also have a point. Perhaps modifying the amendment so that a President can only serve two terms consecutively with a one or two term interval between Presidencies would be a solution. The reason the 22nd is good is because it causes the breakup of executive power, which, if in the same hands for too long is always a bad thing even when one considers that the great FDR held power for much longer than 8 years. These days, the accumulation and use of executive power for illegitimate reasons is too frequent to begin with. If Presidents could be elected over and over again it would only get worse and likely much, much, much worse.

What a load of crap! I'm so surprised! As usual, the architects of Democratic Defeat over the past 20 years cower in their booties while being unable to communicate a simple and effective message that a solid majority of

Americans agree with which is: no spying on innocent American citizens! Even if a majority did not agree today, it is extremely important to make loud and clear our opposition to such a major infringement on the rights of American citizens and such an extraordinary and illegal usurpation of power on the part of the executive branch. I've worked with our DC consultant corps and they are a bunch of careerist chickens. They don't understand regular people and they have been responsible for blowing almost all of the Presidential and Congressional elections of the past 20 years. To hell with them! The reason the negative sterotype of weak Democrats exists is because of this lilly-livered, wimpy, cowardly kind of approach. If Democrats had backbone they would stomp the Republicans every time. That was what swift boating Kerry was all about, that's what it is always about: putting the chickenhearts on display. Our DC consultant corps is willing every time to dance to the GOP tune because they have no clue how to dominate and control the debate or even how to frame an issue: any issue. To hell with em!

I'm glad to see this article, however, Mr. Manjoo makes the mistake in the article of not making completely clear what the true focus of the complaints were. All the yammering about details of whether Abramoff "directed" contributions to Democrats is completely off the mark.

The point is that the Abramoff/Delay scandal is about flat out, quid pro auo bribery by Abramoff of US elected officials all of whom are Republican. None of them are Democrats. The scandal is not about Abramoff bribing everyone who any and all of his clients contributed to. Conveniently and coincidentally, the Wapo's Howell spewed out the line that the RNC is spinning and it is/was clearly identifiable. Dissecting the finer points of that is right where the RNC wants eveyrone to be. Salon reporters and writers should be more sophisticated than to end up in that trap, yet the majority of Manjoo's article centers on points that are completely and uttlerly off the mark with respect ot the truth of the scandal.

That Howell and the Wapo hide behind the technically correct but totally unrelated "correct" mention of Democrats having received contributions from Abramoff clients is frankly bullshit. (oops! nasty profanity there--hope the whole letters section isn't closed down as a result) Whenever journalists are caught red handed in printing something that is misleading they often point to how they can claim that what they printed is factually correct. However, they usually do so by considering the "fact" in question outside of the context in which it is printed. Context is everything in journalism and they know it.

The bottom line is that they hide behind that transparently weak argument because they refuse to admit that the way she wrote about this subject clearly and unequivocally implies that Democrats are involved in the Abramoff/Delay scandal which they most obviously are not. It's false and misleading to do what she did in any article dealing with the scandal and both Howell and her colleagues at the Wapo know it. It simply isn't a bipartisan scandal because the Democrats have no power to make things happen anymore een though the Republicans and Wapo staff would like people to think so. The Republicans control everything in DC and thus the bribery and corruption are owned lock, stock and barrel by the corrupt Republicans who are in command in Washington and able to deliveer the unsavory favors Abramoff solicited. That's the story here. That's why the complaints were so vehement. Focusing on anything else is semantic sophistry of the worst kind.