... that this is the reaction, right? If chicago had been selected, they would be speculating about what Obama secretly gave up. They probably had all those posts ready to go.

... for writing that. Its something that really needs to be faced up to, but I think we're a long way from being able to face it.

This piece goes very well with Greenwald's Afghanistan/Permanent War piece earlier this week.

This is what authoritarians do and Republicans are clearly an authoritarian party now. No one is allowed to stray from the party line. If anyone does, they are quickly made to walk it back. If they don't they are out. They're very good at discipline. They stick to the message. They vote as a block. Independent thinking is verboten.

To your last point, Joan, of course the GOP will survive as a national party. As out-of-touch as the GOP is, the counter-balance offered by the completely inept and spineless Democrats will keep them alive long enough to rebound. The Dems are so afraid to lead, its really disheartening.

BTW, keep up the good work there at Salon.

The only thing that will be shocking is if Congress does anything about this. They have an unbroken track record of declining to assert their instutional power and role regarding these matters. Is anyone surprised that the Bush intelligence apparatus was up to much more than we were led to believe? If you are, go read Glenn Greenwald's archives for the last several years.

As long as public apathy about these abuses continues, nothing will ever be done. Politicians respond to the voters.

I don't think its a cynical view to suggest that Obama (or any president) won't give up power voluntarily. I think its basic human nature that he won't. Beyond that, the system of checks and balances relies on each branch (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) vigorously defending the powers they have. That vigorous interplay is what ultimately guarantees that, among other things, the Executive is checked and the system stays in balance. The Congress (and ultimately us) are as much to blame for Bush's abuses of power as Bush is. Congress totally abdicated its Constitutional role over the last 8 years and refused to defend its instituional power to reign in the Executive. If the President's claimed powers aren't blunted by the Congress, they become the President's (new) powers.

While it would be nice if Obama voluntarily rejected Bush's new powers, I dont think that would have the same (and necessary) affect as if Congress acted to take those powers away. If Obama chooses not to deploy something like State Secrets or Warrantless Wiretapping, those powers are still there, on the shelf, for himself or future presidents. Congress (or the Courts) must take action to affirmatively take those powers away.

Ultimately, its up to the citizens to demand their representatives step in.

Nice summary, Joan. Thanks for ringing the alarm. Obama is missing his moment. He's allowed the debate to devolve and gave the repubs their opportunity to seem relevant.

From election night on, I was hoping he would take his case directly to the citizenry (TV, web, all media) - early and often. He's got the communication skills and command of the subject to look folks directly in the eye and gain their support. Let's hope he seizes his moment before too long.

Thanks for the realistic, honest and sober assessment of the incident (and the nowadays obigatory media circus that we have to suffer through) delivered in your original piece. I'm not a pilot, but I'm an engineer and frequent passenger who's fascinated by the technical aspects of flying. The media never gets any of that. Your pieces on the insanity of the airline business and nutty security practices are somehow comforting.

I read you every week. Keep it up. Don't apologize.

Jennifer is thankful for Bush's commitment to the safety of the country?

"..I'd like to thank you. You were not perfect and you certainly had a heavy load, but I appreciate your commitment to the safety of this country."

Any idiot with power can increase security. Bush gets zero credit for the fact that we haven't had another attack. The trick is to provide security while honoring the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our Laws (and not to mention the Oath of Office he swore). Bush cynically expanded presidential power far beyond anything the founders conceived under the guise of "protecting the homeland". Bullshit.

You can't defeat terrorism. No matter what we do, there will always be a terrorist threat and other attacks. The point is are we doing the best we can for security within the Consitution? If we throw out the Constitution, as Bush did, what are defending? Not much.

I think Bush gave the terrorists a bigger victory than they could have ever imagined: he made us give up our core principles in exchange for the false promise of making us "safe".