Letters to the Editor
What Constitution?
Published Letters: 131
-
Read more carefully, GG.
[Read the article: The NYT's latest Kristol embarrassment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's the problem? Kristol is writing about Obama, who is a Democrat, and all he said was that he, Kristol, "can't find a single recent instance of a candidate who ultimately became his party's nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin..."
Who is the "his" in this sentence? Why, it's Obama, of course. And Obama's party is the Democratic Party. So what Kristol wrote is only that he can't find a single instance of a candidate who ultimately became [the Democratic Party's] nominee losing a primary by this kind of margin.
See, all these references to McSame getting buried by Mitt (Who?) Romney are just irrelevant -- we're slamming Democrats here, nobody else. McSame's position, while perhaps arguably logically reciprocal in the blinded eyes of some, is nonetheless inspiring and awesome in proper context. Whereas Obama is clearly toast.
Yeah, that's the ticket. Ain't Kristol's a great gig?
-
Oh, so THAT'S what "Constitutional Law" is about...
[Read the article: The California marriage decision and basic civics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you, GG, for this statement in your last comment here:
"I'd rather be on the "right side" of the Constitution than the "right side" of electoral politics in every single case where those two conflict."
This post succinctly summarizes what "checks and balances" means in the context of our society as a whole. The judicial branch stands as a "check" of last resort against the potential tyranny of a majority. The standard applied is the Constitution (in this particular case, a state constitution). This isn't that hard to comprehend, and it is important to emphasize how fundamentally un-American the effort to criticize the judiciary for being "undemocratic" for fulfilling this fundamental responsibility actually is. Thank you for spelling it out.
Hey, now that you mention it, how's about we apply some of that "checks and balances" stuff to the actions of our President? Maybe hold his actions up against the principles of our Constitution and see if maybe some don't measure up? What a concept. Oh, wait, in most of those contexts it basically would require either (1) the US Department of Justice to take some action or (2) the Congress of the United States to institute impeachment proceedings. Never mind.
Third option is all that remains practically viable: be on both the right side of the Constitution and the right side of electoral politics, and sweep the malevolence of the Bush Administration and its congressional enablers out of office in the upcoming election. That, while cumbersome, is the third alternative left to The People when their executive branch and their legislative branch fail to fulfill their own constitutional obligations.
-
@theo123 and the REAL source of the problem (GG)
[Read the article: The Politico's John Harris admits now what he denied last year]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate this thought concerning Harris' recent contrition:
"Let's reward him for telling the truth publicly before he gets hammered into compliance by the machine."
We need to figure out a way to sell this soap to Harris' colleagues, so that maybe they'll think they're "on to something" here, viz, substantive reporting as being somehow better than pablum. How to do that without making them think that maybe they are being criticized, since we all know they're actually infallible?
Got it: Harris wasn't "wrong" or "evasive" or "lying" last year when he denied doing exactly what GG was calling the media out on, and he wasn't being anything but forthright in admitting to exactly that previously-denied tendency now. Here's what happened: it was Glenn who gave him the idea to follow the hit meter instead of the news. If Glenn hadn't mentioned it last year, it never would have occured to Harris or the Politico to do that. And now, a year later, they realize just how obvious it is that they should never have listened to such a misguided, irrelevant lefty blogger. So in the name of all that is Good and Right, Harris is going to do something different now, and that means he's going to report on substance rather than fluff. That's his commitment: to avoid being accurately criticized by GG.
Yeah, that's it. The public's distrust of the Media is the fault of bloggers like GG, who maliciously suggested last year that the media should focus on internet hits instead of substantive news and analysis -- even though they hadn't thought that strategy up on their own at all.
Now that we've cleared THAT up, I look forward to seeing somebody ask Mukasey why the Attorney General of the US believes it is within his job description to argue that it's a good idea not to prosecute anybody for anything if somebody in the Bush Administration suggests that they "thought they were helping" when they did it? Or whether that means that the end-of-term pardon list will be precisely coeextensive with the list of government officials above GS-11?