EPIC FAIL.

He speaks disdainfully of critics as “elites,” but his own view of democracy is at the far elite extreme. Voters are entitled to choose a president every four years, he said at the National Press Club, but then they need to let him do his job. The transaction is like hiring a surgeon; pick a good one, and don’t try to tell him where to place the knife. This “trustee” model of democracy is associated with Edmund Burke, the Old Whig philosopher in 18th century England. It is not the model that took root here when the Founders designed a plan of government that derived its authority from the people.

Clearly, Mr Gellman needs to lower his voice and not assume bad motives in the people he disagrees with.

Just out of curiosity... did you read either the Harper's interview OR this post before creating a user account to comment?

Gellman thinks Cheney's views are antiquated, but he doesn't seem to take issue with Cheney's motives, i.e. Cheney believes he is upholding the Constitution, according to Gellman.

I don't think that anyone but Cheney truly knows Cheney's motives. However, as Matthew the Evangelist said, "by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt. 3:16)

The idea of Cheney's views as identical to those of a British monarchist from the era of George III, however, isn't different from what's being expressed here. You might like his wording better, but it's the same critique.

Presidents are not Kings.

Presidents are not above the law.

Not socialism. This is national socialism, ie. the State taking control of an industry for nationalistic purposes.

Cf. Arthur Silber on the U.S. buying a controlling stake in AIG, and what it now has control over:

Many different kinds of activities, all around the world. The kinds of activities that allow businesses, and individuals, and governments to continue to function efficiently and productively -- indeed, simply to function.

[...]

And you thought the takeovers were a problem. They're not a problem: depending on your goals, they're a huge, immensely valuable benefit. Depending on who you are and what you want, "financial terror" is an awesome and powerful weapon.

Consider. Country A through Z [...] wants to renegotiate thousands, perhaps millions, of insurance policies. Or it wants a break on some rates, perhaps for a crucial construction project. Or it needs a grace period to make some payments, maybe in connection with a major government program. Or...fill in the endless possibilities at your leisure.

Link @ sig.

Recommend you follow Arthur's advice at the end of the post.

It's what that individual is doing, which is dispositive of whether the traditional warrant requirement, pursuant to the 4th Amendment, is required.

Exactly, which is why the 4th Amendment reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, unless they're doing something we don't like."

Pakinston

9am EDT, and conservatards up and down the Eastern seaboard spring into action...

Should be play with them today? Let's all talk about whose accounts we want to hack next! I dibs Dr. Laura!

Personally I think certain things can be inferred from that.

I like how adnoto's questions tend to end in periods.

I think it'd have been worth asking GG why he characterized this as a "pitchfork moment..." and whether he felt there were other such moments, or if this one was sui generis. I remember a very pissed-off Greenwald around the time of the FISA "debate..." though I know adnoto always finds such bourgeois weak-sister antics laughable. To each her/his own.

Mike Whitney, who is an excellent analyst on all of this, characterized the coming consequences thus (link at sig):

By adding another $1 or $2 trillion dollars to the National Debt, Paulson is just ensuring that interest rates will go up, real estate will crash, unemployment will soar, and foreign central banks will abandon the dollar.

One could make the case that this will affect more people, and cause more direct pain to Americans than any act of the bipartisan junta in the past eight years.

One could further suppose that this ought to be enough to motivate people to march, not with pitchforks, but with Tec-9s and sawed-offs. I mean, they probably should have been out there during the U.S.-Attorney-firing scandal, but that was probably just a scheduling conflict.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

--Robert Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

It's kind of a shame that this comment will be met with shouting, namecalling followed by deletion.

How many usernames is that for you now?

I guess I'm wondering if all the people who keep quoting that line from "Won't Get Fooled Again" (meet the new boss/ same as the old boss) know what the song's about.

I envision myself singing "there's nothing in the street looks any different to me" after Barry O takes power, but I hope I'm wrong...

sorry for the old Who-fan topic drift

They may be called upon to help with civil unrest

I just wonder if the stenographer/journalist wrote that line with a straight face. "Civil unrest?" In these here United States? We are like, the most restful population in the world.

Schedule a big game for the same day as the demonstration and you wouldn't get more than five people and Code Pink on the streets to protest Dick Cheney eating babies.

the opposite of automatically cheering, that being, automatically assuming that a dark evil force is soon to be unleashed

Who was it that said the nine most terrifying words in the English language were "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help?"

your comment is grossly exaggerated

What was your first clue? Maybe the "Cheney eating babies" part?

Seriously, though, I was referring to the term "civil unrest." Hundreds of thousands of people marching peacefully is not my idea of civil unrest requiring a military response.