- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Like I tell my eight year old in regards to sports, if you lose a game you don't have to like it and in fact you shouldn't, if you want to be angry on the field I'm fine with that, but once you step off the field it is time to put it behind you. Not to belittle you folk but it is time to put the primary race behind you. Clinton fought a tough campaign, I think she was ill advised in her strategy but that's another topic, but it is clearly over. Letting the rancor and vitriol continue is pointless and distracts all of us, who clearly see Obama or Clinton as a much more viable choice over the current sitting President or his heir apparent, to focus now on the long clean up of the worst Presidential administration in the history of the Republic. It is potentially going to get decades to right the wrongs the Bush team has done.
First priority though is ensuring McCain doesn't stand a chance in the fall. I mean one would think he (McCain) is a shill for the Democratic party, giving the DNC easy ad campaigns for the fall when he makes statements such as this:
On the price of gas and commodities:
"And obviously the way it’s been going up is just terrible. But I think psychologically — and a lot of our problems today, as you know, are psychological — the confidence, trust, the uncertainty about our economic future, ability to keep our own home."
How's that for some straight talk, the man that wants to be President thinks the $70 it cost me to fill the mini van the other day was just a psychological problem for me, not a real fiscal one.
On Bush's economic legacy:
I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time.
The shrinking dollar, the record deficit, the sub prime scandal, record fuel and commodity prices, health care cost, the largest gap between wealthiest and poorest Americans since The Guilded Age, I could go on but you get the point. To make a statement like that is just utterly astounding.
Or his view on the balance of power in our government, which he gave in a speech that is almost a plagiarism of a speech Bush gave three years ago. The problem with our government today is not the overwhelming consolidation of power in the executive branch, making it a pseudo autocracy, or a weak legislative branch, which even with an opposition party in power and a lame duck President behaves as a rubber stamp for the executive, it is the judiciary, and more specifically, wait for it...activist judges...the red meat code word for the rapid right...which we all know is just an euphemism for judges who rule against the conservative view point.
He had the gall to say this:
Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people.
Has he never read the Federalist Papers (well,considering his academic record at Annapolis probably not) or any of the founding father's views on the separation of powers?
It seems scarcely to admit of controversy, that the judiciary authority of the Union ought to extend to these several descriptions of cases: 1st, to all those which arise out of the laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of their just and constitutional powers of legislation
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 80
"The judges... should always be men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness and attention; their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man or body of men. To these ends they should hold estates for life in their offices, or, in other words, their commissions should be during good behavior, and their salaries ascertained and established by law."
Thomas Jefferson
The whole point of an tenured judiciary is so it will be independent of the will of the mob, the misguidance of the legislature or the whim of a President. It is there to look at legislation passed through the prism of that legislation's consitutionality, not if it was popular amongst the people or wanted by the executive or passed whole heartedly by the legislature. The independent judiciary is what protects the minority from the majority, ensures level playing fields and the overall protection of everyone's rights. You can argue that they are at times more subjective to their personal political ideologies than objective but you really can't argue against Civics 101.
I understand you might be feeling anger right now with Obama and his supporters but let's take that resolution and use it to realize that at his worst, Obama is exponentially better than the man occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Ave right now and will present something better for our nation other than a four year extension of the Bush debacle.
