"To wit: do you honestly think that if a Democrat is elected President he/she will immediately give up said powers that have been collected by this administration?"

That would be an excellent question to ask any candidate for President.

"To wit: do you honestly think that if a Democrat is elected President he/she will immediately give up said powers that have been collected by this administration?"

...and I agree that it should be asked of every single candidate. Multiple times, in multiple ways... just to test them for consistency.

For a long time, Dodd was the only candidate (of either party) who was talking about restoring the Constitution.

I'm not entirely sure where the others stand on the issue, but knowing could actually be what helps me decide who to vote for in the primary.

You may have qualms about his 'experience', but it is undeniable that Obama is the least 'Washington/beltway/versailles on the Potomac Establishment' candidate we have. That is one of the best reasons to support him. His fundraising is also clean(er) than most- there is only so much distance you can put between yourself and dirty money under the current system.

Re: Casual Observer- I would give up. I would be a quitter, if nothing changes after 09. But I don't think things will stay the same if Obama is elected. If it is Hillary, I don't know what to say- she is deeply authoritarian from what I can tell, as well as unabashedly power-hungry. She is also undeniably the MOST 'Washington/beltway/versailles on the Potomac Establishment' candidate we have. (All of that besides, do we really want the same two families running the country for over two decades??) I think one of the lessons of W's tenure is that the President is who he surrounds himself and fills the government with.

Finally, I am not a huge fan of those constituent group surveys, where a candidate fills out a questionaire on issues and/or makes pledges to do this or that if they are elected, but if I were able to put one such question to the candidates, it would be about true campaign finance reform, which gets at the evil heart of the problems we face in this system.

Glenn: What is your take on the 'money is free speech' premise to our campaign finance laws? I respect both your conlaw and political opinions, and this is an issue that I do not have the faculty nor resources to pick apart on my own- much appreciated if you'd jot down your thoughts!

...we have 1 party with 2 right wings.

The country is lost imho.

Sieg Heil and Praise Jesus!

...is always a loaded question. But I'll take a stab at it.

Casual Observer: Looking forward, what happens if the probable indeed happens (democratic president and congress) but we continue the same lack of progress in civil liberties and foreign policy.

There are a few possibilities.

• Just enough apparent progress is made to keep the swing voters happy (but the real progressives still complaining). That is, no change in the status quo. Just a bunch of DFH's whining.

• The swing voters realize there is no difference in the parties, and begin to vote on single-issue things as opposed to voting on ideology.

• General strikes, angry demonstrations, riots, civil war (in order of increasing violence and decreasing probability).

• The government already has enough information and Committee for State Security troops (or is that Secret State Police? Hard to tell) to declare anyone truly progressive as an "enemy combatant" and populate large-scale re-education camps.

I disagree with William T. that guns will be the "last" thing we'll need at that point. It will be the one thing everyone will need, and not have.

strip Joe Leiberman of his committee assignments and seniority?

If he wants to caucus with the Republicans, let him.

I don't think from here on out ANY President, Republican or Democrat, will be giving up the warrentless eavesdropping anytime soon and here's why: In my honest opinion (and I think polls have proven this out)I believe the majority of Americans see a trade off between warrentless wiretaps and their perceived safety.

So what President in his/her right mind would do away with something that increases their power AND the majority of people perceives as something that keeps them safer?

I just don't think it would happen.

If the executive branch could have exercised this power back in the 90s, just think how much faster we could have caught a "real" bad-guy, like the Unabomber? Oh, wait. He lived in a wooden shack in the middle of nowhere without electricity. Nevermind.

Without any evidence, I don't agree.

It's an ironic travesty: I think there's very little downside to supporting the Constitution at this point, even among Repugs:

- Rove is gone, the President is weak

- Americans don't typically frown upon standing up for principles

- rallying around the Constitution is strong and easy-to-play

Why not then? Fealty towards Bush is perhaps a hard habit to break. W/r/t habeus corpus for instance, I'd bet Repug Senators rec'd very few calls (if any) from constituents urging them to support the continued denial of habeas corpus.

This obviously doesn't prove what any Democratic president might do, but the original FISA was adamantly supported and signed by President Carter (and strongly supported by members of both political parties at the time).

And what about Republicans? Will they suddenly change their minds on giving such powers to a Democratic president?

Couldn’t we see a dramatic shift in their position if they lose the White House? Not long ago, they were claiming that the “filibuster” was “unconstitutional” but now that they’re in the minority, they’ve used it more than it’s ever been used before.

Won’t they suddenly be really suspicious of “executive” powers once they no longer “own” those powers? Might we see a little role reversal?

RE: Warrantless Wiretapping

If the executive branch could have exercised this power back in the 90s, just think how much faster we could have caught a "real" bad-guy, like the Unabomber? Oh, wait. He lived in a wooden shack in the middle of nowhere without electricity. Nevermind.

-- orbitboy

even if you were half-joking. They want a short-cut, a magic weapon, or a programmer's cheat (gaming version) to keep from having to do that homework I fussed about earlier today. They don't want to have to do real police work, which is what it will always take. They want a technological magic wand. The magic wand salesman will be happy to tell them it will solve all problems, while taking a great deal of money, but it is all bullshit if you don't want to do any real work.

It is like sysprog shows us every damn day. If you are willing to dig, really work, you will get somewhere in your research, but Commander Codpiece is lazy. This was shown very clearly pre-911 (PDB 8/6/01), again with mission unaccomplished, again with Katrina, and now with the escalation. He just wants to go to damn Crawford, or that Houston freedom institute (how funny is that for a fascist to run?) and collect speaking fees.