Letters to the Editor
-
Dismantled if there is a D elected
Hi Glenn,
My guess is that if a D is elected to President, the R attack dogs and upper-middle-class D apologists will fall in to attacking the President and stopping all this. This is because the upper-middle-class Ds have some weird disconnect from the Rs that they feel like they have to validate themselves to what they believe poor people (meaning redneck white males) want.
If any R is elected, then there will be a continued trajectory toward absolute authority.
What we're really seeing right now is more a combo of class politics and the politics of guilt of the privileged than anything else. Yet what is happening is that it is being played out in the context of issues of race and gender, because those are the terms that the public has been conditioned to accept. The Bushes are rich. They have the right to do what they want. The Clintons (and Obamas) were poor, or middle-class. They have no right to do what they think is right, and they must be resisted.
It's too bad that not enough writers are considering what is readily apparent to me. We can't seem to shake the cultural language that has dominated politics for the last 40 years and realize that it really is irrelevant.
-
Time to dig Nixon up ...
... and apologize to him. When he said that if the President did it, that means it is legal --- he was just ahead of his time. We are now in a position that means we do not respect the rule of law as a country; rather, only the raw power that comes with winning office.
Even then, we are not sure of getting the votes counted honestly.
We are doomed; doomed as doomed can be. (Pee Wee Herman, I think)
-
Human nature
The only comfort I get from any of this mess is from the vision of the founders of this Country pointing at our current situation and intoning "I told you so!"
If it weren't inherent in the nature of certain personality types to seize power at every opportunity and if it weren't inherent in other types to reflexively avoid conflict, then there would have been no need to create three branches of government to be set against each other and there would have been no need to create a bill of rights to guarantee freedom for minority viewpoints in the face of a potentially tyranical majority.
The founders thought hard, and debated carefully about how best to counter the natural tendency toward despotism that they saw around them.
It's a shame that it took only 230 years for the whole thing to come crashing down, but its unfortunately not all that surprising.
-
Fighting Back After Super Tuesday
Glenn scares me and I'm glad he does. Seeing this normalizing of law breaking and presidential empire building can make one weak kneed and not sure what to do. We have to stay as resolute and determined as Glenn. We have to find ways to reverse this.
If Hillary and Barack are both still standing after Super Tuesday, we need to challenge both on this vital issue and show the candidate who most stands behind reversing this balance of power, anti-constitution outrage, will receive our vote.
We may need to adopt anti-war style protest politics to get their and the M$M’s attention. I know who the leader of our movement should be. Don’t you? He already is.
We also need a framing phrase that all of us can use. A few framing suggestions. I’m sure others can do better.
No Kings in America; No President is Above the Law; No Lawless Leaders Representing Us; Legalize our Presidency; No Rulers Allowed; Emperors are Deadly; Our Law is Dying; It Takes Three Branches for You to be Safe; Two of Our Branches are Being Sawed Off; I Didn’t Elect a Ruler, Did You?; Democracy is Under a Death Sentence
-
Mukasey
From Glenn's article:
"Harper's Scott Horton, who was a law partner of Mukasey's and originally endorsed his confirmation -- on the grounds that he would be more likely than other potential nominees to exhibit independence (an assessment I shared) --"
Anyone who thought a Bush appointee, in this case Mukasey, would be much or any different than Gonzales has simply refused to learn anything about the Bush/Cheney gang since they took office. They're simply giving Bush the benefit of the doubt and that's insane.
JohnW1141
-
JohnW1141
Anyone who thought a Bush appointee, in this case Mukasey, would be much or any different than Gonzales has simply refused to learn anything about the Bush/Cheney gang since they took office. They're simply giving Bush the benefit of the doubt and that's insane.
No. It has nothing to do with Bush or giving him the benefit of the doubt. It has to do with making assessments of someone based on first-hand observations of them.
It is true that Mukasey is different than Gonzales in some respects. Do you think Gonzales would have launched a criminal investigation into the CIA video destruction allegations? Do you think he would have barred DOJ employees from speaking to White House officials about pending matters? Do you think he would have allowed the DOJ's internal investigation of the FISA authorization to exist?
It's easy to say you don't like Mukasey. That wasn't the point. The point was that there was a chance that he would marginally more independent than the alternatives, and it is the case that he is marginally more independent. But only marginally.
-
Time for Mukasey to resign
Mukasey promised during his confirmation hearing that if Bush pressured him to break the law, he would resign. It's time to call him on this and insist that he resign.
From a CNN article on the hearings:
Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey made it clear to senators Wednesday he would be independent from the White House and would make legal decisions based "on facts and law, not by interests and motives."
Mukasey, appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would resign from office if faced with a presidential order he believed was unconstitutional.
"I would try to talk him [the president] out of it -- or leave," he said.
Link: http://tinyurl.com/yrwc8r
Clearly, Mukasey knows torture has taken place, yet he refuses to begin prosecution of those who took part. His "investigation" of the destruction of the torture tapes lacks the independence it requires to achieve a real outcome. Just these two acts alone violate his pledge during the hearing. I am sure many more examples can be found from his short time in office.
As Glenn has pointed out, oversight from Congress and from the courts now is nonexistent. The only recourse left as a check on the Bush abuses of the executive branch is action by concerned citizens. We need to contact every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to remind them of Mukasey's pledge and the evidence that he has already violated it. We will have to shame the committee into taking its Constitutionally mandated oversight role.
Congress may be content with waiting out the Bush Administration. I am not.