Two, four, and six year terms are all too short to provide any sense of urgency for a forced removal of a recalcitrant politician. The process of recognizing the indiscretion and subsequently getting it elevated in public discourse over the breaches of naivety put you too close to the end of any term in existing elected positions. The consensus attitude becomes one of a waiting game. If we ignore the problem long enough it will go away on its own, because we can eventually elect someone else.

This is a really interesting point that I have never heard before. EVER. Yet I do actually hear people say, Oh well---next time. Which means 4-8 years, barring death, assassination, or blowjob.

Generally the discussion is always pointed the other way---term limits? or no term limits?

Someone else made a similar point about parliamentary democracy. I think rights are like muscles---they need to be exercised regularly. If we threw out our presidents---I mean, on their asses, sometimes with jail time---once every 20 or 30 years, we might actually get enough practice at it to be good at it. And you wouldn't get the eye-roll from the MSM every time you mention mere impeachment.

The last good chance we had was with Nixon. Somebody go spit on Ford's grave for me, please.

Being so righteous and avoiding voting because there's no candidate who is perfect is exactly how we got into this mess with the neocons in the first place.

I'm not looking for a perfect candidate, but it would be nice to have one that is at least acceptable.

We got into "this mess with the neocons" because the Democratic party fled from its base in horror.. Even here on Salon I read supposed "Democrats" who clearly hate liberals and liberal ideas, see any thread discussing the Democratic primary for numerous examples.

Nader was right in 2000, without 9/11, there really wasn't that great a difference between Gore and Bush.. Nader had no way of foreseeing 9/11 so I do not fault him for that.

And then when Gore hammered down the Congressional Black Caucus that was trying to stand up for him, that was the last straw for me.

When the Democrats stop trying to out Republican the Republicans then maybe I can vote for them with a clear conscience again.

I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me, sometime right around the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency. When you chase low information voters rather than catering to your base it is not the fault of the base if they become disillusioned with your BS.

I read the interview with McCain that you posted and I must admit that it is thought provoking in the sense that he seems to be with the angels on a number of issues. I just hope that he is sincere. Given his history of flip flopping, and earlier statements which run counter to what he said, I am not sure how much weight we can give them. This may be a case of him pandering to independents and those Hilary supporters who would not vote for Obama and vice versa.

I would like to see a clear and unambiguous promise from both candidates to dismantle the imperial "unitary executive". No dictator is a good dictator.

I don't agree with you characterization of Glenn. He may be partisan, but everything he says is supported by facts. In this I think he is pretty much at the pinnacle of his profession.

Being so righteous and avoiding voting because there's no candidate who is perfect is exactly how we got into this mess with the neocons in the first place.

AKA the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" argument.

Voter X, who has had no significant control over or input into how the two (and only two) candidates are placed before him, finds neither acceptable, and does not vote.

That the political process Voter X was born into gives him insufficient choice is his fault, and is due to his fussy "righteousness". It is never the fault of the process which he has no control over.

Baldie McEagle just asked: 'Is this level of ignorance supposed to be a plus or a minus in a presidential candidate?'

on whether the candidate is a Republican or a Democrat :-)

I also agree with another poster who said 'Herb' should have smoked some of the herb at that Cream concert. It would make extricating the stick up his ass so much easier.

As Bush/Cheney regime has amply shown the idea seems to be to build-in corporatist concepts of executive wide and long range of action into American Federal governance.

Congress and Courts being placed into positions of interested "stockholders" who at discretion of WH regime are allowed to participate if and when it suits executive purpose or desire.

Legal restraint then getting the "Enron" approach as repeatedly seen with Bush/Cheney regime. Just to start a list of examples--USAG scandal,Dick Cheney secrecy options taken,hocus pocus WH signing statements,Federal rules being relaxed or rerouted by WH appointees who then refuse to answer to Congress about this conduct,Iraq CPA scandals,Blackwater scandals,Katrina aftermath deceptions and shell games,several DOD Iraq related logistics and equipment fraud scandals,false WMD premise for invasion/occupation of Iraq,putting in long term American military bases inside Iraq and the American Embassy Citadel in Baghdad,AG Alberto Gonzales,Scooter Libby,Paul Wolfowitz,Douglas Feith and on and on...

It is a WH executive regime that took Enron rulebook and put it into play since Jan.2001.

Sadly Congress did not resist any of this very much no matter whether GOP or DEM party was in control.

Courts have also been unwilling to hold firm against this WH.

So the corporatists have migrated easily enough into Federal systems and clearly see the game as being one where rules are for fools and much like quarterly report corporate world takes and dos the idea is to score for short term gains and do not worry about what happens afterwards.

Bush/Cheney WH wants Enron style elastic legalities and scoffs at notions of being part of larger three entity American Federal system of check/balance/rule of law. This evidently as Richard Cheney puts it worthy of little more than a "so?"

DOD assets being put into Iraq to benefit western(American) energy interests who profit from American taxpayers picking up tab for Iraq take apart to put in western energy friendly Iraq regime. Several hundreds billion $$ later and over 4,000 dead Americans plus many more maimed/injured and how many hundreds of thousands Iraqis lives taken or destroyed where is any Bush/Cheney WH regime remorse?

There is none.

Should John McCain somehow get to WH in Jan.2009 it is plain to see his bankrupted thinking will only further what Bush/Cheney WH has put in place.

The corporatists surely would be happy with that outcome and four more years of Bush/Cheney Enronism surely will demolish more and more of what still remains of American Federal format as known post WW2.

Current lawbreaking acrobatics coming out of WashingtonDC from both political parties in service of corporatists desire clear enough to see.

Enronism is corporatism driven by worse of motives and when it infects and infests American Federal format all Americans are indeed in great political danger.

GWOT was/is ooga booga politics creature if ever there was one.

Corporate Enronism as seen with this Bush/Cheney regimes concept(s) of unfettered executive conduct that over rides or evades/escapes (Scooter Libby?)legal,ethical and moral consideration is as much a threat to Americans today as GWOT in all the forms it is described as being can or will ever be.