Bush v. Gore.

Oh the irony...

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

If I knowingly vote for what I consider to be evil, how can I maintain my self respect?

So you would rather vote for the greater evil? Or you would rather not vote at all, which is equivalent to enabling a greater evil to take control? How do you maintain your self respect, then?

Imagine you're driving along, and you notice the person in front of you suddenly stops. There isn't enough time to hit the brakes to avoid collision. Resigned to this fact, do you step on the gas peddle (vote for McCain), take your foot off both peddles (don't vote) or slam on the breaks (vote for either Democrat)?

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 have also found that while Mr. Greenwald makes good points at times, he is more often a reliable source of narrowly partisan talking points as opposed to thoughtful analysis of the important issues facing the country.

There is nothing is McCain's comments on the judiciary that lead me to believe that he supports President Bush's sprawling vision of executive power. He is speaking narrowly about judicial authority (and recklessly), and is not discussing the issue of executive power head on in his speech. I believe it is disingenuous to read such commentary into the speech. In fact, I don't see why Mr. Greenwald so cavalierly dismisses McCain's responses to direct questioning about executive power (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/McCainQA/), in which he recognizes that the president is bound to laws passed by congress and international treaties in numerous circumstances. Of course he should show more bravery and leadership and break more clearly with Bush, but my first conclusion when he doesn’t do this explicitly isn’t that he’s confirming Bush’s actions. He’s a politician. Doesn’t Mr. Greenwald get the concept of candidates (of both parties) playing to their base during the primary season?

Do I think his comments on judicial activism are excessive? Of course, though there is a real debate to be had over balancing democratic will versus undemocratic judicial oversight. But McCain is a Republican presidential candidate trying to shore up his base before the general election. What would you expect him to say about the judiciary? McCain can be accused of pandering to get elected (on this and other issues); there's a lot of that going around this election cycle. But it is certainly propagandistic to claim that McCain, with his years spent in Congress and clear statements to the contrary, would not have more respect for checks and balances than George Bush. Obama may be the better candidate of the two, but it's not because McCain has his eyes set on tyrannical powers.

With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. 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.

Schoolhouse Rock:

(a) The courts issue rulings on matters brought before them. Not on matters brought before the public---unless of course a legal matter comes up in the process which is brought before a court.

(b) The courts do consider the public good, but in the American system they primarily consider opposed arguments, precedent, and the law. They don't follow polls.

Is this level of ignorance supposed to be a plus or a minus in a presidential candidate? The framers of our Constitution would be amazed all right.

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.