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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Allow me to quote from the transcript of McCain's "Judicial Activism" speech (beginning with the seventh paragraph of his speech)

There is one great exception [to the system of checks and balances] in our day, however, and that is the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power.

By failing to acknowledge that the Bush administration's theory of the Unitary Executive as an affront to the Separation of Powers, McCain implicitly accepts Bush's "sprawling vision of executive power."

Now that really is rhetorical isn’t it? As far as I can tell, the Right (mostly) uses this term to define ANY Federal judge that renders an opinion that the speaker of that phrase does not like. I’m not a lawyer like Herb on page 1, but isn’t the job of the SCOTUS to apply the tenants of the U.S. Constitution to rulings from the lower courts? So it is not exactly the same thing as enforcing the law as written. Some laws are bad. Some are un-Constitutional. In the Terry Scahivo case, Senator Bill Frist got his law passed to keep that poor woman on life support, against her wishes. True, it was a law, a law that was passed by the Congress, and signed by the President. Yet the federal courts overturned it. Why? Because it could not pass constitutional muster. This is the check and balance that the Constitution gives the people over the Executive, and the Legislative.

Although with the current make up of the Federal judiciary, you would hardly know. If the conservatives want to complain about “activist judges” they have only to look in the mirror. On the current SCOTUS, seven of the nine were appointed by Republicans. The partisan mix of the thirteen Federal circuits shows that about 60% of judges were appointed by Republicans. Only the Second Circuit (basically New York) and the Ninth Circuit (basically California) have a slight lean of Democratic appointees.

No, the name calling, and the public derision is apparently what happens when any Republican DARES to cross another in any way. You were on our side yesterday, but now you are the problem.