Some thoughts on Presidential Powers

I don't believe the president, any president be it Bush, or Clinton, or the goddamn Dalai Lama, should have unchecked or unfettered powers. One of the many, many issues I have with the Bush administration is the aggressive expansion of executive power and how hard it is going to be to put the genie back in the bottle once it's out. Because out, it's a hard thing to surrender.

I think that the only way it could be done is if there is some sort of "Truth Commission" after the elections in 2008 where Congress conducts real investigations with real penalties for what's happened over the past 6 years. Of course, it will never happen.

I'm afraid that the Dems are slowing down their pursuit of Bush et. al. because they feel that it may be their turn in 2008 and why should they take those tools away when it will be their guy/girl who gets to weild them? Like the slow walking of the Gonzalez investigations (where a number of Dems were in no hurry to wrap them up because they believed that the great press and the embarrassing issues were a winner - they'd STILL be investigating without sanction if Gonzalez hadn't up and quit), I fear that they think these could be winning tools once they control all 3 branches of government. Which is, of course, silly. The Republican noise machine, sputtering somewhat but still effective, would never allow a Democratic president to get away with half of what the Bushies have gotten away with (and I'd agree with them). Dems could slow walk these investigations too in hopes of retaining the powers only to be bashed on the head with those powers. It is right in principle and right in politics to move aggressively to investigate an administration out of control.

Hillary is a prime example I can point to to explain why I'm so down on the Dems these days. She has recently said that she would review presidential powers if she was elected president and would consider giving some of those up. That's a good thing and the issue of presidential power is one that I've been struggling with for a while. Then, she turns around and issues a wishy-washy response on what she would do about FISA. It doesn't get much more clear than FISA. Are you willing to grant blanket immunity to companies without even knowing what they've done, when we're pretty sure that they illegally aiding the government in spying on us, or are you not? Are you interested in the rule of law, or are you not? And sadly, I can't say that Dems these days are 100% behind the rule of law. And that is profoundly disappointing.


There are some bright spots - Waxman for instance - but looking at the overall picture, I'm not at all encouraged.