Re: Congress And The Constitutional Coup D'Etat.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Congress And The Constitutional Coup D'Etat.
First, I apologize for taking so long to reply to this article.
Having just finished reading "Attention Deficit Democracy" by Mr. James Bovard, I do not see much hope in restoring our Constitution as the law of the land.
Seeing Shrub and toady Gonzales defend what are clearly unlawful conduct just makes me angry. Angry at those who abuse power, but also angry at the majority of the Americans who plod along as if brain dead. All your articles, all, the articles of others at Counterpunch, Antiwar.com and many other excellent web sites, all my ranting, are of little use when the great majority of our own citizens do not care enough to send a bloody damn email to their Congress persons.
As Mr. Paul Roberts says in his article at Counterpunch today, maybe we should all just quit bitching and support ALL of the Shrubs' policies and wars. That will hasten the downfall of the power hungry abusers. It will also doom this country to ruin, but the majority seem not to care.
I cannot quite do that. When I enlisted in the Marines, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Upon discharge from the Marines, I was NOT asked to renounce that oath. That means, to me and some fellow Viet Nam vets who have replied to my article, that oath is STILL in force today.
While I have little hope left that America will wake from its apathy, I still try to hope this will happen. It is just getting very hard to be hopeful today. That seems the goal of the evil Cheney, Shrub, et al. Thanks be to apathy and Shrub!
I think this country is doomed to fail. Not from outside invaders, but from rot and apathy within.
I wish I could be more "upbeat", but lately just feel beat. I will continue to support you and all who speak against this most criminal administration. I will continue to speak out against the abuse also. I may not care that much any more, but cannot just sit back and say or do nothing. It is not my nature to be silent.
Thank you for your many articles. Thank you also for your time reading this reply. We may even meet in person some day. Hell, we might have adjoining cells in some secret prison thanks to Shrub, et al.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: Congress And The Constitutional Coup D'Etat.
January 5, 2006
Re: Congress And The Constitutional Coup D’Etat.
From: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel
Almost daily it becomes ever more clear that we are faced with an attempted constitutional coup d’etat, an attempted constitutional revolution. It is spurred on by the Yale flunk-out, Dick Cheney, and his personal minions. Its flanks are guarded against the threat of jail by once and sometimes still secret (and in reality indefensible) legal memos from intellectual Guy Fawkeses who graduated from law schools like Harvard and Yale but seem not to have learned the basis of our constitutional order there. Led by Cheney, protected on his flanks by Fawkesian legal outriders, the "profoundly mediocre man"1 who is President seeks to become all powerful in the name of protecting his subjects, the citizens of the United States.
To protect the subjects he invokes the Commander-in-Chief power, though this was placed in the Constitution for the exact opposite purpose of protecting us against military authority by making the military subordinate to the civilian, as Justice Jackson famously wrote in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube case of Korean war days. ("The purpose of lodging dual titles in one man was to insure that the civilian would control the military, not to enable the military to subordinate the presidential office. No penance would ever expiate the sin against free government of holding that a President can escape control of executive powers by law through assuming his military role." (Emphasis added.)) The profound mediocrity who is President invokes his revolutionary claim of constitutional power not for a time that is limited, as wars like the Civil War and World Wars I and II were certain at their inception to be limited in time, be that time two or three or four or five years. No, he invokes it for a war that he says is unlimited in time, a war that may not end in our lifetimes because terrorists -- as the Bible or some writing says of the poor -- you shall always have with you.
Protecting us against dangers by revolutionarily changing the constitutional system to one based on executive supremacy -- precisely the supremacy which the framers whom he and his henchmen love to cite waged a revolution to throw off -- the President says that if it is necessary to secretly kidnap people in Europe and ship them to Uzbekistan, where prisoners are boiled, or to Egypt or Syria or other places where they are tortured in other ways, he can order this even though there is a decade-old federal law under which it is criminal. He says that, if it is desirable for Americans themselves to torture real or supposed enemies to obtain information, he can order it though this too is a federal crime when done abroad, as has regularly occurred. When signing the recent bill containing the McCain prohibition against torture, he says that this is subject to his power as Commander-in-Chief. Translation: he can order torture, despite the McCain law, if he wants to. He attempts, when signing the law that contains the McCain bill, and when signing other laws too, to vastly alter 200 and more years of law and practice by seeking to have laws interpreted not in accordance with the intent of the Congress which enacted them, but in accordance with the often very different intent of the President who signed them. He says that, if it is desirable to run secret prisons in unidentified foreign locations, he can order it. He says that, if it is necessary to engage in electronic surveillance of American citizens within the United States (which, we now know, was begun by NASA even without his order), he can order it although there is a statute that was enacted to prevent this because of horror at its prior occurrences.
Do you doubt for one moment that, should he think it necessary to secretly pick up you or me or any one else, and to beat the crap out of us in jail to try to get information to protect our fellow subjects, he will order it? Do you doubt this for a moment in light of the already existing record, not to mention what we may not yet know about?
In the midst of this constitutional revolution, this constitutional coup d’etat, comes Sam Alito. There are a number of things to be concerned about with regard to a potential Justice Alito. But some of the media, and perhaps even members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have begun to recognize that probably the most dangerous, the most worrisome, possibility of all is his apparently favorable view towards expansion of Executive power. That is something about which he should be questioned intensely, and if he is unwilling to say that he is against such expansion, and to say that he will vote against such expansion and the consequent denigration of Congress’ authority to prevent it, then he should be rejected by the Judiciary Committee and, if necessary, by the full Senate. If necessary, his nomination should be filibustered. The gang of fourteen who forged the recent compromise on the filibuster recognized that a filibuster could be warranted in suitable circumstances. If the possibility of adding a Justice who may vote in favor of the Bush/Cheney constitutional coup d’etat is not such a circumstance, it is difficult to know what is.
It has been said here before, in a posting of November 4, 2005, that Senators, when questioning Alito, would do well to avoid the normal Senatorial blowhardism and to instead ask sharp, short, concise questions. Ten examples of such questions were set forth, and similar questions that Senator Specter had previously sent to Harriet Miers (remember her?) were appended. Senators would also do well to demand specific answers to short, sharp questions, instead of allowing Alito to get away with the dodges, vanilla crapola, and reverse blowhardism so common at Senatorial hearings and previously employed to wonderful effect by John Roberts. The media have indicated recently that some Democrat personnel claim that piercing, appropriate questions have been prepared. Let us hope so. But the media have also made clear that Senators are going to run into a problem.
Alito has been undergoing extensive murderboarding (not to be confused with waterboarding). In this process, legal experts, often quite brilliant ones I am sure, have been asking him questions that Senators might ask, have no doubt been "grading" his performance, have been telling him what he might say rather than what he did say, etc. As one who occasionally used to prepare lawyers for Supreme Court oral arguments, I can tell you that that is how the murderboarding process works.
Alito, it is reported, has sometimes confounded even the expert, no doubt oft brilliant, murderboarders by telling them that their questions are ambiguous. If he can confound these experts with such a tactic, what can we expect from Senators, from blowhards who, the Alito supporters point out, are often doing no more than (and often are incapable of doing any more than) reading from talking points prepared by their staff.
To claim (often spuriously) that a question or statement is ambiguous, to accordingly demand that terms be defined, is the oldest trick in the book of lawyer and academics who don’t want to answer questions. The questioner gets tied up -- even gets tongue tied and starts sputtering -- trying to clarify his supposed ambiguity or to define his supposedly inadequately defined terms. His opponent argues with him about the interpretation or the definition, they mutually go off on a long tangent, and the question never is answered. Senators must avoid this at all costs.
If memory serves, it was in the Roberts’ hearings that it became obvious to this writer that the response that will allow Senators to overcome this ploy is simple, so simple that Senators surely can do it. The response is to say, "Judge Alito, if you think the terms need to be better defined, define them as you wish, tell us your definition, and answer the question." Then, after Alito answers the question, if he has interpreted it in some way that is false or renders it innocuous, or if he has defined terms in a way that is false or innocuous, all the Senator has to do is to say "Well, Judge, you interpreted the question to mean X or you defined a term to mean X. Suppose we interpret the question or define the term to mean Y. Now what is your answer? In this way Senators can easily and quickly dodge the nominee’s dodge that a question is supposedly ambiguous or a term is supposedly not sufficiently defined, will not get side tracked by such ploys by the nominee, and can force answers when the nominee might well prefer to duck the question if he could get away with it.
Finally, given what we have been learning since the posting of November 4th, which contained a list of ten short questions (plus appended ones from Specter), let me now add a few more short questions to the list of those that Senators could ask:
1. Do you believe that the Commander-in-Chief power, contrary to Justice Jackson’s view, gives the President the power to ignore a Congressional statute? If so, in what circumstances?
2. Do you believe the Commander-in-Chief power gives the President the power to override Constitutional rights? If so, in what circumstances and to what extent?
3. In regard to questions one and two above:
(a) Can the President authorize kidnaping at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
(b) Can the President order torture at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
(c) Can the President order warrantless electronic surveillance at home or abroad if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
(d) Can the President order American citizens to be jailed indefinitely if he thinks this is desirable or necessary?
4(a). If the President chooses to say that a war on terrorism is continuing, how long can he exercise power that is granted to him by Congressional statute for the purpose of fighting that war? If there are no attacks against us for two years, can he continue exercising the power? What if there are no attacks for five years? Ten years?
(b). Can he continue exercising the power granted by Congress until and unless Congress enacts a bill to withdraw it, even if this takes 20 or 30 years?
(c). What if Congress votes to withdraw it, but the President successfully vetoes the bill withdrawing it and Congress cannot muster the necessary two-thirds in each house to override? Or, what if one house overrides but one-third plus one successfully oppose an override in the other house?
5(a). Can a President’s intent when signing a law detract from, counterbalance or override Congress’ intent when passing the law?
(b). Does the President’s intent when signing the law have any effect whatever?**
**This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to respond to this email/blog, please email your response to me at email@example.com. Your response may be posted on the blog if you have no objection; please tell me if you do object.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 11:06 AM
Remember me, your former admiring student who supports the current campaign in iraq?
On a related topic, are you developing an approach to the islamic riots regarding the cartoons about mohammed? aside from iraq or even al queda, has the West been too hasty to apologize for what individual artists do? These events demonstrate, IMO, that we, liberals and conservatives alike, have a legitimate conflict with a quasi-fascist religion/culture, radical/populist Islam. This type of censorious inclination of course need not be opposed violently, but if we defend the right of Hustler to be tasteless about traditional Christian or American values, how can we crawl at the feet of these mobs? (Do you notice that Islamic mobs always have time to immediately riot at any hint of desecration of their beloved Prophet? Do these people work, spend time with their families, or just pray quietly three times a day as they claim to do?)
Orthodox Jews have similar beliefs about images of God or religious figures. Are we supposed to burn the works of Chagall or rip down the Vatican because of Rabbinical discomforts? And a few nuts in Israel aside, Orthodox Jews don't riot against what they consider to be sacrilegious art or writing. They simply pray harder for themselves. Likewise, the American Evangelical Right has not so far, demanded the closure of modern art museums or galleries. There is something to be said for religions that wait for a Messiah or the Rapture. Heaven, not a lynch mob, will inflict the ultimate punishment on the artistically corrupt.
Must political correctness prevent politicians, intellectuals and activists of all Western ideologies from jointly proclaimng to these howling mobs, "Shut up, you are boring, you are predictable, we will not ever take you seriously as long as you try to tell us how to deal with our own tastelessness"?
We must, for now, buy Islamic oil and protect access to the oil so our workers and culture survive. That however does not mean that the West (is there still "a West"?) has to accept or be tolerant of Islamic cultural views that we find absurd.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Two Worlds Collide
Dean Lawrence R. Velvel:
Two Worlds Collide
Perhaps it is one world seen through different eyes.
Can anyone at your law school make an articulate argument that lay people can grasp hold of and share in conversation, that will help show that the constitutional "right to choose" grounded in the right to privacy is an integral part of the right to privacy that is also violated by the lawlessness of the U. S. President's eavesdropping and also his house-to-house searches under the unconstitutional "Patriot Act"?
It seems to me that unless we stand together on this issue we shall surely fall, like old growth trees in our virgin forests, under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 like legislations such as the recently named "The Patriot Act".
For as Ben Franklin so aptly put it, "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang separately."
Thanking you in advance for you consideration of this idea.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:14 PM
Subject: Brad DeLong
This interesting exercise is found at Brad DeLong’s site where I usually start my day.
Any ideas, one way or the other?
February 04, 2006
Scooter Libby: What May Be Going on...
I will not say that this makes anything in the Scooter Libby case clearer. But it does increase the likelihood of one possible scenario:
Glaukon: Why did Pat Fitzgerald charge Scooter Libby with perjury and false statement charges, rather than more substantive violations concerning damage to national security?
Thrasymahkhos: If Libby were charged with substantive violations, then Libby's lawyers would demand to see classified documents as part of preparing his defense, the judge would have no choice but to agree, the White House would cite national security and refuse to turn the documents over, and the judge would dismiss the charges.
Thrasymakhos: Charging Libby with substantive violations is--with a White House in cahoots with Libby's defense--a fast way to get the charges dropped.
Aristodemos: Ah. But what about Libby's actual trial? Isn't perjury about private talks between Libby and reporters a "he said, he said" kind of offense that it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
Thrasymakhos: Normally, yes. But look at Fitzgerald's list of people who say that Libby is lying:
An Under Secretary of State
A senior officer of the Central Intelligence Agency
The Vice President of the United States
Libby's own notes of his meeting with the Vice President.
A briefer from the Central Intelligence Agency.
Libby's then-principal deputy.
The White House Press Secretary.
The Counsel to the Vice President.
The Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs.
"White House Officlal A".
Glaukon: Recollections differ. Memories are fallible. People forget. But I cannot see how any conceivable jury could fail to find Libby guilty on the perjury and false statement charges, if the witnesses testify as the indictment suggests they will.
Aristodemos: So what did Libby think he was doing?
Thrasymakhos: There are two possible answers. Answer 1: Libby is certifiable.
Glaukon: Probably true, but even so not sufficient reason for him to do something so stupid as to lie repeatedly to Fitzgerald.
Thrasymakhos: Well how about answer 2: Libby is erecting a perjury firebreak to keep Patrick Fitzgerald from knowing that he, Cheney, Rove, and possibly others knew very well that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert operative and thought that blowing her cover would be a nice way to warn the CIA not to leak information that contradicted what Cheney and company had said?
Aristodemos: That certainly sounds more plausible.
Thrasymakhos: In a normal case, right now Fitzgerald would be offering Libby the choice between spending a long time in prison or giving up Rove or Cheney or somebody even more interesting.
Glaukon: But what if Libby can't give up anybody more interesting?
Thrasymakhos: That's his tough luck. If Libby cannot sing--if Libby is in fact the prime mover--than Libby has tough luck and spends a long time in prison.
Aristodemos: Is that fair? To be especially harshly punished just because the prosecutor wants to see if he can induce you to give up somebody more interesting?
Thrasymakhos: It's how our legal system works: we don't torture--well, we do torture now--instead of torture we threaten people we think have interesting things to say with long prison terms. It's more humane than crushing their hands.
Glaukon: Am I supposed to like this?
Thrasymakhos: It's running code.
Thrasymakhos: As I was saying, if this were a normal case, then if Libby can't or doesn't want to sing, he spends a long time in prison. If Libby tries to give up Rove or Cheney but just has one-on-one conversations to relate, than once again Libby has tough luck and spends a long time in prison: no prosecutor would think that he can convict on the word of a confessed perjurer without corroborating evidence. Only if Libby wants to sing and can point Fitzgerald to corroborating evidence that gives Fitzgerald a conviction of somebody more interesting would he be able to avoid spending a long time in prison. That's what would be happening now if this were a normal case.
Sokrates: But I expect to hear that this is not a normal case.
Thrasymakhos: Indeed, it is not. In the present circumstances, things are complicated by the existence of the presidential pardon power.
Glaukon: Pardon power?
Thrasymakhos: Fitzgerald can threaten to try to put Libby away for a long time. Cheney can promise Libby a presidential pardon on January 20, 2009. Libby's perjury firebreak protecting Cheney will hold.
Glaukon: But isn't that illegal? For a president to promise he will pardon somebody as long as he keeps his mouth shut?
Thrasymakhos: Article II, §2, clause 1: "Section. 2. Clause 1: The President shall... have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The president's power to pardon is unreviewable and uncontrollable. But there is a question I want to ask a real lawyer: What kinds of discussions among whom about the exercise of the presidential pardon power rise to the level of conspiracy to obstruct justice?
One of the comments follows:
The pop wisdom is that the pardon clause is unreviewable. But the case law is sparse, and facts drive law. There may be a textual way to keep Scooter in jail, if you can imagine a world in which:
1. George Bush is sufficiently widely acknowledged as the Worst President Ever.2. The Bush Administration is sufficiently widely viewed as a nest of lawbreakers.3. Bush clearly used to pardon power to obstruct justice.
In such a world, courts might become pretty eager to reverse pardons, if offered a textual argument. Okay, here goes the textual argument:
We start with the text.
Article 2 Section 2 gives the President "Power to grant Reprives and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Article 1 Section 3 says that "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
And Article 3 Section 2 reminds us that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury"
Now let us assume that a Bush administration official--let's call him Karl Kove--is pardoned on January 20, 2009. To simplify matters, we will assume that he is pardoned before trial, and indeed before indictment. What if Karl Kove is subsequently impeached? There seems to be a tradition against impeaching people who are out of office, but there seems to be no Constitutional prohibition. Okay, Karl Kove cannot work for the US again. What else does this entail?
The plain text of the Constitution says that he is impeachable, notwithstanding the pardon. The plain text of the Constitution also says that an impeached person "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Well, jeekers, just read that literally. Karl seems ready for the calaboose, notwithstanding the pardon power! The pardon power doesn't seem to apply if there has been an impeachment.
The textual argument, I think, parses. What's more, there is a good structural argument for it. The courts can put you in jail. The President can get you out. But if you are a politico (and thus subject to impeachment in the first place,) an extraordinary act of Congress can put you back in. Checks and balances, baby.
Disclaimer: I am a real lawyer, but I am not a Constitutional lawyer. And nobody reading this post is my client.
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:49 PM
Nice to see such collegiality, Paul.
Typical of the attack school of life to which so many people seem to subscribe. You know, in the world pre-Reagan, and there actually was such a place, such uncivil behavior would have been frowned upon and one would have been taught at home that if you cannot make a reasoned argument, you shouldn't open your pie hole.
I think maybe you meant to imply that a candidate for a position is not obligated to air her opinions on certain issues even if such opinions are constitutionally protected. Of course, in the case that Mr. Velvel referenced, if you had taken the time to read it, the person was occupying an elected position, not one to which he had been appointed for a lifetime. I believe that in the course of campaigning for such a position certain beliefs and positions should correctly be placed before the electorate so that an informed choice can be made.
In the case of our recent Supreme Court nominees and appointments, including the perjurer who occupies the position of Attorney General of the United States, perhaps you should read Allen Drury's Advise and Consent to get a feeling for the way in which senators should conduct themselves when performing their vital constitutional role. You would also get a taste for the way things were way, way back while Ronnie Raygun was still out there in Death Valley instead of leading the charge of the ideologues that has resulted in the demise of our democracy and the bastardization of constitutional interpretation that places the president above the other two co-equal branches of government. Nothing prevents persons coming before the senate from declaring their feelings and beliefs, nothing except the knowledge that by revealing these beliefs the nominee will show the American people just how truly radical s/he is in relation to the American people as a whole. Do you honestly believe that the American people are so shallow as to deny someone a place on the high court who has the courage to state and defend her convictions and beliefs, unless those beliefs are so out of synch with mainstream thought that an outcry would ensue if they were made known?
It is interesting that we are on the road to South American-style governance, along the lines of the Bush family friends, the Somoza's, even as South American politics is becoming more responsive to the needs and desires of the respective electorates.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and open your eyes. If you are an attorney, take a step back and look at all the evidence that has been adduced over the past twenty-five years and ask yourself, "Am I better off now? Is my country better off now than it was way back then? Was it really necessary to destroy the fabric of our society and our cherished political traditions so that some people could claim victory in some sophomoric cultural debate?" Then apologize for the disbarment comment.
I think with some reasoned thinking and deep soul-searching, if you follow the current trends to their logical conclusions, you will see that no one is winning in Amerika today.
And, as an ex-Marine who spent quite a bit of time playing hide and seek with the Viet Cong and the North Viet Namese in the A Shau Valley and other places, I'm not very happy about this turn of events.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: Volume Four??
OK, I’m on the mend from surgery for a serious hand injury and I’ve read all three of your books of the Alabaster Cities series. When do you plan on publishing volume four (please tell me it’s still coming)?
I just received your earlier book on undeclared war and civil disobedience along with a book by Francis Boyle from Northwestern on defending antiwar resistance under international law. I’m almost finished reading Rehnquist’s book on the court. It’s interesting to read his account of the Steel Seizure case. The initial argument by the government’s lawyer to the district court sounds eerily similar to the theory being floated by the sycophants in the administration that the “unitary executive” hiding behind the commander-in-chief title has almost limitless power. Reading the quotes from the Washington Post is chilling. It’s like we never moved forward at all.
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know how much I’ve enjoyed your books.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Why a Rebublican cannot comment on the Republican Party of Minnesota v. White case
Of course Samson can pull the pillars down. Robert Bork already did that. Why should one team play "tell the truth", and the other plays "get the justice job"? And if you don't think that is exactly what is going on, then you're out of you penumbra of emanations mind.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 12:44 AM
Subject: NY Times
Dear Mr. Velvel,
After putting your "BullShit" and other comments aside, I read your posting on the NY Times a couple times, to try to understand what your beef really was. It's obvious that you are greatly disappointed with the Times; however, it appears that you must have a hard time getting up in the morning and having a meaningful day in the current environment. After all, the Times is the most openly Liberal major sheet in the country. When the Times editorially blasted the Dem Senators as "spineless", I was shocked at the anger in those words; however, it was the Ed Page, and we know where the Times stands. Your problem in the News areas of the Times, seemed to angrily protest that no effort was being made there. With readers watching non-stop reports on the cable channels; constantly reporting the filibuster efforts, John Kerry declaring from Europe, and other senators openly saying that the votes just aren't there. The "news" was pretty much dead. I take issue with your wishes for the Times to push the effort in the News. It's like killing the messenger to avoid bad news. Maybe there is just a little ethics left in the Times to not completely succumb the paper to total hidden editorial content. The news of the day was that filibuster was not going to be in the cards.
As Dean of a prestigious law school, I would think you would respect some effort to print some content which simply states what is happening and not supporting what they would like to be. I'm sure you support an equal content of the arguments of law in your classrooms. Perhaps the filibuster would be a good topic to discuss with respect to One Man One Vote.
You can obviously tell that I am not of the Liberal persuasion; however, I don't take any pleasure, of reading near melt down hysteria on the Left. Some are very happy to read such, and they aren't your guys. For a period of time, I thought the general reaction from the Democrats to being an opposition party was an adjustment that would become more refined with some time. I thought that the Left would refine its goals, and become more cohesive with the more moderate Left. However, when I read comments like yours, I have my doubts. Your comments were perceived here as hateful and disrespectful. You are mad at Bush, mad at the Democrats, mad at the Times, and I suppose, mad at the Canadians. Dean screams, Gore screams, you are screaming. You need to heed those Senators. They understand that you gain by winning elections, one representative at a time. Hateful and undisciplined rhetoric doesn't motivate many voters; in fact it turns them off. I would think the Dean of a law school would understand that. You have to learn to be an effective opposition Party. Expectation of the NY Times, Post, or LA Times winning, or effectively swinging opinion in this era is not valid. Republicans have, over a long period of time, become the controlling political party and they certainly don't give the major media, print or otherwise, credit for this.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 8:30 AM
Subject: thank you for good column on Alito and NYT
Only wish "liberals" could see through rag...but i guess that's why they're called liberals! i used to freelance for its consumer page in the early-mid 90s...mostly insurance-related, health and medical information privacy stuff...the editor friend who hooked me up there said i'd never get hired because i was considered a "social radical."
the NYT is a dangerous paper, ditto the Post.