Letter to the editors of the New York Times

My letter of the day to the editors of the New York Times:

Dear Sirs:

I was somewhat struck by the juxtaposition of your two editorials in today's paper. In the first, "The Imperial Presidency 2.0" you rightly conclude:

The Democratic majority in Congress has a moral responsibility to address all these issues: fixing the profound flaws in the military tribunals act, restoring the rule of law over Mr. Bush’s rogue intelligence operations and restoring the balance of powers between Congress and the executive branch. So far, key Democrats, including Mr. Leahy and Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, chairman of a new subcommittee on human rights, have said these issues are high priorities for them.

We would lend such efforts our enthusiastic backing and hope Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin and other Democratic leaders are not swayed by the absurd notion circulating in Washington that the Democrats should now “look ahead” rather than use their new majority to right the dangerous wrongs of the last six years of Mr. Bush’s one-party rule.

This is a false choice. Dealing with these issues is not about the past. The administration’s assault on some of the nation’s founding principles continues unabated. If the Democrats were to shirk their responsibility to stop it, that would make them no better than the Republicans who formed and enabled these policies in the first place.

Yet, in the second, "Bipartisanship as the first resort?" you lament the fact that House Democrats have not allowed the Republicans to screw up and slow down their bills with amendments that force the Democrats to vote against things the Republicans will blast them with in the next elections.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. The Republicans, who should be renamed "The President's Yes Men" are not going to stand by quietly while the Democrats try to undo the imperial Kingship this President has created for himself. Even the few who have noises against it have buckled at the knees when push came to shove. Witness Arlen Specter, who failed to pursue any investigation of the president's illegal use of the NSA to wiretap Americans without warrants. Then, there was Saint John McCain who turned out to be for torture and against habeas corpus after he was against torture and for habeas corpus. In dishonorable mention, I will include Lindsay "Huckleberry" Graham, who was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

If the Democrats are going to return this country to its founding principles of checks and balances among the three branches of government, it is going to be a partisan fight. Sure comity is nice when you have the luxury of being able to afford it. But, right now, we can't afford it. We have to take back our country. When it comes to a choice between bipartisan comity and restoring the checks and balances to our government, I vote for good government, not compromise as the first resort.

And, by the way, what's happened to the role of the Fourth Estate? It's about time you guys in the so-called Mainstream Media returned to your rightful role as the watchdogs of good government.

Sincerely,