Republicans think checks and balances are what they get from Abramoff . . .

Same reasons, I guess, different war.

The Republicans in power now are either old Cold Warriors or their disciples.  These guys really believe, despite all conservative rhetoric about "individual freedom," that we are always at war (even if they have to make the war in order to make it true).

They have, though, for a long time and quite effectively, convinced much of the US population that just about any government action in the name of "security" is permissable.

Let's face it, Nixon almost got away with his covert activities just because of the paranoia and fear that the Cold War gave us.  He got caught, though, and ruined.

After 9-11, and we have to deal with the fact that the Republicans have convinced most of the country that modern history started about a second after the first tower fell, the Republicans have found themselves able to act in a Nixonian manner without facing Nixonian consequences.

It helps, of course, that even institutions like the New York Times, which had reporters who figured out the domestic spying story more than a year ago, have become compliant.  The big, uninvestigated tragedy of this domestic spying story, I think, is that the freaking New York Times didn't publish the story the second one of their reporters got it verified.  I'm tempted to write that it's sad that even  the so called "liberal media" wouldn't publish this, but... the "liberal media" tag is superfluous.  It's actually sad that a respected news organization, whatever its political leanings, didn't run with this story at the moment it arrived.  If the freaking Weekly Standard had learned this one first, and then held off for a year, it'd be just as sad.

I think, left or right aside, that what really sucks is that our watchmen in the media have bought into the "it's for national security" argument and have turned a blind eye to what's going on.

Our current security climate is now so pervasive that even the people who've devoted their lives to telling the untold stories are caving into it.

I fear that we're in a place right now, when it comes to national security issues, that is actually more repressed than what we where we were during the height of the Cold War.  My life only caught the tail decade of the  Cold War and that was my decade of being a child, so I can't be sure about that, but when I see old footage of educational films and the like these days, I relate to the mood.  There's some real fear and paranoia at work in our culture right now and I think it might be more pervasive and more persuasive, than the mood of earlier decades and I do think that the current administration is behind it.

... although McCarthyism, HUAC, Truman being somewhat over-the-top, etc. was around for quite a good amount of time before Murrow took on "Tailgunner" Joe. So looked at that way things got better over time then and, hopefully, now. I recommend "Good Night and Good Luck" to all who haven't senn it (although I was pilloried at the Cafe the last time I posted that).

Yes, it is so clear now why Meirs was selected first - she was among the few that participated in reauthorizing the spying every 45 days.
Now it's clear why Scalito was selected next - "architect" that he is for scullduggery. 
And it is ever so clear why all bush's appointees in the 2nd term were White House advisors.  
For bush it is important to only appoint people whose hands are already dirty and whose minds have long bent to his "ends justify the means" philosophy.
To my mind what we have underlying all bush policies is the "war on logic."
We are at a point where logic no longer functions in one branch of government.  It's enough to drive the rest of us truly crazy!

If I may briefly mix a metaphor, this is like the fox appointing the lazy dog he can jump over with impunity to guard the henhouse.

FOREIGNID: 78307
FOREIGNPARENTID: 78306
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 4310
AUTHOR: agathena
DATE: 12/25/2005 06:25:30 AM

Thereby confirming that he and Miers were both selected for precisely the same reason: eternal fealty to the presidency, and this president in particular.

Since this President only has 3 years left, your fear of "eternal fealty" is a bit overstated. But hey, it gets the wacko's excited so go for it.

I can't think things through? You are already figuring Al-Queada operatives are going to get civil law suits through the courts all the way to the Supreme court, in less than 4 years and this is your reason for opposing Judge Alito... and I can't think things through. Here's some thinking through for you:

1. Maybe what the President has done, isn't illegal, since it has been done in the past and wasn't declared illegal.

2. Anyone who wants to sue in the US courts has to submit to the Jurisdiction of the court (not a likely occurance for Al-Queada operatives hiding in Afgahnistan/Pakistan/or any otherstan).

3. Even if your "unlikely" scenerio takes place 3+ years still does not equal "eternal fealty" (but it does still sound real mennesing, even when I know it's rediculous).