Partisans, not patriots

Haven't we had enough of Dick Cheney? This latest act of contempt by our errant Veep should rile even the cockles of honorable Republicans. Apparently the long litany of transgressions were not enough incentive to take action against this shameless constitutional officer. No, the party must not be compromised - loyalty must prevail above all. Even above the good of the nation.

Well this latest "up yours" from the Veep, the absurd position regarding his so-called legislative position shielding him, should be the last straw. It is an act of pure comtempt that all in Congress must take action against. Each took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Not the party, the structure of our government. And Cheney has defiled it once again, acting as a potentate might who stands sneering above the law. Ozymandius lite.

Those in Congress who fail to take action to deal with this affront to the Constitutional framework should resign - since by not acting, they violate their oath.

So what are our options? Take away funding if he really thinks he's part of the legislative branch? No. Get Bush to bring him into line? Never happen. Investigate him, or challenge him in the courts? Not likely in that partisan city. This latest act of bravado should inspire Republicans to take the lead, to take action. For once, make the nation more important than the party. Act like the patriots you claim to be.

Reject Dick Cheney's policies and influence. Reinstate the principles of our government, our nation.

Disappointing debates

When oh when are journalists going to start asking good questions. There is a difference between a gotcha or a scoop, and a question that elicits good information beyond a sound bite. Journalists stand in our place and should be our aides in learning about those contending to lead our nation.

The format does not promote real debate, with artificial time constraints and little opportunity for informative interchange. If it does occur, the host hustles on to the next question, leaving the conversation unfinished, and the viewer unsatisfied.

And when there is a real opportunity to clarify an issue, they let it pass. One example is the Rep debate when all but McCain heartily endorsed torture. Why didn't our ciphers simply ask "since torture is against the Geneva Convention, which the US has signed, does that mean you don't believe in the rule of law". But, no - onward helter skelter to the next hammer-blow forced-march sound bite predictablilty. I have a few suggestions that may improve our discourse.

Since we have so much concern about competence in government, ask our strivers how they would go about selecting high level officials. Or, instead of yes or no should we get out of Iraq now or later, ask what needs to happen in Iraq for us to change our role. Even a smart hypothetical might be useful, like if a balanced budget was a national consensus goal, how specifically would you achieve it. And, short of a line item veto, how could the Senate rules be changed to get rid of earmarks once and for all. And, let's not hurtle forward where a follow up would drag specificity from an ambiguous answer.

We fall so far short of what is possible on TV to inform the elctorate that a real debate cannot occur. We can only be captive to the posturing and career promoting of our luminaries. Or we can simply turn off the TV.