As usual, the perspective from OUTSIDE the U.S. is clearer
every single time i set foot outside the borders of the u.s., i never fail to be startled at how folks in other countries not only get much better and more complete news coverage than we do but also how their perspective on what is going on in the u.s. tends to be significantly clearer than ours... the same is true of people i talk to... as soon as they realize that i'm american, the questions start, and they're NOT naive, uninformed questions either... taxi drivers and the average man-on-the-street seems to be more plugged in to world events that most anybody here... so sad...
here's a terrific example from the financial times, tip courtesy of the always-excellent steve clemons and the washington note... this is only a snippet from a long, insightful, and articulate piece of analysis that should be read in its entirety...
(more)
There is more at stake than sheer lawlessness. The filibuster permits the Senate to play a moderating role within the constitutional system of checks and balances. Except when there is a decisive landslide, it requires the majority party to moderate its initiatives to gain the support of at least a few minority Senators. Mr Cheney's role in destroying the moderating role of the Senate is particularly problematic. For two centuries, the Senate president has been the pre-eminent guardian of the rules. Thomas Jefferson first put them in writing when he served as vice-president. His aim was to prevent political manipulation by the presiding officer, and Senate presidents have consistently served as impartial arbiters. In breaking with this tradition, Mr Cheney has a clear conflict of interests. As president of the Senate, he owes the institution fidelity to its rules, but as vice-president to Mr Bush, he wants to see his boss's judicial nominations confirmed. By allowing his executive interest to trump his duty to the Senate, Mr Cheney is undercutting the separation of powers.
it's so simple, so clear, so critically important and yet, the separation of powers aspect is virtually ignored in the msm here while we sit back and let this rogue administration set the terms of the public discourse... Submit To Propeller
Tweet
here's a terrific example from the financial times, tip courtesy of the always-excellent steve clemons and the washington note... this is only a snippet from a long, insightful, and articulate piece of analysis that should be read in its entirety...
(more)
There is more at stake than sheer lawlessness. The filibuster permits the Senate to play a moderating role within the constitutional system of checks and balances. Except when there is a decisive landslide, it requires the majority party to moderate its initiatives to gain the support of at least a few minority Senators. Mr Cheney's role in destroying the moderating role of the Senate is particularly problematic. For two centuries, the Senate president has been the pre-eminent guardian of the rules. Thomas Jefferson first put them in writing when he served as vice-president. His aim was to prevent political manipulation by the presiding officer, and Senate presidents have consistently served as impartial arbiters. In breaking with this tradition, Mr Cheney has a clear conflict of interests. As president of the Senate, he owes the institution fidelity to its rules, but as vice-president to Mr Bush, he wants to see his boss's judicial nominations confirmed. By allowing his executive interest to trump his duty to the Senate, Mr Cheney is undercutting the separation of powers.
it's so simple, so clear, so critically important and yet, the separation of powers aspect is virtually ignored in the msm here while we sit back and let this rogue administration set the terms of the public discourse... Submit To Propeller
Tweet
posted by profmarcus at
5/17/2005
