Kevin Drum has some news which is downright depressing:
In CQ Politics this week, David Nather recaps the Bush administration's enormous expansion of executive power and then asks whether any of the candidates running for election in 2008 are likely to give up that power if they win office. It turns out he had a hard time getting anyone to go on the record about it:..."Only one of the candidates — Edwards — answered the questions, although Clinton's campaign touched on some of the issues in a separate exchange."I said we should be asking exactly this question over and over until all the candidates gave answers to hang them by.
I'm sure you understand why the Republican candidates didn't want to answer - they luvz them some Executive Authoritay but it would be political suicide to say so. But the Dems?
The most charitable reason I can imagine is that they think any stance at all would be used to attack them from left or right, which translates as saying they don't have the courage of their convictions and don't want to be seen as weak on leadership. Ptooey! The worst explanation is that they have just as little intention as the GOP crowd of rolling back the Bush Years' powergrab. Perhaps even Edwards, who comes across to me as taking a leaf from Tony Blair's campaign playbook of populism-with-his-fingers-crossed (as well as taking lessons from Blair's smiling instructor).
This is just as depressing as discovering that 8 out of the top 10 receivers of military campaign dollars for '08 are Democrats.
But there's one thing I am even more depressed about - once the nominees are selected, somewhere around 99% of the pundits and bloggers who have criticised their own crowd of wannabe-Dubyas during the primaries will about face and lockstep into the future with their party's Chosen One as they claim that the person they would never have voted for in the primaries is the one true choice for American