Charges MW, a moderate blogger: “The most egregious offenses of the Bush/Cheney administration fall under the umbrella of expanding executive branch power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, with a commensurate erosion of constit….

An excerpt of this post was cross-posted at Donklephant, where you’ll also find an interesting comment thread. Surprisingly, not everyone agrees with me.
…

Regarding my links – In this post I linked (outside of my own posts) the New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Politico, CBS, ACLU (left), Glenn Greenwald (left), Greg Sargent (left), NewsBusters (right), Emptywheel (left), Firedoglake (left), Marc Ambinder (?), Andrew Sullivan (claims right / talks left), Chris in DC (left), Patrick Leahy (left).

I see the problem now. I am out of balance. I should never have included that NewsBusters link.

Two other points, though. Point One; How do you imagine a President McCain would have been MORE willing to change course on this issue?

and… Point Two; This is what I meant about “tone” in my comment from a few days ago. We are in near-total agreement about the need for a restoration of Checks, Balances, Transparency, Rule of Law, etc… Yet when you begin and end an article about THIS issue with terms like “very bad stimulus bill” and “porker”, you are letting your anti-Obama (or maybe just anti- Democrat) bias leak through in a way that is unhelpful to your cause.

In our “post-fact” society, where one can visit a website “proving” or “debunking” any political, economic, legal, religious or conspiracy theory, people screen out any information posited by obviously biased parties. EVEN IF IT IS ACCURATE. (and I don’t dispute that it is, in this case. No-one was more disappointed in the Telecom-immunity flip-flop than I.)

Getting my information about what Obama is up to from you and sources you link to seems about as sensible (at this point) as getting information on what Bush was up to from Michael Moore, or sources he linked to. Or getting all my info on Barney Frank from Bill O’Reilly.

Glenn Greenwald had another post on the topic yesterday, where he dismantles the “its only been three weeks” objection. Since I can never hope to write as well as him, and his unquestioned liberal credentials give him more credibility with the left of center readers here – I’ll just quote him again. But I’d encourage you to read the whole article:

“There’s just no denying that there are substantial and disturbing steps which have been taken. And critically, the primary excuse offered by Obama supporters for all of these actions — he just needs more time; it’s only been three weeks — is a complete straw man.

…these cases which have provoked objections are all cases where Obama has already taken affirmative actions to preserve and defend Bush/Cheney policies. In the State Secrets case, for example, the Obama DOJ explicitly rejected the ACLU’s offer for more time, declaring they do not need or want more time, that they have had ample time to review the issues and have decided that they believe in the Bush/Cheney theory of what the State Secrets privilege allows. Here’s what Greg Craig told Savage about why the Obama DOJ embraced Bush’s State Secrets theory:

Mr. Craig said Mr. Holder and others reviewed the case and “came to the conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security” to maintain their predecessor’s stance.

Can that be any clearer? Not even the Obama DOJ is claiming they needed more time. They’re saying they had all the time they needed, so Obama supporters should really stop trying to defend them by offering up excuses that the Obama administration itself rejects.

…There are people who believe that Barack Obama is kind, just and good, and thus are going to have a hard time believing that he’s embracing some of the most abusive Bush/Cheney policies even when he does it right in front of their faces. Others aren’t ever going to object to what Obama does in this area, because they believe (as Bush supporters believed about Bush) that there’s nothing really wrong if Obama wields these same powers since Obama is a kind-hearted ruler and therefore can be trusted not to abuse these powers. As DCLaw pointed out yesterday, people with that swooning mentality can’t be reached because they don’t really believe in the basic premise on which the country was founded, as enunciated by James Madison in Federalist 51…

We don’t place faith in the Goodness and kindness of specific leaders — even Barack Obama — to secretly exercise powers for our own Good. We rely instead on transparency and on constant compulsory limits on those powers as imposed by the Constitution, by other branches, and by law. That’s what it means to be a nation of laws and not men. When Obama embraces the same abusive and excessive powers that Bush embraced, it isn’t better because it’s Obama rather than Bush wielding that power. It’s the same. And that’s true even if one “trusts” Obama more than Bush. – gg

I look for a way to be optimistic on this subject, but am having a hard time finding it. As I said in the post, what hope I do have comes from the Democrats in Congress who are moving to begin the process of restraining executive power. If it does come down to a showdown between Congress and the Executive branch, it’ll be interesting to see what the Republicans do. Obama may very well find common cause with many Republicans to preserve the Bush/Cheney expanded powers. The Republicans may prefer to preserve those powers in hopes of a Romney, or Jindal or Palin presidency.

No, mw, you don’t say “Obama is Just Like Bush”. You just use a picture of one morphing into the other. Here at Donklephant, once. Over at your blog, FIVE times! I think we are supposed to get a distinct “Just Like Bush” message from that illustration. Unless you just meant that they look similar?

As for the meat of your article, I am certainly concerned. However the guy has been in office for only a few weeks. He hasn’t had time to read all the super-top-secret memos on everything yet. My Hope is still alive, but, to quote President Obama himself, “I’m an eternal optimist… That doesn’t mean I’m a sap.”

This should come as a surprise to nobody. All Presidents like power. The more the better. Obama is no exception. If the power of the Presidency is to be moved back to pre Bush/Cheney levels, it will happen because the judiciary or congress take it away, not because Obama gives it up.