1. If you were convinced that sending special forces on a mission inside a foreign country would improve national security, but Congress disagreed after deliberating on the matter, and voted to prohibit you from dispatching troops before you had the opportunity to do so, would you disobey the legislature and issue the "go" order anyway? Or would you conclude that you'd been lawfully overruled, even though, in your opinion, canceling the mission would harm national security?My contribution: All but a tiny, mostly bought-and-paid-for sliver of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming and that massive, disruptive and lethal changes are going to accompany this. Do you agree? If so, what, if anything, do you think a president can do to ameliorate, retard or adapt to this situation? Will you do it?
2. The Constitution states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Would you each describe in detail what you think "due process" requires specifically? Does it apply to "persons" who are accused of terrorism?
3. If an aide to a previous president came to you with clear evidence that his or her boss had broken the law while in office, would you pledge to order an investigation? Would you permit that president to serve time in jail if convicted, or would you pardon him?
4. Would you each sketch out your notion of when it is permissible for the federal government to spy on American citizens without a warrant?
5. The CIA has participated in some horrific abuses in the past that only came to light years after the fact. If you're president in 2013, how would you prevent new abuses from happening on your watch?
Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2005:
Some day, once the current GOP dominance collapses under the weight of their corruption, we'll have Dems playing the same dirty game. Republicans rally around their sleaziest bad-government practicioners, as we know the elephant flies above the Stars and Stripes to the typical Bush/DeLay apologist.
The moral imperative behind a "clean government" crusade is self-evident. But there's also a practical reason to oppose corruption even amongst Democrats -- it's a sure-fire way to lose elections. Rampant Democratic corruption cost us Congress in 1994, and we've yet to recover. And continued Democratic corruption has made House Dems wary of charging ahead with the "corruption" theme to hard, lest some of the current members get snared in the web.
Good. Let those who sit in Congress enriching themselves go down. They are supposed to be doing the people's business, not their own. Unlike the GOP apologists, I consider corruption a non-partisan issue. I'd like to see them all thrown out with the Capitol trash.