On the other hand, I like seeing comments like jayarbee’s, wrongheaded as they are. Like Michael Moore’s films, his over-the-top arguments help to illustrate the absurdity of the left’s positions.

Although the Court ruled that Cheney could receive policy ADVICE in private, any regulations or legislation passed as a result of that advice is a matter of public record. If the Congress disagrees, it can take action. If the public disagrees, they can vote the Republicans out.

Yes, some oil companies may benefit from some of the energy task force’s proposals. But if the proposals are not in the public interest, the remedies are there. Sometimes, though, the public interest does coincide with private corporate interest.

In no way does preserving the confidentiality of the energy task force’s consultants remotely compare to the suspension of habeas corpus. It’s not nearly as bad.

So whyn’t we all just play nice on this thread, shall we?

Keep up the great work!

Dave from Montana

“I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.”

“The Great Divide”
The New York Times
January 29th, 2002
By Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/opinion/29KRUG.html
 

No, he’s saying with his correction that he does NOT want to “skew” them. But, yes, the FACT is that combined taxes DID go up under Reagan. The skew comes from those who said they went down, and who do not correct themselves but continue to say it.

I have no doubt but that Krugman sat in on such classes as those which discuss Lincoln’s temporary suspension of habeas corpus for the limited group of persons to which his proclamation applied–namely, draft evaders and those who aided them. It seems to me, however, that Cheney’s assertion of the permanent right of the executive branch to secretly consult only with business leaders who will benefit from subsequently enacted policy that affects everyone is a MORE far-reaching vision of presidential power than any the Court has seen. This is especially true in light of the fact that the Court DID rule that Lincoln’s proclamation violated the Constitution, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court’s reinstatement of full habeas corpus rights following the Civil War.

Keep in mind, though, that while I say (because it affects everyone permanently, versus a limited group temporarily) Cheney’s vision of presidential power is MORE far-reaching than anything seen by the court, Krugman has said only that it AS far-reaching. And you are contending that it is LESS far-reaching?

Still, I’m encouraged by the fact that you even read Krugman; and that, instead of condemning his overall point of Cheney’s wrongful position, you chose to limit your remarks to criticism of his ranking of this particular abuse of power. Could it be that you mostly agree with Krugman regarding this matter, but rather than admit that to your readers you appease them with nit-picking sidebars? Hopefully so.

Of course, it could be that you don’t actually read Krugman, but merely allow Luskin to mis-interpret and psuedo-correct him for you. It’s easier to stay focused that way, I’m sure.

i.e. these are the facts, but I can still skew them.

I’ve read many of your columns over the past year or so and enjoy them and look forward to them each week. It’s great to hear a like-minded Marylander for a change. You are a brilliant colunmist, and I wish you the best of luck with your blog.

Bill