Regressives, folks who love to call themselves progressives and loudly proclaim their supposedly unafraid willingness to engage in intellectual discourse, take heed.
Here's a train of thought, founded upon legitimate questioning, I want to see much more of over the next few years. Glenn Greenwald, at Salon.com:
If it's the responsibility of Congress to check presidential abuses -- since, as Matt argues, no rational person would ever expect the President to voluntarily impose or even accept limits on his own power -- then the real controversy should be about why Nancy Pelosi and company didn't do more to publicize Bush/Cheney extremism and impose limits on what they were doing. Matt, however, seemed to argue the opposite in the past -- as he when he insisted that the controversy over what Pelosi knew about torture was irrelevant because she was just a "bit player" in the whole affair. If complaints about Obama's civil liberties abuses are overheated because it's unreasonable to expect him to do anything different, shouldn't the same be said of Bush and Cheney?
What about it, regressives?!?
As Greenwald properly observes, efforts by Representatives and Senators to legitimately check Presidential power exercised by the Chief Executive have been problematic on both sides of the political aisle under the administrations of both Republicans and Democrats. It is a purposely interesting fault line within American politics, created by the Founders, and one that should be discussed with much more honesty than is presently evident.