Post A Comment 3 Comments

  1. Posted at 2:30 pm on 01/13/08

    Posted by Mike Higgins

    The Rock Hill Herald newspaper published a front page article on Sunday, January 13, 2008 which may confuse voters in the upcoming presidential primary. The article published 2 different dates for the Democratic Party’s Primary. Please help me get this corrected so we get the best participation possible in this important event. Thank you.

    _____________________________________________________

    The message below has been sent to:

    Debbie Abels, Publisher
    dabels@heraldonline.com
    (803) 329-4042
    and
    Matt Garfield, New Reporter (Author of News Article)
    mgarfield@heraldonline.com
    (803) 329-4063

    After reading the front page on Sunday’s edition (January 13, 2008), your news article confused me. If it confused me it likely confused a number of other people. Please review and clarify what is the correct date of the Democratic Party’s Primary.

    Thank you,
    MH

  2. Posted at 4:34 pm on 01/26/08

    Posted by CONCERNED AMERICANS

    FELLOW AMERICANS! Educate Yourselves! Know Who You’re Voting For!

    WE ARE NOT PART OF ANY CAMPAIGN. WE ARE NOT PROMOTING ANY CANDIDATE. WE ARE NOT TELLING YOU WHO TO VOTE FOR.
    BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS:

    #1– Did you know that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted many many women, including an alleged brutal rape and got away with it through Hillary’s divisive Clinton Attack Machine Tactics of intimidation and silencing people?
    #2– Did you know the Clintons are criminals? Thieves who habitually lie and scheme to get what they want? And who have covered up a multitude of financial, criminal and political security scandals?
    #3– Did you know they are called “The Ruthless Political Tagteam” by those who know them? And feel they are above the law? And that they do not have to abide by the rules as we do? And that the past Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt in history with Hillary directing scandal cover-ups & blatant misuse of power?
    #4– Did you know that the Clinton’s extreme egos and desire for power has driven them to plan, for years, to take over the Whitehouse and govern America together with a form of absolute power? And that they wear “masks” to fool the American people to achieve their agenda?
    #5– Did you know that they have ways of manipulating the media and muzzling people who oppose them? Through bribery, blackmail & destroying innocent peoples’ careers? And there is lots more…..

    EDUCATE YOURSELF & READ THESE BOOKS ON
    HILLARY & THE CLINTON MACHINE BEFORE YOU VOTE:
    “Takeover” by Charles Savage (Pulitzer Prize Winning Book)
    “Target” by Kathleen Willey (One of the Victims of Bill Clinton)
    “The Truth About Hillary” by Edward Klein
    “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside The Clinton Whitehouse”
    by Gary Aldrich (New York Times Bestseller)
    “Hillary’s Scheme” by Carl Limbacher (New York Times Best Seller)
    “Hell To Pay” by Barbara Olsen (now deceased… New York Times Best Seller)
    “Can She Be Stopped?” by John Podhoretz (Best Selling Author)
    “Whitewash” by L.Brent Bozell III
    “The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton” by Bay Buchanan

    and / or
    GOOGLE THESE NAMES:
    Juanita Broaddrick
    Kathleen Willey
    Ed Willey
    Elizabeth Ward Gracn
    Gennifer Flowers
    Paula Corbin Jones
    Vince Foster
    Mark Rich
    James Riady
    Slick Willie (Bill Clinton)
    ALSO:
    Travelgate
    Filegate
    Chinagate
    Nannygate
    Sexgate
    Whitewater
    Raft of IRS Audits Launched Against Political Opponents and others…
    Monica Lewinsky was scared for her life.
    As was Linda Tripp, who has since moved away and changed her identity.

    WE DO NOT WANT THE SAME CORRUPT STATUS QUO RUNNING THE WHITEHOUSE, THAT ALREADY DESPERATELY NEEDS CLEANING UP!

    WE WANT TO MOVE THE COUNTRY FORWARD!!!

    THE CLINTONS ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE.
    PLEASE VOTE FOR ANYBODY —ANYBODY— BUT THE CLINTONS!

  3. Posted at 4:38 pm on 01/26/08

    Posted by NEW YORK TIMES

    Op-Ed Contributor
    Two Presidents Are Worse Than One
    Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
    Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

    By GARRY WILLS
    Published: January 26, 2008
    Evanston, Ill.

    Skip to next paragraph
    Enlarge This Image

    Chris Sharp
    SENATOR Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience — 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House.

    Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience. But there can be no doubt that her husband had the presidential experience, fully. He has shown during his wife’s campaign that he is a person of initiative and energy. Does anyone expect him not to use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse?

    Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.

    Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?

    This is not a new question. It was intensely debated in the convention that formulated our Constitution. The Virginia Plan for the new document submitted by Edmund Randolph and the New Jersey Plan submitted by William Paterson left open the number of officers to hold the executive power.

    Some (like Hugh Williamson of North Carolina) argued for a three-person executive, each member coming from a different region of the country. More people argued (like George Mason of Virginia) for a multiple-member executive council.

    The objection to giving executive power to a single person came from the framers’ experience with the British monarchy and the royal governors of the colonies. They did not want another monarch.

    But as the debate went forward a consensus formed that republican rule would check the single initiative of a president. In fact, accountability to the legislature demanded that responsibility be lodged where it could be called to account. A plural presidency would leave it uncertain whom to check. How, for instance, would Congress decide which part of the executive should be impeached in case of high crimes and misdemeanors? One member of the plural executive could hide behind the other members.

    James Wilson of Pennsylvania made the argument for a single officeholder with typical depth and precision: “To control the executive, you must unite it. One man will be more responsible than three. Three will contend among themselves till one becomes the master of his colleagues. In the triumvirates of Rome, first Caesar, then Augustus, are witnesses of this truth. The kings of Sparta and the consuls of Rome prove also the factious consequences of dividing the executive magistracy.”

    Wilson and his allies carried the day; and their argument is as good now as when they embedded it in the Constitution.

    One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president.

    No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.

    We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.

    Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern, is the author, most recently, of “Head and Heart: American Christianities.”

    Next Article in Opinion (7 of 19) »

Leave a comment