Someone could really break out in the field with a boldly stated agenda to restore Constitutional America.

Dodd, as you've noted, has had some good soundbites about it, and we should spend some more time looking at Kucinich's statements on this — seems he definitely gets it. Seems that Edwards is afraid of coming across as too wonky, but I think there's a genuine defend-the-Constitution guy in there, and I hope he breaks out before Coronation Tuesday.

And then there's Gore, whose latest book shows he gets it big time.

Back to basics, perhaps?

It's also, I would argue, absolutely the best way for Democrats to play smash-mouth football, at least the ones who aren't pus... pusillanimous.

Wonky is policy papers.

I think every American understands the kind of power grab that's been going on. It's just schoolyard stuff. And those who aren't traitors, or on the tit, will oppose it.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

... a high-minded statement of goals and principles and plenty of smash-mouth.

A bold, captivating policy paper could be galvanizing. Think: "New Deal" or, on the dark side, "Contract on America."

Non-progressives I know certainly don't talk like they understand the power grab, but perhaps viscerally they do (as demonstrated by the low poll numbers for Bush, Cheney, and Congress). What I'm hearing on the ground -- outside of progressive circles -- is relatively little appetite for considering what we're dealing with a Constitutional crisis, so it will take some inspiring talk and perhaps some documentation to crystallize this for voters on the cusp.

.. is that when something is obvious to me, I think it should be obvious to everyone.

What do you mean, "little apetite"? Is that that they're aware, but don't care? Can you give an example?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

"impeachment" or "Constitutional crisis" among right-leaning, centrist, or apolitical people, they look at me like I'm wearing a Reynolds Wrap hat.

They muddle through, vaguely thinking Bush is a good man whose war maybe could have been planned a little better, or that Bush is simply a fool, or that all politicians are alike --- so what can ya do?

Basically, they don't want dirty fucking hippies to raise a fuss. And heaven forbid, as it were, you worry about the separation of church and state!

... give them the facts, but that doesn't exactly grab the lizard backbrain, does it?

We need an elevator speech with a simple, powerful human example.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

I know you meant a vestigial part of the brain, something we all have, thank-you evolution, but still, if I heard it as lizard brains, and I knew you didn't meant me...

I agree with Vastleft, making restoring constitutional government is only the central issue if and when it's connected to all the other ones, and there are connections.

To me, it's who can connect the dots in a way that creates a larger picture of what went wrong, and how to make it rigtt-way-round again, but with a large, and yes, a bold vision for what can be achieved in the future about problems which have been festering for decades now.

That's far too generalized the way I've left it, I'll add more later, in a post, I hope, but let's remember, Democrats shouldn't be waiting around for a candidate to deal with the depredations this administration continues to insist on committing against the constitution. Congressional Democrats and all candidates should be readying themselves to hit the ground running in Sept when they return to DC to take on the President on FISA.

One also has to be careful what one commits to; remember that faced with a Republican congress who wasn't playing fair, Clinton relied on executive orders to get things done. I agree that specific commitments from candidates are required, but it is the ability to connect the dots between domestic and foreign policy and questions of equity and questions about how healthy are democracy is.

Executive Orders vs. Signing Statements, explication, please?

And who invented signing statements, and when, exactly?

kthxbai

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!-- Xan

—

We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18

Democrim or Republicrim?

See discussion here, A.C.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

...RON PAUL, MIKE GRAVEL, DENNIS KUCINICH.
have you heard of any of them? Best kept secrets we've got!
Suggestion - Google them and read their screams of horror at what they see around them and what they want to do about it.
(Hint: They all keep repeating "Constitution" a whole bunch....)
PS: You will never guess, if you read the MSM, that they are all running for Prez. AND, worse yet, you won't even know they are running if you read the leading "liberal-progressive" media - they hardly even get a mention by Kos, Buzzflash, MoveOn, NPR....but, hey, all the "progressives" want Mr. NAFTA Gore and Nuke'em Bamalamadingdong, who they say will surely save us!
PS 2: We are doomed.

Protecting and preserving our Constituion from domestic enemies who circumvent it and subvert our Consitutional processes should be the first priority of all candidates.

The MSM engages in selective inattention when it comes to candidates who got it right on Iraq because covering them would mean that MSM would have to admit to failing in their own reporting.

All the info was there to be known by those who cared to know the truth, but everyone was being so spastic, with their little flag lapel pins, confusing chauvinism with patriotism.

My repsonse to Democratz fundraising efforts is No impeachment, no money. Call me when Impeachment is on the table.

I too have told the Dumocrats that I won't give them any money as long as impeachment is off the table. Pelosi has no right to table it. Doing so is unconstitutional in its own right, since the Constitution says that Congress SHALL impeach. She seems to think it says MAY instead of SHALL, that it should be a matter of whim on the part of the Speaker. If impeachment is determined to be against her personal, political best interests then it's "to Hell with the Constitution, let's brag about how we raised the minimum wage".

Interesting that Pelosi's husband was at Bohemian Grove rubbing shoulders (and who knows what else, given the weird things that go on there) with all the big shot Repugs. Feinstein is also compromised by her husband's business interests and she voted to let Gonzo snoop all he wants. These two have been a huge disappointment to many of us in the Bay Area and I, for one, will not vote for either again, at least not in the primary. Pelosi and Reid are clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution. They have let us all down. They just don't seem to get it...OR...maybe they are being blackmailed or threatened by the criminals running this country. I'd be willing to bet that BushCo is using illegally obtained information against members of Congress. After all, they tried to kill Leahy and Daschle, and hasn't that investigation just disappeared off the radar?