"As a libertarian, writes Radley Balko, "it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton's 'right' to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming. And it'll be equally fun to watch the right cry foul when President Hillary claims the same powers they have so vigorously fought to claim for President Bush."
I'm actually quite worried about this. It's fairly easy to be intellectually honest from the opposition. As a liberal, I got to spend the last seven years criticizing George W. Bush's policies for being insufficiently progressive, and countering them with dreamy, perfect-world ideas of my own. When a Democrat ascends to the White House, however, I'll actually have to make conscious decisions about which compromises to defend, which political tactics to back, which tactical sell-outs to support with a sigh.
You see it now. Nobody believes that if George W. Bush had supported the Senate S-CHIP compromise as "the right thing to do for our children, and the right thing to do for our country," Michelle Malkin and her hordes would have risen up in angry protest. They'd have not merely supported the decision. They'd have cheered it. Because Bush is taking a stand on the issue, however, it's become an epic battle that must, at all costs, be won. Power doesn't just corrupt. It hack-itizes.
