If so it is hereby incumbent on you to respond to the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?ei 90&en
713e7d1f81b78b&ex 20382800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Full text pasted here:

November 5, 2006
Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made

On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for 
election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the 
first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with 
Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a 
long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only 
political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and 
responsible as possible.

That is why things are different this year.

To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House -- and for 
the most part, the Senate -- during President Bushs tenure has done a 
terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the 
budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It 
has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little 
about the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic 
symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. 
They methodically shut the opposition -- and even the more moderate 
members of their own party out of any role in the legislative process. 
Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.

The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, 
brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the 
most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used 
to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It 
is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even 
directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their 
campaigns and high-end lifestyles.

That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed 
Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a 
willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, 
civil liberties and women's rights.

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans' attempt to undermine 
the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American 
democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and 
Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of 
powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the 
Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it 
clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable 
limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the 
Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints 
on the president's ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom 
DeLay, the Republicans feel you don't need to have oversight hearings if 
your party is in control of everything.

An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan 
Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has 
been the recipe for what we live with today.

Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions 
about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his 
catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to 
avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the 
intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to 
close down the one agency that has been riding hard on crooked and inept 
American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to 
the security of weapons.

After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in 
Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon 
from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. 
On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the 
House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of 
noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them 
were clearly sent there in error.

In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of 
Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation 
to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in 
fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the presidents campaign to dilute 
their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush's goal 
of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the 
judiciary.

This election is indeed about George W. Bush -- and the Congressional 
majority's insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his 
mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and 
proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually 
beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital 
and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to 
contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday 
and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"