Elections are thought of as a panacea. Thinking that winning an election is the cure for the ills of the Bush administration misses the core of the problem. The crisis created by the administration is bigger than just the man in office. The administration has placed the office of the presidency in conflict with our system of three separate branches of government.

Expecting the next president to cure the problem is asking the patient to cure himself. When the disease is too much unchecked power, what incentive is there for a president to operate and cut out his or her own power tumor? A power tumor in the presidency is not a threat to the office of the president, but a threat to the other branches of government. The malignancy is on our system of checks and balances, not on the human being occupying the office.

The system can only work properly as long as those in power constantly work to preserve the constitutionally established limits on the power of each branch. In the case of the executive branch, when the limits are disregarded or left unchecked, the system's protection against tyranny is breached.

There is a crisis in the executive branch. The Bush administration has breached our protections against tyranny by taking for itself enormous amounts of governmental power through intentional violations of constitutional and statutory law.

Charlie Savage, of The Boston Globe, won the Pulitzer Prize for his series reporting on the President's claim of authority to disobey the law.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

The most interesting of the antiwar protests commemorating the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war this weekend may be the Christian Peace Witness of Iraq at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC.

This Christian worship protest taking place on Friday night, March 16, 2007, has grown rapidly to over 5,000 registered participants. Organizers had not expected that attendance would overflow the National Cathedral, and it now appears to be overflowing a second place of worship, the New York Avenue Presbyterian.

Christian Peace Witness of Iraq is a group formed by more than 25 denominations to conduct an intentionally Christian peace protest centered on worship and prayer and a procession to the White House.

Worship begins at 7 p.m. at the National Cathedral, followed by procession down Massachusetts Ave. to the White House. Participants plan to circle the White House and kneel in prayer holding candles.

Although religious groups have often been considered among President Bush's strongest supporters, this gathering of Christians want to send Mr. Bush the message that they are so concerned about ending the war that they are willing to risk arrest.

More information is available at www.christianpeacewitness.org

Gingrich's commentary on "Marketplace" NPR program 3/14/07 www.marketplace.publicradio.org/

By giving Newt Gingrich airtime last night to complain that the trouble in Iraq lays at the feet of Washington bureaucracy, Marketplace allowed its program to be used as a platform for the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty. This kind of dishonesty seeks to mislead the American public about questions of war and peace, and to avoid accountability for the plundering of an entire society.

Mr. Gingrich has let it be known that he is interested in the Republican nomination for President. In an effort to distance himself from the fiasco that his party, led by President Bush, has created by invading Iraq, Gingrich would have us believe that he has studied the problem and understands what has gone wrong.

But, in reaching his conclusion he ignores some very plain facts: He ignores the Republican Party controlled pillaging of Iraq by Paul Bremer, the Bush/Cheney handpicked provisional ruler; he ignores the continuing no-bid contractor corruption schemes promoted and encouraged by handpicked Bush/Cheney operatives; he ignores the long list of voices calling for an end to such misappropriation and gross negligence; and most importantly, Gingrich ignores that all this was perpetrated as an intentional war of aggression by the leadership of his own party.

When I got involved in the '06 election campaigns to help elect Democratic candidates to Congress, no one could have convinced me that once in power a Democratic Party majority would take positions that serve to buttress the Bush administration war policy. Democratic candidates were vigorously voicing opposition to Bush's war and promising to force a change in policy, if only the voters would make ours' the majority party. My own incumbent Democratic Congressman put it something like this: I want to get us out of this national fiasco too, but to effect change in the war policy requires a showing of the peoples' will.

We succeeded in gaining the majority, and we made known our will by winning some elections against tremendous odds. For example, in the primaries, Connecticut Democrats showed that pro Bush war Democratic Senators were not wanted as party candidates, even if they were entrenched incumbents. And in the general election, Virginia voters showed that an incumbent Republican Senator being touted as heir to the Bush legacy would be voted out of office.

Efforts expended by Democrats in party politics were successful in showing that the people wanted out of Bush's calamity. But once in power, my elected party representatives began to orient themselves into positions that reinforce Bush's power and policies.

As I read the WaPo reporting about The Other Walter Reed I was reminded of how many times I heard Representatives and Senators proclaim their support for our troops while they debated to debate non-binding resolutions over a period of 4 days last week. The Post reporting makes it abundantly clear to me that all those speeches about supporting the troops by both Republicans and Democrats are in the end nothing but lip service. What we are learning about the way the Defense Dept is treating our wounded from Iraq sickens me. And when I recall all that holier-than-thou troop support posturing from the House and Senate floor I get angry.

It appears that nobody is making sure that the wounded are getting the appropriate level of medical care that they need. It's clear from the reports that the Defense Dept isn't providing adequate care. And the Congress hasn't been carrying out its responsibility for oversight so they have no clue about what is really going on out there. Who is minding the store? These tragic stories serve to underscore how out of control and corrupt the entire Iraq situation is.

To those who are still thinking that unseating an incumbent Republican Senator in the Commonwealth of Virginia is an impossible task, I say the results of the primary election in Connecticut is proof to the contrary.  I spent the last three days of the campaign volunteering for Ned Lamont at their campaign headquarters.  The following are a few thoughts on why we should take encouragement from the Lamont victory.

Most obvious, of course, are the similarities between the incumbents in both Virginia and Connecticut.  Both tow the Republican party line. Both fit the definition of "conservatives without conscience" (see John Dean's book by that title).  And both meet the voter frustration threshold of "stay the course" and "business as usual" politicians that Democrats and Republicans in Connecticut told me had to be swept out of office.

But what was most encouraging to me was what I learned from talking to Connecticut voters in their neighborhoods, on the phone and on their way to vote at the polls.  For example, there were numerous, approximately 11 thousand by one news report, registered independents who went to the trouble to change their affiliation to Democrat within the last few months so they could vote in the primary because they viewed this election as a watershed.  By my reckoning, there seem to be a lot of independent minded voters in Connecticut, many more than in Virginia.  And in previous elections they would not have bothered to vote in the Democratic primary.  But this time they were bothered, hot and bothered. I can't say that all the independents who changed affiliation voted for Lamont, but based on the level of concern I heard from those I spoke with, I think most of the independents that voted did so because they wanted to help change the course, not stay the course.