Why do we let the media nudge us into believing that we as individuals
have or should the knowledge to micro manage any president.  How would
the people ever be in a position to council a senate committee who has
secret information that not even the rest of the senate has. Why do we
let the media incite the people into a frenzy to demonstrate against,
or for actions of the government that we the people should not know
about.  Why do the media try to nudge the government to reveal secrets
that could damage the country, just to sell more of their products. 
Why do we not rein in the media?  It is to the benifit of the media to
ignore the fact that "Republic" means that we temporarily give the
right to our G MEN to do what they see fit, even if they make
mistakes.  Until we remove them naturally.

One reason why we do not "rein in the media" is this little item...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Media is a commodity.  News is written with the goal of getting the
best ratings.    Maybe that is selfish.  Maybe it is just capitalism. 
Maybe Adam Smith would say that the media is pursuing its "economic
self-interest."

Well PINK, let me thank you for your quick response:)

Now let me zing you... By rein in, I do not mean abolish.  I love the
press as I love fire or the police.  Good "things" when they behave.

I consider the PRESS as the 4th branch of government.  Now the FRAMERS
were smart enoough to place checks and balances on the other three,
but not the press.  The courts have reined the people in on the first
amendment.  We cant cry fire in a crowded theater because it could
kill hundreds of people.  Well the press should not be allowed to out
a CIA personel, or reveal the secret hiding place of the congress
(Green Brier Hotel), nor reveal our next Military move (as the once
did)with impunity nor imunity.

Infact I believe that the courts or congress should seperate
commercial media from public supported media. I am still thinking this
through, but the church for instance has constitutional rights too,
bur there are certain restrictions that it has to conform to.  The
press needs similar curbing.  As it is now the press is like the mob
or the IRS, nobody can touch them for fear of being distrooyed by
them. Remember the Constitutionis not a suiside pact.  fix my spelings
please...

Hi toughlover: You seem to want a benevolent dictator. The anti-Christ
may be available, but he/she is only pretending to be benevolent. Who
do you want for our leader? The media and most everyone else deceives
the masses. There is a weak conspiracy in progress. The other three
branches of government have little interest in reigning in the media
except in a few very specific areas even if they had authority to push
the media around. Individuals collectively have conciderable power to
reign in the media, but we generally don't agree on what we want the
media to do differently. Michael Savage and Neil Bortz and a few
others are trying to rally public opinion, but typically they are
preaching to the choir as 99% of the USA population listens to neither
regularly on AM radio.
I will likely vote for the Libertarian presidential candidate as the
least offensive choice. Do you know of any organization that has a
desirable platform of intentions and recomendations? My other choice
is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints = Mormons, but they
carefully avoid politics and their critisim of the media rarely goes
past excessive violence, sex and deviate behavor should be
reported/shown less often and less graphically.
If you wish to be detailed about some things you think need changing,
you can likely get some positive and negative feed back here in these
comments. I'll start with: abolish the income tax and replace it
nothing. Make the government function on lots less money  and move
most of the functions of government to the villages and neighborhoods.
That will give us lots more choices if a hundred thousand experiments
in government are in progress.   Neil

Cousin NeilZero, Re worthy platform recommendation; if you are not
sure who to vote for, just ask yourself: who would Bin Laden vote for?
"Let George Do It"
Even if "W" were our enemy, we American should learn to embrace "the
enemy of our enemy, is our friend" tactic, because Osama is surely
utelizing it against us.

At this juncture, every "PLATFORM" pales in comparison to THE DEFENCE
OF OUR FREEDOM of RELIGON. Ben Laden has sworn on a stack Korans that
America and the entire world will worship Mohammed if it is the last
thing he does.
The trouble is one (stupid) half of us prefer to vote our bellies
rather than come in out of the showers of bodies that will fall from
the next WTC.

An erstwhile POTUS warned that we are no more than one generation away
from loosing our treasured freedoms.  I say, we are only one ULTIMATE
WEAPON away from loosing freedom. and the ultimate weapon may just be
the SUICIDE-BOMBER.  Who the hell cares a about Social Security or
Bill of Rights when faced with a DEATH WARRANT.  As Barry Farber's
Grandma would say: "would you rather be Fat & Naked than thin &
secure"? By naked I am referring to defence not chothes.  Recall that,
all that good men like you need to do to allow evil to prevail, is
NOTHING.

Hi Daytrader, Am I reading you correctly?  Do you think that the
constituion allows or ought to allow Private Interest or Capitalism to
trump the national security interest of the United States?  If I
should ever say or think like you just did, I would be happy if some
called me a Dunder-Head.  You probably know that the State Department
puts ranes even on the export of certain high-tech products in the
interest of nation security... Back at me if you can dig-up tenable
arguments.:)

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Yes, there are issues with having the president being forced to answer
to the people.  And sure, the press is biased: it is run by people
(who are biased) and is run for profit (which can also skew
reporting).

But given that the presidency, especially if it was not held in check,
has the power of the "bully pulpit", transparency is required to keep
it in check.

Political science says the most efficient form of government is an
elightened despot, but despots are typically don't turn out for the
best.