Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4118 Diggs, is anti-Bush. My own anecdotal information would show that the #1 Digg isn't often of a political nature, at least not recently (or since I started this blog). And so, I can't make that particular claim.
This one's pretty bad, though. The story linked is an opinion piece that doesn't make sense in the context of the presidential directive it references. The piece even quotes the directive, as follows:
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I highly doubt that offering up the Executive Branch as the "leader" of the government (during catastrophies or otherwise) would be considered unconstitutional. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is the definition of the Executive Branch (i.e., the branch that executes the law). In fact, if this directive is guilty of anything, it would appear to be redundancy.
My question is: did the 4118 Digg readers who Dugg this story actually read it and think about it? Or was their Digg just a knee-jerk reaction to an inflammatory anti-Bush headline?