Step one:
Point out that as talented as Obama is, he is still young, uppity, and not Episcopalian. The base will know what you mean.
Step two:
Throw a bunch of veiled racist rhetoric at Obama, then argue that it is just regular campaign criticism, you would use against anyone. After all Obama is Black, you are being called a racist only because he is different. Again, you are the victim.
Step three:
Highlight Obama’s odd name while confusing it with terrorists names, thus equating Obama with terrorists. The goal will be to peel off some ignorant voters who don’t know anyone not named john, paul, or joe.
Step four:
Point out Obama’s non-American father. Throw anything you can against the wall. See if you can peel off some voters who have never been out of the United States. See if you can push the thought that he will be less loyal to America because he knows people in other places and some of them are family.
Step five:
Find some way to question Obama’s patriotism. The goal is to cast doubt about who Obama will be working for as president, us or the foreigners in his family. You can do this by showing him being liked by people in other countries. If they like him then he must not be a true American.
Step six:
Go after Obama’s wife. She is smart and outspoken. Paint her as a powerful woman who will have undue influence on a president.
Step seven:
Highlight Obama’s family upbringing. After all how can a man not raised by his natural father be a stable president.
Step eight:
Find something sexual or racist in Obama’s past. For example did he ever date a white woman? If he did, then highlight that a lot. Some voters, that would vote for a black man, would change their minds if he ever dated a white woman.
Step nine:
Show how the minorities, poor and young people love Obama. People don’t trust a man who’s base is not rich, white, old people. If he is liked by the poor, non-white, and young, then there is something to be worried about.
Step ten:
Make stuff up as needed. Anyone named Barak Obama, instead of John Smith, is worthy of doubt.
The overall theme must be to focus on Obama’s “otherness.” Someone so unique must be untrustworthy. He is black so not like most Americans. He was raised, in part, outside the country so not like most Americans. He has a weird name, so is not like most Americans.
If you have no shame, and no moral foundation, you will be willing to focus the public on how he is somehow not like "us" and thus can’t be trusted.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
If you still think we live in a Democracy - watch this
The political prosecution of Don Siegelman. And if you ever thought our media was left leaning, guess what major "leftist" media outlet had "technical difficulties" during the broadcast. Yup that is right, it was not shown in Don Sigelman's part of Alabama by the CBS affiliate.
How would this be different if this were the communist country of China or the dictatorship of Pakistan? It wouldn't.
How would this be different if this were the communist country of China or the dictatorship of Pakistan? It wouldn't.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Retirement
I have a friend that just turned 60. He is a great guy and has been very successful in business. I asked him why not retire? He said, what would I do? So I made him a list. Unfortunately I left my list at work. I will post it someday soon.
Until then I have a thought. Why don't we all find a candidate to work for in the House or Senate race. There has to be someone around the country you like. Give them money. Volunteer in some way. If you are not inspired by you rep, then find someone who represents your values and call their headquarters. Ask what you can do from out of state. Perhaps you can write letters. If all Americans found someone that inspired them, and then worked to get them elected, our democracy would represent all of us.
Just a thought.
Until then I have a thought. Why don't we all find a candidate to work for in the House or Senate race. There has to be someone around the country you like. Give them money. Volunteer in some way. If you are not inspired by you rep, then find someone who represents your values and call their headquarters. Ask what you can do from out of state. Perhaps you can write letters. If all Americans found someone that inspired them, and then worked to get them elected, our democracy would represent all of us.
Just a thought.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
John, John, John.
Oh my, we seem to have a story here. It seems that John wrote some unusual letters advocating the lobbiest's position before the FCC. Well, you can just slap me silly, we got us a humdinger, don't we?
TPM has more detail.
Question: can everyone now switch to Ron Paul or Barak? I think Dick Cheney just had a heart palpatation.
TPM has more detail.
Question: can everyone now switch to Ron Paul or Barak? I think Dick Cheney just had a heart palpatation.
What is the real McCain story?
Is it that he might have screwed around on his wife? Is it that he was getting a little something in his Senate Office? I don’t think that either of these is a story. Then again I am not what Pundits would call a “values voter.” I, of course beg to differ on who is a values voter. One of my values is that some guy cheating on his wife is not my business. I believe we should give the McCains some privacy on this issue.
So, since I really do not want to know what John McCain does with his anatomy below his belt, what is the real issue for me? I want to know what John might have given to the industry this woman represented. If his votes cannot be called into question then, as far as I am concerned, the issue goes away. I may wonder about John’ judgment in getting involved with someone who could make us question his voting record. Then again, I cannot expect him not to form friendships with people he sees all the time.
At this point I do not know if there is really a story here. Let’s look at the voting record and find out.
On another note, I would not want to be John McCain when he talks to his wife. I will also be interested to see how the “values voter” bends over backward to forgive McCain for his alleged sexual transgression, while still seething over exactly the same behavior from Bill Clinton.
So, since I really do not want to know what John McCain does with his anatomy below his belt, what is the real issue for me? I want to know what John might have given to the industry this woman represented. If his votes cannot be called into question then, as far as I am concerned, the issue goes away. I may wonder about John’ judgment in getting involved with someone who could make us question his voting record. Then again, I cannot expect him not to form friendships with people he sees all the time.
At this point I do not know if there is really a story here. Let’s look at the voting record and find out.
On another note, I would not want to be John McCain when he talks to his wife. I will also be interested to see how the “values voter” bends over backward to forgive McCain for his alleged sexual transgression, while still seething over exactly the same behavior from Bill Clinton.
Friday, February 15, 2008
T's Place - Minneapolis
If you have not been to this restaurant you need to go. It is great ethnic food at great prices. Bring your feed bag. You will eat a lot or have plenty to take home for lunch tomorrow.
T's Place:
T's Place is owned by Chef Tee Belachew. Tee was born in Ethiopia and has been in the Twin Cities for 16 years. Tee became passionate about cooking at a young age when his Auntie Wyzro Bezunesh Belachew taught him traditional home cooking.
Tee became a partner with Singaporian Chef Kin Lee in 2002 after they went on a culinary tour of Europe and Asia to research spices. In 2006, Tee decided to go out on his own and establish T's Place. All of his food is made from scratch and features authentic and flavorful meals full of delicious blends of mouth watering spices.
Map
T's Place:
T's Place is owned by Chef Tee Belachew. Tee was born in Ethiopia and has been in the Twin Cities for 16 years. Tee became passionate about cooking at a young age when his Auntie Wyzro Bezunesh Belachew taught him traditional home cooking.
Tee became a partner with Singaporian Chef Kin Lee in 2002 after they went on a culinary tour of Europe and Asia to research spices. In 2006, Tee decided to go out on his own and establish T's Place. All of his food is made from scratch and features authentic and flavorful meals full of delicious blends of mouth watering spices.
Map
Thursday, February 14, 2008
This makes me so mad.
The fact is that the Aministration was "stovepiping" intellegence data, so that the intellegence community would give them an NIE (National Intellegence Estimate) that was favorable to the conclusions they wanted.
It is not true, as Secretary Rice states, that the Administration simply took the NIE and responded to it's conclusion. Again, the Administration gave clear signals, to the CIA, that they wanted a specific conclusion drawn by the NIE. They even went so far as to create a new department (The Office of Special Plans) in the DOD, full of people with little intellegence experience but an anti-Iraq agenda, to give them what they wanted to hear. They did this in case their efforts at "stovepiping" went unheeded at the CIA. When the CIA capitulated, and the Office of Special Plans, concluded what they had created it to conclude, they took it and ran with it.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Very Curious
Who is Steven Bradbury?
(Plus Update 1 )
It seems that President Bush is willing to hold up all judicial and executive brench nominees to get this one guy confirmed as assistant Attorney general for the Department of Justic'e Office of Legal Counsel.
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, agreed to a deal that allows more than 84 of the President's nominees to go through Senate confirmation. Bush shot the deal down if Bradbury was not among those confirmed. “It’s Brabury, or nobody,” Bush reportedly told Reid. Here it is from Reid
Why does Bush care that much? Let's look into it.
From the New York Times:
"Late last year, Democrats urged the White House to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s name once and for all and find a new candidate for the post after it was disclosed in news reports in October that he was the author of classified memorandums that gave approval to harsh interrogation techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.
Mr. Bradbury’s memorandums were described by Democrats as an effort by the Bush administration to circumvent laws prohibiting torture and to undermine a public legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in 2004 that declared torture to be “abhorrent.”
"Bradbury has been serving as the acting head of the office since early 2005, he's never been confirmed for the spot. Senate Democrats continue to express opposition to Bradbury's nomination and say he remains in the position illegally....In August 2006, three Democratic senators, Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), blocked Bradbury's nomination in a maneuver to compel the Bush administration to disclose more about its warrantless surveillance program. Around that time, President Bush personally quashed a review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the propriety of DOJ lawyers who approved the program. The Democrats countered that they couldn't confirm Bradbury until he was formally cleared of wrongdoing. "
Wow, why would Bush want to make his last stand on a guy this controverasal? Is ego getting in the way of governance?
(Update 1:
Aha! I think I've got it! Listen to Murkasey's comments today:
"Delahunt: You said if an opinion was rendered, that would insulate him from any consequences.
MM: We could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a justice department opinion.
Delahunt: If that opinion was inaccurate and in fact violated a section of US Criminal Code, that reliance is in effect an immunity from any criminal culpability.
MM: Immunity connoted culpability.
Delahunt: This is brand new legal theory.
MM: Disclosure of waterboarding was part of CIA interrogation and permitted by DOJ opinion, would and should bar investigation of people who relied on that opinion.
Delahunt: Let's concede that waterboarding is in contravention of international obligation. If opinion rendered that amounted to malpractice, whoever employed that technique, simply by relying on that opinion would be legally barred from criminal investigation.
MM: If you're talking about legal mistake, there is an inquiry regarding whether properly rendered opinions or didn't. But yes, that bars the person who relied on that opinion from being investigated.
Delahunt: I find that a new legal doctrine. The law is the law.
MM: If it comes to pass that somebody at a later date that the opinion should have been different the person who relied on the opinion cannot be investigated.
Delahunt: Is there a legal precedent.
MM: There is practical consideration.
Delahunt: I can't cite you a case."
So let me get this straight. If Bradbury is appointed and issues opinions that are favorable to the White House, no matter what the laws enacted by Congress require, then the White House is immune from prosicution.
There it is, Congress has just been written out of our government. The President has all the power. He or she can appoint insiders to the Justice Department and basically do whatever he or she wants when his or her appointments, at Justice, write opinions (many secret even from Congress) supporting whatever they want to do. No fear of accountability to anyone.
Are you frightened yet?
(Plus Update 1 )
It seems that President Bush is willing to hold up all judicial and executive brench nominees to get this one guy confirmed as assistant Attorney general for the Department of Justic'e Office of Legal Counsel.
Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, agreed to a deal that allows more than 84 of the President's nominees to go through Senate confirmation. Bush shot the deal down if Bradbury was not among those confirmed. “It’s Brabury, or nobody,” Bush reportedly told Reid. Here it is from Reid
Why does Bush care that much? Let's look into it.
From the New York Times:
"Late last year, Democrats urged the White House to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s name once and for all and find a new candidate for the post after it was disclosed in news reports in October that he was the author of classified memorandums that gave approval to harsh interrogation techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.
Mr. Bradbury’s memorandums were described by Democrats as an effort by the Bush administration to circumvent laws prohibiting torture and to undermine a public legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in 2004 that declared torture to be “abhorrent.”
From Talking Points Memo:
"It took two days of hearings for the Senate Judiciary Committee to reinforce its consensus that Michael Mukasey should be attorney general. The panel asked Mukasey tough questions about torture, detentions, surveillance and the president's inherent wartime powers. But those questions might have been misdirected. That's because an obscure Justice Department lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), might actually be more important to the war on terrorism than the attorney general.
It's also a position that's arguably more important to the administration too, since the OLC chief has the power to issue what former chief Jack Goldsmith called "an advance pardon" for dubious activities."
"Bradbury has been serving as the acting head of the office since early 2005, he's never been confirmed for the spot. Senate Democrats continue to express opposition to Bradbury's nomination and say he remains in the position illegally....In August 2006, three Democratic senators, Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), blocked Bradbury's nomination in a maneuver to compel the Bush administration to disclose more about its warrantless surveillance program. Around that time, President Bush personally quashed a review by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the propriety of DOJ lawyers who approved the program. The Democrats countered that they couldn't confirm Bradbury until he was formally cleared of wrongdoing. "
Wow, why would Bush want to make his last stand on a guy this controverasal? Is ego getting in the way of governance?
(Update 1:
Aha! I think I've got it! Listen to Murkasey's comments today:
"Delahunt: You said if an opinion was rendered, that would insulate him from any consequences.
MM: We could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a justice department opinion.
Delahunt: If that opinion was inaccurate and in fact violated a section of US Criminal Code, that reliance is in effect an immunity from any criminal culpability.
MM: Immunity connoted culpability.
Delahunt: This is brand new legal theory.
MM: Disclosure of waterboarding was part of CIA interrogation and permitted by DOJ opinion, would and should bar investigation of people who relied on that opinion.
Delahunt: Let's concede that waterboarding is in contravention of international obligation. If opinion rendered that amounted to malpractice, whoever employed that technique, simply by relying on that opinion would be legally barred from criminal investigation.
MM: If you're talking about legal mistake, there is an inquiry regarding whether properly rendered opinions or didn't. But yes, that bars the person who relied on that opinion from being investigated.
Delahunt: I find that a new legal doctrine. The law is the law.
MM: If it comes to pass that somebody at a later date that the opinion should have been different the person who relied on the opinion cannot be investigated.
Delahunt: Is there a legal precedent.
MM: There is practical consideration.
Delahunt: I can't cite you a case."
So let me get this straight. If Bradbury is appointed and issues opinions that are favorable to the White House, no matter what the laws enacted by Congress require, then the White House is immune from prosicution.
There it is, Congress has just been written out of our government. The President has all the power. He or she can appoint insiders to the Justice Department and basically do whatever he or she wants when his or her appointments, at Justice, write opinions (many secret even from Congress) supporting whatever they want to do. No fear of accountability to anyone.
Are you frightened yet?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Jamie Cullum
Great song!
"All At Sea"
I'm all at sea
Where no-one can bother me
Forgot my roots
If only for a day
Just me and my thoughts sailing far away
Like a warm drink it seeps into my soul
Please just leave me right here on my own
Later on you could spend some time with me
If you want to
All at sea
I'm all at sea
Where no-one can bother me
I sleep by myself
I drink on my own
Don't speak to nobody
I gave away my phone
Like a warm drink it seeps into my soul
Please just leave me right here on my own
Later on you could spend some time with me
If you want to
All at sea
Now I need you more than ever, I need you more than ever, now
You don't need it every day
But sometimes don't you just crave
To disappear within your mind
You never know what you might find
So come and spend some time with me
We will spend it all at sea
Like a warm drink it seeps into my soul
Please just leave me right here on my own
Later on you could spend some time with me
If you want to
All at sea
"All At Sea"
I'm all at sea
Where no-one can bother me
Forgot my roots
If only for a day
Just me and my thoughts sailing far away
Like a warm drink it seeps into my soul
Please just leave me right here on my own
Later on you could spend some time with me
If you want to
All at sea
I'm all at sea
Where no-one can bother me
I sleep by myself
I drink on my own
Don't speak to nobody
I gave away my phone
Like a warm drink it seeps into my soul
Please just leave me right here on my own
Later on you could spend some time with me
If you want to
All at sea
Now I need you more than ever, I need you more than ever, now
You don't need it every day
But sometimes don't you just crave
To disappear within your mind
You never know what you might find
So come and spend some time with me
We will spend it all at sea
Like a warm drink it seeps into my soul
Please just leave me right here on my own
Later on you could spend some time with me
If you want to
All at sea
Friday, February 1, 2008
Exxon
Exxon's annual profit was $40.6 billion (by the way, this is net income, that is, after-tax income). This exceeded the record $39.5 billion Exxon earned in 2006. Exxon's income, before taxes, in 2006 was 67 billion and they paid almost 28 billion in taxes.
At least someone is making money in this economy. Taxpayers will be happy to know that we gave the oil industry 14.5 billion in subsidies in 2006.
At least someone is making money in this economy. Taxpayers will be happy to know that we gave the oil industry 14.5 billion in subsidies in 2006.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Simple Things
Has anyone else noticed that our lives have become so complicated that we don’t fully appreciate them? A good song and a glass of wine go almost unnoticed.
When I was in college I lived in Boston for the summer. I was training for cross-country and cleaning floors in the nuclear engineering labs at MIT. I would get up and run ten to twelve miles along the Charles River. At three o’clock I would get a bagel and cream cheese and go to work the second shift. I would have eaten more, but I had to live on ten dollars a week until I got a pay check. I remember thinking how much I just wanted a Coca Cola. I could not afford the extravagance. I vowed that when I made some money I would have a whole closet full of Coca Cola.
I now have two houses and three cars. I have a wonderful family. We eat well, and watch movies, or go out to dinner, when we want to. I often wonder if, in our hyper-complex lives, we miss how good a simple thing like a can of Coke, or a good song, can be.
Perhaps I should clear out a closet this weekend. I will put in a single can of Coke, just to remind me to be happy with the little things.
When I was in college I lived in Boston for the summer. I was training for cross-country and cleaning floors in the nuclear engineering labs at MIT. I would get up and run ten to twelve miles along the Charles River. At three o’clock I would get a bagel and cream cheese and go to work the second shift. I would have eaten more, but I had to live on ten dollars a week until I got a pay check. I remember thinking how much I just wanted a Coca Cola. I could not afford the extravagance. I vowed that when I made some money I would have a whole closet full of Coca Cola.
I now have two houses and three cars. I have a wonderful family. We eat well, and watch movies, or go out to dinner, when we want to. I often wonder if, in our hyper-complex lives, we miss how good a simple thing like a can of Coke, or a good song, can be.
Perhaps I should clear out a closet this weekend. I will put in a single can of Coke, just to remind me to be happy with the little things.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
John Edwards ends his bid.
I am sorry to see John Edwards end his bid for President. I would have been happy to have worked and voted for him, had he won the nomination. He was my second choice in a field packed with worthy candidates. My hope is he is offered the job of Attorney General if a Democrat wins the Presidency.
We have lost a strong voice for the poor in John’s ending. He made his career fighting for the disenfranchised against corporate America. The cynical among us will say that fighting corporate America was where the money was for him. They will say that what we don’t need as a lawyer as President. I beg to differ. We should have a lawyer as President. We should have a man or woman who will understand the law and how it defends the rights of less fortunate Americans. We elect a President to fight for all Americans, not just the big campaign donors or those who can afford to hire lobbyists.
Let us hope that whoever prevails will remember John’s message of working for those in poverty and near poverty. These are people who have been ignored by Washington for far too long.
We have lost a strong voice for the poor in John’s ending. He made his career fighting for the disenfranchised against corporate America. The cynical among us will say that fighting corporate America was where the money was for him. They will say that what we don’t need as a lawyer as President. I beg to differ. We should have a lawyer as President. We should have a man or woman who will understand the law and how it defends the rights of less fortunate Americans. We elect a President to fight for all Americans, not just the big campaign donors or those who can afford to hire lobbyists.
Let us hope that whoever prevails will remember John’s message of working for those in poverty and near poverty. These are people who have been ignored by Washington for far too long.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Both Democrats and Republicans show their creepy side on the FISA bill
Update from Glenn Greenwald:
"The vote on the Motion for Cloture on the 30-day extension (i.e., to proceed to a vote on it) just failed -- 48-45 (again, 60 votes are needed). All Democrats (including Clinton and Obama) voted in favor of the Motion, but no Republicans did -- not a single one. Thus, at least as of today, there will be no 30-day extension of the PAA and it will expire on Friday.
Reid, however, indicated that it was certain that the House will vote in favor of an extension tomorrow, which means it will be sent to the Senate for another vote. It's possible, then, that the Senate will vote again later in the week on an extension, but it's hard to imagine any Republicans ever voting in favor of an extension since Bush has vowed to veto it.
By blocking an extension, Republicans just basically assured that the PAA -- which they spent the last seven months shrilly insisting was crucial if we are going to be Saved from The Terrorists -- will expire on Friday without any new bill in place. " (emphasis mine)
But the Democrats have been just as creepy on this issue:
"In essence, the reason Senate Democrats were able to successfully filibuster today is not because they oppose the Cheney/Rockefeller Senate Intelligence Committee bill. It's not because they stood firm against telecom immunity or warrantless eavesdropping. Quite the contrary, more than enough Senate Democrats were and still are prepared to vote for that bill in order to ensure passage (as they demonstrated on Thursday when 12 of them, in essence, voted for that bill).
The only reason Democrats were able to hold their caucus together today to filibuster is because The Senators were offended that their inalienable Senatorial Right to vote on amendments was deprived by the GOP's premature Cloture Motion. The one (and only) "principle" that can really inspire many of these Senators to take a stand is the protection of their Senatorial prerogatives. Many of them don't actually have any beliefs other than that.
Reward lawbreaking with immunity? Fine. Give the President new warrantless eavesdropping powers? No problem. Abolish habeas corpus and legalize torture? Sure. Deprive a Senator of the Right to vote on an amendment before cloture? Unacceptable! " (emphasis mine again)
"The vote on the Motion for Cloture on the 30-day extension (i.e., to proceed to a vote on it) just failed -- 48-45 (again, 60 votes are needed). All Democrats (including Clinton and Obama) voted in favor of the Motion, but no Republicans did -- not a single one. Thus, at least as of today, there will be no 30-day extension of the PAA and it will expire on Friday.
Reid, however, indicated that it was certain that the House will vote in favor of an extension tomorrow, which means it will be sent to the Senate for another vote. It's possible, then, that the Senate will vote again later in the week on an extension, but it's hard to imagine any Republicans ever voting in favor of an extension since Bush has vowed to veto it.
By blocking an extension, Republicans just basically assured that the PAA -- which they spent the last seven months shrilly insisting was crucial if we are going to be Saved from The Terrorists -- will expire on Friday without any new bill in place. " (emphasis mine)
But the Democrats have been just as creepy on this issue:
"In essence, the reason Senate Democrats were able to successfully filibuster today is not because they oppose the Cheney/Rockefeller Senate Intelligence Committee bill. It's not because they stood firm against telecom immunity or warrantless eavesdropping. Quite the contrary, more than enough Senate Democrats were and still are prepared to vote for that bill in order to ensure passage (as they demonstrated on Thursday when 12 of them, in essence, voted for that bill).
The only reason Democrats were able to hold their caucus together today to filibuster is because The Senators were offended that their inalienable Senatorial Right to vote on amendments was deprived by the GOP's premature Cloture Motion. The one (and only) "principle" that can really inspire many of these Senators to take a stand is the protection of their Senatorial prerogatives. Many of them don't actually have any beliefs other than that.
Reward lawbreaking with immunity? Fine. Give the President new warrantless eavesdropping powers? No problem. Abolish habeas corpus and legalize torture? Sure. Deprive a Senator of the Right to vote on an amendment before cloture? Unacceptable! " (emphasis mine again)
Monday, January 28, 2008
What's at stake today in the Senate's FISA filibuster vote
From Glenn Greenwald:
"It has been a long, long time since Democrats contravened orders from the White House and Senate Republicans in any way (can anyone remember the last time?) A successful filibuster today would be an extremely mild step. It would not mean that they are rejecting telecom immunity. It would not mean that they are standing against new warrantless spying on Americans. Even with a filibuster and 30-day extension, they still have plenty of time to capitulate on those issues if they want to (although, as I argued on Saturday, even a short extension could be vital in marshalling public opposition to immunity and/or expanded warrantless spying powers).
At most, a sustained filibuster today would simply mean that they are demanding the right to vote (probably with futility) on their own amendments before passing Bush's new law and demonstrating that there is at least some very weak limit on the administration's ability to bully and humiliate them with the most transparently manipulative tactics imaginable. If they filibuster, Bush will undoubtedly attack them as Soft on Terrorism in tonight's State of the Union speech, but nobody outside of David Broder, Joe Klein and the Super Tough Blue Dogs listens any more or cares about George Bush's attacks.
Any rational person has long ago given up the hope that Congressional Democrats will stand for any actual political convictions, but the most basic sense of personal pride and human dignity -- which one thought was an intrinsic part of human nature -- would preclude their capitulation today. If they don't stand up to the White House and Senate Republicans under these circumstances, one might as well accept that they never will do so." (emphasis mine)
Ask yourself this: Should Congress let the President demand that any industry unnecessarily break the laws of the land and then give that industry immunity when they knowingly follow what the President demands at our expense?
"It has been a long, long time since Democrats contravened orders from the White House and Senate Republicans in any way (can anyone remember the last time?) A successful filibuster today would be an extremely mild step. It would not mean that they are rejecting telecom immunity. It would not mean that they are standing against new warrantless spying on Americans. Even with a filibuster and 30-day extension, they still have plenty of time to capitulate on those issues if they want to (although, as I argued on Saturday, even a short extension could be vital in marshalling public opposition to immunity and/or expanded warrantless spying powers).
At most, a sustained filibuster today would simply mean that they are demanding the right to vote (probably with futility) on their own amendments before passing Bush's new law and demonstrating that there is at least some very weak limit on the administration's ability to bully and humiliate them with the most transparently manipulative tactics imaginable. If they filibuster, Bush will undoubtedly attack them as Soft on Terrorism in tonight's State of the Union speech, but nobody outside of David Broder, Joe Klein and the Super Tough Blue Dogs listens any more or cares about George Bush's attacks.
Any rational person has long ago given up the hope that Congressional Democrats will stand for any actual political convictions, but the most basic sense of personal pride and human dignity -- which one thought was an intrinsic part of human nature -- would preclude their capitulation today. If they don't stand up to the White House and Senate Republicans under these circumstances, one might as well accept that they never will do so." (emphasis mine)
Ask yourself this: Should Congress let the President demand that any industry unnecessarily break the laws of the land and then give that industry immunity when they knowingly follow what the President demands at our expense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
