Obama's Fisa Fizzle
There's a whole lot of people angry tonight at Barack Obama for his Senate vote Wednesday immunizing the telecom giants against legal action for their role in what was clearly lawless and warrantless wiretapping.
My position on this has been clearly on the record. As mentioned before, I am was one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit against the phone companies for their role in domestic snooping -- one of the legal efforts totally erased by todays 69-28 vote in the Senate.
I'm not angry about Obama's vote as much as I am saddened about it. Obama has tried to explain his reversal position on the immunity issue, but not very effectively or convincingly. Some 25,000 of his own supporters have organized a protest group on his mybarackobama.com web site. But that didn't stop him.
As I wrote last week, it's really not very difficult at all to figure out Obama's motivation. He wants to get elected and he's calculated that to do so he can show no "weakness" on national security. I wish it were different. I think it might be. But I'm not sure. And that's the part that's really depressing for me.
Indeed, on the same night that so many in the netroots feel betrayed and improperly represented by Obama, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd reports that the Democratic nominee is successfully rewriting the political map and is already locking up new states in the Pacific Northwest, the Northeast and around the Great Lakes Region.
So is that the way American politics works? Is the conventional wisdom correct? That the election is won by seducing the wavering, moderate middle and not by expanding the electorate?
July 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Marc, I agree that Obama is doing just what might be expected, but if anyone wants to get fired up on this they can read Glenn Greenwald’s excoriating post.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa_vote/index.html
The final money graf:
Will Democrats ever learn that the reason they are so easily depicted as “weak” isn’t because they don’t copy the Republican policies on national security enough, but rather, because they do so too much, and thus appear (accurately) to stand for nothing? Of course, many Democrats vote for these policies because they believe in them, not because they are “surrendering.” Still, terms such as “bowing,” “surrendering,” “capitulating,” and “losing” aren’t exactly Verbs of Strength. They’re verbs of extreme weakness — yet, bizarrely, Democrats believe that if they “bow” and “surrender,” then they will avoid appearing “weak.” Somehow, at some point, someone convinced them that the best way to avoid appearing weak is to be as weak as possible.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
My own earlier thoughts on this, which were close to Marc’s:
http://michael-balter.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-bait-and-switch.html
July 10th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I think Obama has taken the wrong position on FISA.
But he’s a somewhat suspect figure to many voters, for obvious reasons, and FISA plays into the big lie about Obama — that he’s a guy out to kow-tow to Islamic jihadists and abandon Israel, etc.
I think Obama can win by expanding the electorate AND winning enough of the center.
It’s not an either/or proposition.
The former can end up like McGovern. The latter can end up like Muskie.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Hey, I’m surprised to see so many still the faithful, well I guess that whats being liberal or conservative means - agreeing and arguing in the same preconceived box. Some day you will have to wake up and understand that you have one party, not two. That they do not represent you they represent the moneyed interest of the few. I think you should have gotten the hint back when they canned habeas corpus, certainly when they voted this through - but no, you must convince yourself of what Obama “must do” in order to win, whatever. In the meantime -
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE POLYARCHY
July 10th, 2008 at 12:51 am
Oh, I do not have to repeat the “I told you so” line.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:13 am
OH… one more reason… FOR voting NADER !
have a very nice day and
enjoy the Farce !
July 10th, 2008 at 5:30 am
This was a terrible decision by Obama. I find it especially offensive becasue I’m probably a civil libertarian before all else. As reg points out regularly, Obama is not going to be all things to each of us. We’ll have to hope the courts have saner heads. Perhaps insulation from too much democracy isn’t such a bad thing after all.
And as I’ve said regularly before, Obama is actively squandering what has made him so popular. When he is elected we’ll have to see if he rolls back some of this.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:58 am
What Dan O said. What I find puzzling too is that Obama is solidly ahead in the polls, so why does he need to flip-flop in order to get elected, as Marc suggests? The polls showed him leading before he started moving to the “middle,” and they show him leading (with the same numbers) now that he has done so. Why do the pain if there’s no gain?
I’ve got one possible answer: Bad advisors; and even worse, listening to them.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am
It’s more disturbing that the bill allows the *government* to order warrantless wiretapping than that Obama and the rest would immunize their campaign donors against lawsuits. What were the telecomm companies going to do when they received the orders from the admin to cooperate with this?
On another note, who knows what Jesse Jackson actually said about Obama? The AP story I read danced around the actual comment, but there are no dirty words you can’t say on Marc Cooper’s blog!
July 10th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Let me ask the unaskable, as I did months ago, and following which reg shot me down (in pretty convincing fashion). Is Obama’s vote on this substantively different from Hillary’s Iraq war vote? Would he have voted on Iraq as she did if he were in the senate then? Would she have voted as he did on FISA if she were now carrying the burden of the presidential candidacy?
July 10th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Stu:
Jackson said that he wanted to “cut his nuts off.” I saw a video of it somewhere last night.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Gail Collins has established herself on the op-ed page of The New York Times as the only woman columnist there with any brains and wisdom. Check her out today. She explains–perfectly–what Obama is doing and thinking. And, frankly, what becomes hard to understand after reading this is why anyone is surprised at his positions.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Yes, St. O. We’ll still vote for him, even with the mandatory waterboardings in Kindergarten - hey, he’s funding kindergarten!
July 10th, 2008 at 8:01 am
I’m not surprised. I think the most disturbign thing is that, as an organized force hsi supporters aren’t threatening to deny him the White House.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:58 am
>Would she have voted as he did
>on FISA if she were now carrying
>the burden of the presidential candidacy?
Let’s give the devil her due. Al Gore became a liberal once he retired from electoral politics. Maybe HRC is a closet liberal, or more likely just a secret believer in the Fourth amendment, and can let it show now. Or maybe the telcomms gave her less than they gave Obama, and now its payback time.
>Jackson said that he wanted to “cut his
>nuts off.â€
Why should Jesse waste his time when Obama is already doing that to himself? :).
July 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Of course, this conversation, interesting as it is, ignores the basic travesty that is the FISA law in the first place.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
You’re right Michael Green. That is a good piece by Gail Collins. She’s pretty sharp when she forgets to imitate Maureen Dowd. I think she captures Obama pretty convincingly and he sounds fine to me. He has a combintion of qualities that could make for a very good President, though not such a good messiah.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Messiahs don’t get elected POTUS.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:30 am
“Let’s give the devil her due.”
Yes. Maybe Clinton just wanted to show Obama up. You know, “I told you so” kind of thing.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Since “Hillary bashing” is de riguer here let me just note that she voted against cloture and against the final bill as well. See her statement on the same. Its strong and its right and no amount of spin from the Obamiacs will change the fact that their guy “Caved”. Worst comment is that this was his “Sister Souljah” moment. Funny, but I always thought the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was more important than a rap singer!
July 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Funny, but I always thought the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was more important than a rap singer!”
My son would disagree with you.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I’m with Dan O for once. Forget watching the watchers. The watchers shouldn’t exist. The Madrid bombers were busted by Spain without this type of surveillance.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
In other news, it sure was fun having Phil Gramm back in the spotlight again. Hmm, but maybe wasn’t such a good idea after all. Buh-bye, Phil.
Now there’s a great strategy for the GOP: call the American people a bunch of whiners! Way to go, Phil! Oh, well, maybe he’ll have better luck when McCain banishes him to HREF=”http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043584/posts”>Belarus. Perhaps they could use a “Contract With Minsk”, and Philly can pretend it’s 1994 all over again.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Everyone I know who knows what’s going on is deeply disappointed with Obama’s decision. If he loses, we can point to this vote as the turning point.
Anyone who says they aren’t surprised by Obama’s vote on this should consider cutting way back on the cynicism. At some point, hyper-cynicism goes full circle into a kind of naivete, where judgment is irrelevant. There were plenty of very good reasons to believe Obama would be against this terrible law.
By the same token, expecting him to vote against telecom immunity is not anything like wanting a Messaiah. This bill was not some kind of big reach for liberalism, but a fundamental civil liberties threshold issue that should be opposed by liberals and conservatives of liberterian bent alike.
Indeed the conservatives Democrats can win this time around, the “Obama Republicans” are those of a libertarian bent, who have voted for Republican on the premise that it’s the party of small government and fiscal responsibility. That faction of the Republicans have lost all hope for Bush and seem to have little faith that McCain would veer away from the Bush path.
They are ripe for conversion to Democrats, but with Obama making disastrous decisions like the one on this bill, he may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
RLC has it right, you folk that are “surprised” or have taken the other more “nuanced -He’s running for President” tack “ain’t got no business talkin’ politics.”
July 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Evets expressed my response. The vote may reflect the same kind of “see-how-tough-I-am” mindset that I believe motivated Hillary RC to vote to authorize the Iraq war.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“…so why does he need to flip-flop in order to get elected…”
__________________
Might be because he is not trying to impress the general public, just that special little moneyed crowd. In fact, he can’t do enough to disenfranchise the people to please them.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democratic. But Henry Adams figured all that out back in the 1890s. ‘We have a single system,’ he wrote, and ‘in that system the only question is the price at which the proletariat is to be bought and sold, the bread and circuses.’” : Gore Vidal - The Decline and Fall of the American Empire
July 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to lambaste those of us who are not happy with this decision. Obama’s vaunted ability and willingness to cut through the usual thin gruel that passes for discourse in this country, is not a universal solvent. Or at least we do not expect it to be. There are some principles that we take for granted, like defending the Bill of Rights. We might disagree on the size of the military budget, and how to promote service, and a million other things, but some of these topics we take for granted. We are surprised we’re not dummies for being so.
On Hillary. I wonder if it’s possible that since she knew how Obama intended to vote that this was a tactical decision on her part: She can begin to gain some of the support of the disaffected Obama people by undercutting him. Remember, she “suspended” her campaign, she didn’t drop out. Perhaps she is still angling for the outside chance to get the nomination. She is that calculating.
However, I’m willing to entertain the possibility that this was a vote of conscience, which grudgingly requires that I admit the unlikely–that she has a conscience.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
“Obama’s vaunted ability and willingness to cut through the usual thin gruel that passes for discourse in this country, is not a universal solvent”
__________________
You are correct there, it is dribble…lol
July 10th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
In other news, it sure was fun having Jesse Jackson back in the spotlight again. Hmm, but maybe wasn’t such a good idea after all. Buh-bye, Jesse.
A huge plus for Barrack btw.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Absent left-liberal strategies and tactics for prosecuting war against our enemies, it is right that Obama should defer to those who are prosecuting that war. Whatever else he is, the guy is the opposite of stupid.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
walt: “OH… one more reason… FOR voting NADER !”
Nader, please. Ralph demonstrated back in 2000 that he’s as much an oathbreaker and has no more integrity than any other politician.
Stu DeNimm: “What were the telecomm companies going to do when they received the orders from the admin to cooperate with this?”
Tell the administration to fuck off, like Qwest did but then I guess they didn’t want this to happen to them.
Dan O: “Jackson said that he wanted to ‘cut his nuts off.’”
Jesse Jackson shows what an idiot he is. It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that Barack would have to have a pair first.
bunkerbuster: “Anyone who says they aren’t surprised by Obama’s vote on this should consider cutting way back on the cynicism.”
I think this incident clearly this demonstrates that one can never be cynical enough.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Slate has a very good and intelligent analysis of the danger’s in Obama’s rightward shift on basic constitutional issues.
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2195008
I see no reason to think that he will shift back leftwards once he is elected–why should he?
July 11th, 2008 at 1:46 am
You know, reading the coverage of this fucking travesty I feel rather like a devout Christian must feel reading Huysmans or some shit except that, intead of stomping on the Host, it’s the Constitution the political class are grinding under their heel. I don’t feel much reverence for a piece of paper written by a bunch of slaveowners but I do treasure the rights it represents so I find it offensive to see motherfuckers prepared to wastebin my freedoms so the president can have a fucking “(D)” next to his name.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am
“Why should he?”
Isn’t the answer obvious, Michael?
If Obama does continue to support policies like telecom immunity, he lose the backing of the liberal majority.
If there is no such liberal majority, he’ll neve win the White House in the first place.
As a liberal, I’m going to do everything I know how to let Obama no he made a mistake in voting for this legislation.
And on election day, I will gladly punch a hole by his name: not because I think he’s a liberal messaiah, but because he’s better than McCain and offers some hope of forging a new liberal political majority.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am
“Messiahs don’t get elected POTUS.”
I remember hearing the head of the Southern Baptist Conference proclaim the George Bush was a gift from God, so he may beg to differ.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Marc, don’t know whether this is good or bad for you degenerate gamblers. Software can now beat high-skilled poker players, at least in Texas Hold ‘Em
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/43658.html
Now, they don’t spoil a good story by pointing out is that TX H ‘Em is a game designed to involve more chance and less interpersonal skills than traditional poker games. This makes it much easier for a computer program. Still, the androids are closing in. It’s just a matter of time before you can play some version of poker against the house in Vegas, with the dealer taking orders from a computer.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:58 am
“Whatever else he is, the guy(Obama) is the opposite of stupid”.
Wish the same thing could be said for most of his supporters Sam.
The sort of inordinate, unreasonable, an paranoiac fear of being wiretapped is exactly the kind of politics that prevented our various intelligence agencies from being allowed to communicate with each other, pre 9/11. And is exactly the same politics that could have prevented our country after attack from being attack again.
To let lawyer lovers bring their multimillion dollar lawsuits against American Companies cooperating with our intelligence agencies in order to gather call ‘patterns’ of ‘foreign’ communications to try to prevent future attacks on our citizens, at a time when urgency was of the essence, shows a serious lack of common sense driven by political paranoia.
This is especially true given the same political paranoia and lack of common sense is what likely caused or intelligence agencies from preventing the first attack in the first place.
Gawd! We do live in two Americas………and parallel universes.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Yeah, sans cliche but not literary art by any stretch. My editor requires more detail. This wouldn’t pass muster.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:01 am
“And is exactly the same politics that could have prevented…”
should be “And is exactly the same politics that could have allowed..”
July 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
The sort of inordinate, unreasonable, an paranoiac fear of being wiretapped is exactly the kind of politics that prevented our various intelligence agencies from being allowed to communicate with each other, pre 9/11.
Blame it on Nixon. Christ, nothing occurs in a vacuum.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:05 am
“Gawd! We do live in two Americas………and parallel universes.”
Yeah, one with a Fourth Amendment and one without. Not sure I’d call that second one an “America” worthy of the name despite all of the psuedo-patriotic babble that dominates it’s discourse.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Jim R:
You don’t seem to understand why those protections were enshrined in the Bill of Rights. You cavalierly trust centralized power to be excercised with discretion and with respect for the rights of citizens in contradiction of all the historical evidence. Your attitude is exactly why the Bill of Rights exist.
What in the world makes you think that the government, composed of people with their own axes to grind and wildly divergent views about what’s dangerous, will confine themselves to the narrower interpretations of what that power means? All of the evidence points in the other direction. Power limited by law is the only thing that makes the rule of law work.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I’m not at all happy with Obama’s backpedaling on his final FISA vote, but given that it’s still obvious to me that his position on this is radically different from the Bush/McCain “we don’t need no steenkin’ badges” line on the Constitution.
Obama has expressed firm opposition to the notion that telecom companies should hand over any and all info to the government just because they asked (although frankly I think that suits against the companies is a tangential approach to ending this - the government was the primary offender here in pressuring the companies and they should be held accountable.) It’s also clear that an Obama administration (Attorney General John Edwards ?) is going to revisit this entire issue and set out guidelines that we can expect to acknowledge the Bill of Rights as opposed to Dick Cheney’s hardons. And the official Obama website has become a locus of protest over the issue, which Obama has not only acknowledged respectfully but actually encouraged in his statement (he made it clear that activism on this issue was a positive and keeps concern over such violations front and center in public discourse - the first concrete evidence we’ve seen of Obama having a complex and essentially encouraging relationship with progressive activism from within his broad camp.)
I long ago made my peace with the fact that Obama would proceed to disappoint me as one of his supporters on numerous issues - some of them probably what I would consider core. I’ve had this conversation with myself about a year ago when I started actively supporting the guy. And as I’ve said, part of the reason I supported him as the best shot in a presidential race - and as an effective President - was because he wasn’t playing the “left-populist” card so heavily in the primary, but seemed to have some strange combination of centrist pragmatism/thoughtfulness/charisma that would serve the country well in a chief executive.
On FISA I think rlc got it right - Obama let himself get bluffed by a couple of deuces held by the administration. But I don’t doubt for a minute that he’s troubled enough by the form the final FISA bill took that as President he’ll task his attorney general with revising the rules so that they conform to the Constitution.
Having thought long and hard about this one - and frankly withheld any donations while it was an active issue on the table - I’m going full steam ahead with Obama teamwork (nationwide voter registration this weekend) and as soon as the dust clears I’ll continue to make my modest donations to insure no more of McSame over the long run. Given Obama’s broader message - which I find just about right for a presidential contender, the fact that he didn’t simply blow off his critics but essentially expressed agreement on substance if not on political pragmatics from a candidate’s perspective, and the number of states that appear to be in play for Democrats - bailing on the campaign over this would be another act of the “left” of shooting itself in the foot.
I’m finding it hard to believe that Michael Balter and I have come to just about the same in evaluating a Democratic contender, i.e. critical on some key issues but recognizing some combination of the disaster inherent in the alternative and the possibility for political space and renewed grassroots energy that this (admittedly somewhat unique) Democrat offers.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am
If our enemies “hate us for our freedom”, could this Big Brother stuff on the part of the Bushies be a clever way to bring them around ?
Incidentally, Al Giordano claims on his blog - with some good evidence, but not totally dispositive - that no matter what kind of limitations are put on unbridled domestic surveillance, US government agencies - from the DEA to the CIA - are able to get essentially the same information by cooperating foreign governments, notably Mexico. While I’m 100% for maintaining compliance with the Fourth Amendment, I think it’s pretty obvious that in the age of the internet and cell phones, the electronic snooping barn door is wide open and will never be effectively shut again.
Giordano also drops this quote on the FISA issue from Russ Feingold, who has a terrific combination of honesty, political courage and common sense:
“Having a Democratic president and particularly Barack Obama should allow us to change this mistake. Barack Obama believes in the Constitution. He’s a constitutional scholar. I believe that he will have a better chance to look at these powers that have been given to the executive branch and even though that he will be running the executive branch, I think he will understand and help take the lead in fixing some of the worst provisions. So this is a huge setback and it would have been much better for Democrats to stand together and not let it happen in the first place ‘cause it’s much harder to change it after the fact. But I do believe that Barack Obama is well positioned both in terms of his knowledge and his background, and his beliefs, to correct this. And so I do think that people have a right to be disappointed but I also think they have the right to hope for change on this issue in particular starting in January.”
July 11th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“Power limited by law is the only thing that makes the rule of law work.”
___________________
This would be true except for one issue, there is no rule of law, only the “law of rule.” It is the belief in the myth of the rule of law that creates atrocities.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Appropos all this, I thought this made sense, especially as a rejoinder to Jim R’s reaction.
“The tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ’state of exception’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight. Then we shall clearly realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of exception, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism. One reason why Fascism has a chance is that in the name of progress its opponents treat it as a historical norm. The current amazement that the things we are experiencing are ’still’ possible in the twentieth century is not philosophical. This amazement is not the beginning of knowledge–unless it is the knowledge that the view of history which gives rise to it is untenable.”
So, Virgil is only partially right. The rule of law that is merely the law of rule does not negate the ability to create the real rule of law, sweeping away the enemies of Right.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The quote, sorry for not making this clear, is from Walter Benjamin. One of the themes that is as clear today is the naturalization, the treating surveillance culture s a “historical norm” even while opposing it, the fetishzation of hollow liberal democracy by pitiful hope-fiends.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“…the fetishzation of hollow liberal democracy by pitiful hope-fiends.”
Crawling from hope-den to hope-den with their bleary-eyed comrades.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Hope can only get so far. The social movements that have improved liberal democracy used action as well as hope. From Mother Jones to Markos, from Joe Hill to MyDD, is a long way.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
reg:
I can’t remember where I read it before (maybe a Bamford book, but maybe not), but I’ve seen the claim that there is broad coopoeration between most of the West’s intelligence agencies (Canada and the UK stick out in my memory), and that the CIA gets exactly what it wants from foreign governments.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Dan O: “I’ve seen the claim that there is broad coopoeration between most of the West’s intelligence agencies”
Well, there is ECHELON, for one thing.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Dan O
You refer to, I think the Echelon program which is pretty much you do our guys, we’ll do yours.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
You guys need to chill. He wins in November and then lurches back left, to the position you favor, because that is what he believes, because all those supporters will demand it, and because the democrat majority in Congress will ensure it.
Your time will soon arrive.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
As it happens, I’m finding the Obama campaign unusually responsive…
reg Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 am
“…if by the end of October (Obama) promises to put a NASCAR track around the White House….”
Today - “SI.com has learned that for the first time in history, a major presidential candidate may sponsor a race car in NASCAR’s premier series. According to sources, Barack Obama’s campaign is in talks to become the primary sponsor of BAM Racing’s No. 49 Sprint Cup car for the Pocono race on August 3. Details of the agreement are expected to be worked out over the coming days.”
July 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
That’s disgusting, reg. Can we sink any lower?
July 11th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
too many steves: “He wins in November and then lurches back left, to the position you favor, because that is what he believes, because all those supporters will demand it, and because the democrat majority in Congress will ensure it.”
So let me get this straight: an oathbreaker can be trusted to uphold his oath of office, where he swears to defend the constitution, to resist the temptation to shred that document in order to maintain or expand his power, even though he has just shown his willingness to break his oaths and shred the constitution to expand his power, from that of one voice among a hundred to the head of an entire branch of government, a branch that now has expanded powers he just voted to give it?
Meanwhile his supporters somehow have the power to hold him accountable even though their reelection support is guaranteed because they will always vote for what they perceive as the lesser-of-two-evils?
And, of course, the Democratic congress, a large segment of which voted for this travesty, and not one of whom voted to convict President Clinton, will take on a president of their own party and risk the White House falling into the hands of the greater-of-two-evils?
This ability Obama supporters have to believe despite the clear evidence of his actions reminds me of fundamentalists who believe evidence of evolution was planted by God to test their faith.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
# kendali Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
That’s disgusting, reg. Can we sink any lower?
Think of this NASCAR thing as the world’s most expensive bumper sticker…
July 12th, 2008 at 1:47 am
People need to understand that the law is inherently political - this is expressed in many ways, when we say that congress is corrupt, or that legislation is for the benefit of some and not others. The laws that we live under are the product of political forces, not the embodiment of ideal justice. However, there is this type of double-think that takes place (to use and Orwell phrase), because at the same time people believe that the law is impartial - a set of politically neutral rules, and that they are applied to all citizens who have the moral obligation to obey!
So consequently a great number of people are shocked when they find out that a court has allowed political consideration to influence it’s decisions(s). This “shock,” along with a few choice outcry’s of “judicial activism” or “social engineering,” shows that the public believes that the law is a set of neutral principles - and that the judge is supposed to apply matters objectively, free of influence from his/her political or moral beliefs and is not supposed to consider who is in the dock.
We are constantly aware of the political nature of the law and yet also believe it is the embodiment of justice - this is why the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ABLE TO EXERT CONTROL OVER A PEOPLE THAT CALL THEMSELVES FREE. THIS IS WHY WE ALLOW THE STEADY EROSION OF OUR FREEDOMS - THE DECEPTION OF THE RULE OF LAW. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SOCIETY THAT HAS NEUTRAL LAWS THAT ARE APPLIED BY JUDGES! THIS IS A DEVIOUS, POWERFUL CONCEPT, AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS!
The power of this deception comes from it’s emotional appeal (the rule of law). It implies the absence of tyranny, that there is nothing arbitrary about it. “AMERICA IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAW AND NOT PEOPLE…” - SAYING THAT IT IS FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, NOT SUBJECT TO HUMAN WHIM.
It is supposed to win the allegiance and affection of the people. Why, anyone would chose the rule of law over arbitrary rule, wouldn’t they? This is the danger of the deception, people who believe there are rules in this fashion ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE STATE AS IT TAKES AWAY THEIR FREEDOMS!
If there were a rule of law, first and foremost it would be the application of that law to EVERYONE. No one above that law - is that what you see going on? Is the rule of law the fruit of breaking every established law by the executive branch and the complicity of the rest? I mean, are we living on the same planet here or not? Now I am not saying there is no law, there is plenty of law for you and I, just none for a moneyed, propertied, and ruling elite.
Really people, there is NO SUCH THING as a government of law and not people - it is belief in this myth that supports the ruling elite which are the societies power structure, A TRULY FREE PEOPLE REQUIRES THAT WE THROW OUT THE DECEPTION OF THE RULE OF LAW! There is nothing impersonal about the disposition of people making law, it is meant to benefit them and not the people.
The concept of the rule of law operates in the same fashion as the divine right of kings. People used to control themselves when they believed that the decree of the king was ordained by god. In the same way people control themselves because they believe the law is neutral , sort of like a natural law, when it is not (two different and opposing rulings can come from the same case).
Just like the king was supposed to be part of god’s plan in the world and not an ordinary human being who used brute force, so the public bowed to his authority. However, when the doctrine of the divine right of kings was thrown out IT NEEDED A REPLACEMENT - TO SHIELD THOSE WHO EXERCISE PUBLIC POWER FROM THE VIEW OF THE PEOPLE - THE RULE OF LAW.
The deception of the rule of law makes people submissive to State authority - it makes people accomplices in the exercise of power. People who would ordinarily think that the actions of this current administration are wrong, depriving people of their rights and oppressing them, respond with patriotic fervor when they think they are upholding the rule of law!
The reason why this deception of the rule of law has stood so long is that it is a valuable tool of the elite. The lie of an impersonal government is the most effective means of social control available to the powers that be!
The reason why some see the so-called rule of law disintegrating before their eyes is because there isn’t any! It has always been a tool of the elite, and now that is becoming apparent by this rogue administration, and the rest of the “powers” just meander along with it.
The rule of law is the means whereby a illegitimate and oppressive capitalistic system enslaves it’s own people, and spreads death and destruction around the world under the banner of “democracy.” The law will ALWAYS reflect the moral and political values of those who render political decision.
July 12th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Well, yes. It’s called Presidential politics. You do during the campaign what you need to in order to get elected so that you can govern as you believe. Cynical, I know, but it is the system we’ve got. Lest you think I’m picking on Obama, I would offer that the “Maverick” operates the same way. Evidence? Well, look at all the hand-wringing among the GOP faithful about Senator McCain…
July 12th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Will Progressives Go Gently Into Another Political Night?
After the Obama Betrayal
By GREGORY KAFOURY
From The New York Times to The Huffington Post, from Counterpunch.org to The Nation, the outcry is the same: Obama is not the man he presented himself to be.
As he now panders to seemingly any right-wing group that can fill a room, his staff is arranging fundraisers where the cover charge is $30,000. Bob Herbert of the NYT echos the “disillusion” of “many of Obama’s strongest supporters who are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry.”
Across the progressive spectrum, the consensus is that Obama has abandoned any prospect for a transformational presidency, breathed life into a moribund and discredited right-wing, and incomprehensibly placed his very election at risk.
Most crucially, Obama has made the utterly cynical calculation that there is no price to be paid for abandoning his base, that the mantra of Anybody But Bush seamlessly melds into Anybody But McCain, that progressives will simply surrender.
So sure is Obama that progressives will bear any insult that he has taken to channeling the odious Jeanne Kirkpatrick of the Reagan era, denouncing those “counter-culturalists” who opposed the imperial wars from Vietnam to El Salvador and Nicaragua as the “blame America” crowd.
If Obama’s analysis of progressives is correct, we can expect another depressing campaign, what Herbert calls “the terminal emptiness of politics as usual,” followed by a presidency that honors right-wing ideology while serving corporate power.
But what if Obama is wrong? What if progressives have a breaking point? We have seen a revolt against Obama’s FISA/Telecom betrayal play out on Obama’s website, but the candidate has already responded to those dismayed supporters by essentially blowing them off. Is this a “deal-breaker,” he asks, as if to say, “What are you going to do about it?”
There are some who suggest doing something. John Nichols of The Nation suggests a coordinated push to get Ralph Nader into a debate with Obama and McCain. Google and YouTube are sponsoring a debate in New Orleans this fall, and the bar is set at 10% support. Nader is at 6% according to CNN, and those who would vote for him if he were competitive was 14% in a recent Fox poll. It is vastly easier to go from 14% to 30% than to go from nothing to 14%.
Nader would be — to say the least — a formidable presence in any debate. Once one gets beyond the caricature of Nader promoted by the political establishment, one sees a candidate who has intimate knowledge of every aspect of our corporate government, because we learn about an institution not by yielding to it, but by opposing it, something Nader alone has done for decades. Further, he is a man who has never flattered us, never pandered to our baser instincts and never lied to us.
The prospect of such a debate would get Obama’s attention; the reality of it might shift the center of our politics as nothing else holds the promise of doing.
For those who do not wish to go gently, there is an alternative.
Gregory Kafoury is a trial lawyer and political activist in Portland, Oregon. He can be reached at kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com.
Shop at Amazon.com
July 12th, 2008 at 9:16 am
OK reg, I’ll think of the way you suggested. But, to expand the analogy, how do I think of the car with the bumper sticker? I’m pretty sure it (the U. S of A.) is heading downhill. It’s a sign of the times, and a pretty scary one at that.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
> He wins in November and then lurches
>back left, to the position you favor,
>because that is what he believes,
>because all those supporters will
>demand it, and because the
>democrat majority in Congress will ensure it.
I speculate that you are talking about Obama, but there’s not much more reason to indulge in this hallucination about him than about McCain.
We’re back to a another round of liberal self-delusion. Obama’s a centrist running as expected nominee of a party paid for by, among others, military contractors, telecomm companies, health insurance companies, service sector employers, investment banks. Let’s put this in clear terms: he *works for the other side.*
If the DP was ever going to betray its corporate sponsors and move to the left, it would have done so in response to the wide-open opportunity of the last couple of years. I can’t imagine what more they should do to prove they don’t deserve our support. I suppose love of punishment is part of the liberal guilt complex.
Four years from now, the war is still going on, you are *legally required* to buy health insurance for $15,000 a year from one of a cartel of DP-donating companies, Merrill Lynch runs your “private social security account” for a modest 4% a year fee, all your phone calls are tapped, your car is tracked 24/7 by GPS, and your kids have to recite the catechism of their choice in public school. Liberal are still talking about how important it is to reelect Obama because he might have a secret plan to build more windmills. It will still be crazy then. Nader ‘12!
July 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
too many steves: “Cynical, I know”
It strikes me as the exact opposite, as naive: naive to think that politicians are immune to the temptation to expand their power, to take a stroll down that scenic road to Hell, even when they’ve show during their campaigns that they are already far down that path. This reminds me of a man who hooks up with a married woman, assuming that when she leaves her husband for her paramour she will be faithful to her new partner, and is shocked to find her later cheating on him. The man rationalized her initial cheating because it was the very thing that allowed him to be with her and because being with her gave him pleasure her cheating couldn’t signify a character flaw but must be the result of unique circumstances because, you see, her husband was a dick and wouldn’t give her what she needed so, of course, she would cheat on that prick to get it but she would have no reason to cheat on her new love, no sir.
I also don’t happen to see this trend in modern politics that you speak of in which presidents run right and govern left.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“Nader would be a formidable presence in the debates”
Nope - he talks too “White!”
July 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
If we look at Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, & Bush II, as well as their opponents, I think we see that they campaign to the Left or Right during the nomination contest, and then move to the center for the Presidential campaign. That is how I judge Obama’s recent positioning. I expect that he is what he is; a tried and true leftist Liberal (Progressive, if you prefer). He did, during the candidate campaign, seek out and receive the endorsement of the far Left - in my State that is: Kennedy, Kerry, and Duval who all dumped the Clintons for him. That bill will come due when Obama is elected.
I don’t criticize him for it; he is doing what he needs to do to be elected. If you need to blame someone for this sorry state of affairs, blame the electorate that rewards this sort of behavior.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
too many steves: “I think we see that they campaign to the Left or Right during the nomination contest, and then move to the center for the Presidential campaign”
I wasn’t referring to nomination campaigning vs. general election campaigning but to pre-election behavior vs. post-election behavior, which is the meat of the issue here, that is, what Obama will actually do if elected, and Clinton is the perfect example. He ran liberal and governed centrist or even center-right. A case in point: gays in the military. Pre-election he promised to permit it but, post-election, not only did he quickly break that promise but later went on to sign the defense of marriage act. Not only did Clinton not “lurch back to the left,” he actually lurched to the right. The actual governance of modern presidents has been to the right of their campaigns. I think you may be mistakenly assuming that because modern conservative presidents have campaigned center and then swung to the right once in office that the converse must be happening on the other side of the aisle where modern liberal presidents campaign to the center and then swing left once in office. I have not seen this happen at all. What I’ve seen is a shift to the right once in office, regardless of party. I expect no different from an opportunist like Obama. If Obama is willing to break promises and trash the constitution now in order to gain power there’s little reason to think he won’t do the same once in office in order to gain some more.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
You seem to forget, or ignore, the electorate sweeping in a Republican House and Senate, Sniper.
The Clinton governed as liberal as they thought they could and still get be re-elected.
Obama won’t have that problem, with liberal majorities in both Houses. He will lurch as far left as he thinks he can and still get another term. His basic ideology is left of liberal.
I failed to see the imperative to overturn thousands of years of precedence of men marrying women, in order to accomodate the ’special’ sensitivities of a small minority of the sexually handicaped.
Children matter more than adults, and need the unique characteristic of both a male and a female in their growing years.
July 12th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
As well as their educational years in school. There is absolutely know need to be confusing children with the sexual preferences of adults when they are too young to know what the hell sex even is.
This homosexual political agenda crap in our elementary schools, driven by the wacko left domination of the NEA, needs to stop. In fact the whole damned political agenda, from kindergarten through college, of our children public educational system, is out of hand. It has been loaded up with left wing zelots for way too long.
July 13th, 2008 at 3:16 am
That is the difference: the Congress will remain in the control of the Democrats, so I see two things happening when Obama is elected:
1. He comfortably returns to his more Left positions from the Centrist ones he espouses now;
2. He is put under pressure by Left wing Democrats to pursue and approve their agenda.
The questions for Obama supporters are: which Obama is the real one, and how much does it concern you that he changes his positions to fit the political circumstances?
July 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Jim R: “You seem to forget, or ignore, the electorate sweeping in a Republican House and Senate, Sniper.”
Actually, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented in 1993, a year before the midterms in which Republicans took control of the Senate.
Jim R: “sexually handicaped”
No need to be bisexist. Monosexuals are people too, you know.