Cue sound of smacking forehead. This is getting old. From Kos:
That means, of course, de facto amnesty for the telcos. The federal district court would not be deciding on the legality of the program, they would be limited to determining if the White House showed the telcos a piece of paper saying that the warrantless program was legal enough–which we already know. They're going to try to justify it with that “substantial evidence” business, as if defining that piece of paper as “substantial” somehow makes the fact that they are directing the court to make its decision, regardless of the law, not a travesty.
“A formal statement goes out making it clear that everyone — Democrats, Republicans, House, Senate — agrees that telecoms should have retroactive immunity.”
“I've now just read a copy of the final “compromise” bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the “Protect America Act,” so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is”
You know what to do, folks. If you have a blog, please spread the word, or at the very least, get some friends to make some phone calls.
Contact Nancy Pelosi: District Office – 450 Golden Gate Ave. – 14th Floor – San Francisco, CA 94102 – (415) 556-4862 – Washington, D.C. Office – 235 Cannon HOB – Washington, DC 20515 – (202) 225-4965 FAX: 202-225-4188
Contact Steny Hoyer (who is to blame for a good deal of this happening): 1705 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone – (202) 225-4131 Fax – (202) 225-4300
As expected, as the general election is now upon us Obama is showing signs of moving rightward (or, if you prefer, to the "center"). His recently revealed National Security Working Group is hardly a bastion of forward thinking progressives – there's a lot of Clinton leftovers in that group. (more from Chris Hayes here on that and what it means).
But more troubling to me is the "business as usual" crap that gets my goat, all the more frustrating when juxtaposed with the "change" mantra. It's more of the same "party above principle" b.s. that makes all that "doing it for the American people" stuff just another line. Obama's recently chosen to go this route in regards to a Georgia election.
Those of you who follow primary battles in other parts of the nation probably are familiar with the Maryland Dem primary for a House seat where Donna Edwards, an extraordinarily progressive candidate, defeated corrupt-as-hell corporatist incumbent Al Wynn. Nancy Pelosi chucked her so-called "San Franciso values" to the wind and endorsed Wynn. Party over principle.
And now Obama is unfortunately doing something similar. As Glenn Greenwald is reporting, Obama has just taped a radio endorsement for Congressman John Barrow, from Georgia's 12th district. This stinks to high heaven, for several reasons, as Greenwald points out:
And now Obama turns around and intervenes in a Democratic primary on behalf of one of the worst Bush enablers in Congress — not in order to help Barrow defeat an even-worse Republican, but to defeat a far better and plainly credible Democratic challenger.
[snip]
Making matters much worse here, Obama — who has removed himself almost completely from the pending eavesdropping and telecom amnesty debate — recorded this ad for Barrow on the eve of that bill's passage, all in order to keep in power a key Democratic supporter of this FISA/amnesty bill. Yet telecom amnesty is not merely a side issue but is one of the purest expressions of what Obama claims so vigorously to oppose in Washington.
Go below the jump for more.
Here's Barrow's latest campaign commercial:
But what really says it all about this guy…
And yet, here's Obama's take on it (quoted from the Greenwald piece, emphasis mine):
"Senator Obama believes that Congressman Barrow has worked hard to bring change that families in his district deserve, and we'll work hard to help John Barrow win in November," Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.
In the ad, Obama asks voters to join him in supporting Barrow. "We're going to need John Barrow back in Congress to help change Washington and get our country back on track," Obama says in the 60-second ad.
Barrow has been outspoken in his approval of warrantless surveillance, his hard-on for the telcoms and contempt for civil liberties has no limits on its tumescence.
And who is Barrow's primary challenger? Regina Thomas, a progressive African-American state senator who is staunchly opposed to telcom immunity and the general raping of our civil liberties that gets the GOP salivating. A glance at her record seems to be much more in line with the things Obama supposedly stands for, and she is on the same page as Obama when it comes to FISA. So what gives?
The larger arc of Greenwald's article is about holding Obama accountable on FISA, all the more important as once again, the Dems seem ready to roll over for Mr 25% on, instead of simply waiting for the next president and a much larger majority. What Greenwald says we need to do:
None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts. There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens — either he's the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.
But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.
Pressure of that sort should include demanding that he take meaningful action against this Draconian and lawlessness-enabling bill. This is, after all, a bill which his own party is seeking to pass and justifying their behavior, in part, by claiming that they're doing it to protect Obama politically from being attacked as Weak on Terrorism. If this bill passes and Obama does nothing to stop it, he'll bear significant responsibility for its enactment. Here's his campaign's phone number: (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu].
I called the Obama campaign, and the nice fellow I spoke with informed me that he has been getting a lot of calls over the past few days with people none too happy about the Barrow endorsement, so do your part and call. I asked him if the senator has made or will make a statement addressing this specific issue, as of yet the answer is no, but if enough people call, that could change.
With all of the media spotlight on Obama right now, as well as McCain rapidly going down the crapper as the media gets over its gooey crush on him and is slowly realizing he's not a "maverick" but a "bullshit artist", Obama has an extraordinary opportunity right now that would effectively end this FISA nonsense once and for all, should he take a real stand and show us some of that leadership he seems to promise all of the time. It was one of my biggest criticisms early on in the primary, as some of you may remember. It's easy to talk about leadership… with an issue like this that has massive public support and is at its essence, upholding the principles of the Constitution, it should be even easier to do something about it.
It's time to hold his feet to the fire, now. We don't need a candidate talking about change out of one side of his mouth and helping Bush Dogs out of the other.
Big kudos… looking forward to all those GMD updates I’m sure you’re planning to provide us with back home in Vermont… and have fun in Austin. It’s a great city.
This morning’s headline says it all: “Bipartisan Accord on War Funding Bill.” Did you get that? Yeah, the “bipartisan accord” thing. For those who haven’t had enough coffee yet today, that means that – once again – BOTH the Dems and the Republicans in Congress are agreeing to give the Bush-led military another $165 billion to continue to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well into next year. Yes, next year, past the much-anticipated and hyped date of 1.20.09 when all the good Dems were “hoping” everything would be magically “Obamafied.” Good luck with that.
But there’s really nothing new here. The Dems have been going along with Bush and the Republicans on these wars from the beginning. They overwhelmingly voted to authorize the original force and they’ve fully funded them every single time the big, bad Bush has asked them to. Oh sure, they’ve whined, and squirmed, and begged, and stomped their feet from time to time but, in the end, they’ve always blinked in this little game of funding chicken with Bush.
What’s truly amazing is that even though the Dems keep funding these wars, they keep spewing the anti-war rhetoric. Worse, no matter how high these contradictions continue to pile up, the Dem cheerleaders keep drinking the almighty Kool-Aid and dreamily shaking their “change” and “hope” signs. Go team, go! Right. Over. The. Cliff. Well, when you act like fools, you’ll often be taken as one.
This new war funding bill will keep both wars financially greased until at least May of next year, thus handing Bush one hell of a stick to turn around and poke the Dems, the nation and the world right square in the eye. Impeach him? No, say the Dems, let’s just keeping feeding the beast and his beastly ideas even while he’ll be lounging in Crawford planning his silly little library (sorry, Mr. President, but My Pet Goat is already checked-out).
The Obama campaign was clearly a major player in ironing out this compromise, knowing that it would certainly be a campaign issue. Thus, it should give the antiwar/Obama crowd a reason to stop and reflect what they’re cheering for. Why, for example, would Obama and the Dems punt on the war issue? Worse, why would they agree to fund these wars through what they hope to be the first four months of an Obama administration? Looks like that “change” will be coming later than we thought – if at all.
But I’ll answer my own questions. There shouldn’t be any surprise about the Dems punting on the war issue (again) because that’s all they’ve been doing from the beginning. It’s apparently all they know how to do: huff and puff and then roll over for a belly scratch.
As for agreeing to fund the wars well into what they hope will be an Obama administration, it’s just the first of what will be many, many cave-ins and cop-outs. Wait, it’s not even the first, because this morning Obama announced that he was opting out of public financing for his presidential campaign. But, he noted, he really likes the idea of public financing. Hmm, I’m beginning to see a pattern: Hate the war but fund it, like public financing but reject its funding. And yes means no, right? Got it. Go team, go.
By agreeing to fund the wars for another year, the Obama camp will be able to continue to dodge any specifics on the war issue throughout the campaign. And even if he wins, he’ll have four months to claim that his hands are tied by the yearlong war-funding bill that this Dem-led Congress is about to pass. What a shame, because it also effectively kills any real grassroots potential that could have been harnessed by the stadiums full of screaming Obamacons that will certainly surface in the fall. But they can’t let the issues get in the way of the campaign. It might interrupt the cheering, the check signing and the hope. Oh, the hope!
Vermonters will be interested to know that Welch, Sanders and Leahy will most likely be voting against the war-funding compromise. They’ve clearly got visions of the riff-raff dancing in their offices again if they do anything but vote against it. Yes, indeed, direct action has an impact from time to time. But, before too many Vermonters pat themselves on the back for being oh-so-different, consider that none of the three will take any political risks to kill the bill. You know, things like filibusters, lobbying the leadership to stop the games, and/or the introduction of an alternative bill that would stop the funding now. It’s their party – and they’re staying for the dance.
Make no mistake, the Dems own the war. And forget 1.20.09. The best we can hope for now is 5.20.09.
So is the Lt. Gov candidate State Representative and Doctor Harry Chen (Rut-Windsor 1) of Mendon? That’s what Shay Totten is reporting. It’s a name I’d heard dropped, but hadn’t heard that he had committed. In fact, the good Doctor and his Democratic activist wife Anne Lezak have been away. No doubt reporters are tracking them down for confirmation now, although there’s nothing about it in the dailies yet – meaning that confirmation has likely not been forthcoming. Still, Totten includes a quote from Gaye Symington on the matter, making it seem a lot more solid.
What do you think? Chen’s name recognition is pretty slim. Is it too late in the game for him to close that deficit? On the other hand, how cool would it be to a have a woman on the top of the ticket followed by an Asian-American… and in Vermont!
Talk about anything and everything… its an open thread…
UPDATE: Starting to hear bits and pieces from Chen himself. Totten caught up with him this morning, and he wouldn’t go further than confirming “active consideration.” Hallenbeck reports “he expects to make a decision in the next week or two.”
I have to say, I can’t remember an election cycle in this decade or the last where everyone from the top of the ticket down to many of the County and local races took so long to make their decisions about running. It’s exactly the opposite of what today’s more expensive, media-driven elections clearly require. Bizarre.
The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing “war crimes” and called for those responsible to be held to account.
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who’s now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
Democratic and GOP leaders in the House announced agreement Wednesday on a long-overdue war funding bill they said President Bush would be willing to sign.
The agreement on the war funding bill, announced by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also paves the way for a quick infusion of emergency flood relief for the Midwest, an extension of unemployment payments for the jobless and a big boost in GI Bill college for veterans.
Impeachment is off the table, but funding the criminality can be purchased by a few domestic programs (funded by debt of course).
Thanks, Democratic DC politicians, you have once again helped to enable some of the most despicable creatures ever to haunt our nation’s governments. You do this with willful premeditation. You are just as guilty … period.
And yes … that includes our precious saints of Vermont: the Dem troika of Leahy, Sanders and Welch.
When are YOU going to be disgusted enough that you will say “No more” and take your time/money/vote support away from the enablers?
The problem of aging steel truss bridges is a lot bigger than most of us realize. It was refreshing to read Rep. Sue Minter appropriately expanding the scope of structural issues and transportation impact associated with all of the steel truss bridges across the state. From the June 6th Times Argus:
"What wears my patience thin is that the story of this bridge on Route 2 is something that's playing out in a lot of places in state," Minter says.
Commenting on BP's earlier diary, I discussed the quality of both the Taylor St and Granite St. bridges in Montpelier. But it's one thing to read state inspection reports, as versus taking a ride across the bridge in question in your car.
I can't get all of you in my car, so I decided to bring the bridge to you.
Below the fold: a special report in stills and video produced exclusively for GMD. But feel free to post it where ever you choose.
UPDATE: Some further comments: For career professionals at VTrans/AOT: This commentary does not criticize the good work you bring to the job every day. Please refer to my comment in the discussion in which I support your work. For Sec. David Dill: In my comments I also suggest that you are off to a good start in your leadership position. For AOT Spokesperson Mr. Zicconi: I defend my video commentary wholeheartedly and challenge you to quote me as presenting a report "riddled with inaccuracies." For Political Spokesperson Jason Gibbs: Political spin does not fix our bridges. Thank you in advance.
I’ve got a lot of grace for Barack Obama. He impresses me one moment and pisses me off the next (his AIPAC speech is a prime example). Then there are his staffers who treated me poorly including Suzanne Goldberg of The Guardian U.K. This time however was low. Really low.
It’s from Politico so hopefully they have their facts straight. They’re known for getting their stories wrong.
Ben Smith writes:
“Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.
The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.
“This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”
Heeba Asef, a 25 year-old lawyer who came to see Obama.
“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against by the very person who was supposed to be bringing this change, who I could really relate to,” said Hebba Aref, a 25-year-old lawyer who lives in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. “The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”
The story continues below the fold.
“In Detroit on Monday, the two different Obama volunteers – in separate incidents – made it clear that headscarves wouldn’t be in the picture. The volunteers gave different explanations for excluding the hijabs, one bluntly political and the other less clear.
In Aref’s case, there was no ambiguity.
That incident began when the volunteer asked Aref’s friend Ali Koussan and two others, Aref’s brother Sharif and another young lawyer, Brandon Edward Miller, whether they would like to sit behind the stage. The three young men said they would but mentioned they were with friends.
The men said the volunteer, a 20-something African-American woman in a green shirt, asked if their friends looked and were dressed like the young men, who were all light-skinned and wearing suits.
Miller said yes but mentioned that one of their friends was wearing a headscarf with her suit.
The volunteer “explained to me that because of the political climate and what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans, it’s not good for [Aref] to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,” said Koussan, a law student at Wayne State University.
Both Koussan and Miller said they specifically recalled the volunteer citing the “political climate” in telling them they couldn’t sit behind Obama.
“I was like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Are you serious?'” Koussan recalled.”
Here’s my favorite part:
“… Aref said she was glad Obama had apologized, but she was not entirely satisfied.
“I think this is a much bigger deal than maybe they’re perceiving it as,” she said, noting that Obama had placed a personal call to a television reporter he’d dismissively called “Sweetie.”
“An apology from him personally would be better,” she said, then reconsidered. “If they are true to their word, I think it would suffice to have an invitation to their next rally and have seats behind him and show up on TV.”
Personally, I’m not OK with this. My friend who sent me the story asked me this question: If it’s not their policy then why did they do it? That’s what I want to know.
A friend of mine was at an eighth-grade graduation recently where Lt. Governor Brian Dubie was the keynote speaker. Following the presentation, my friend was absolutely aghast. Here is my friend’s summary of Dubie Don’t’s speech and her reactions to it:
Help. I can’t stand it anymore. Last night at the 8th grade graduation, Lt. Governor Brian Dubie (Dubious?) (Duped?) was the keynote speaker. He began with a theme of advice for the graduates at this “very important event.” However, and I’m not exaggerating here, he went completely off the rails when he spoke about listening to the black box voices of pilots who were about to die. And how in those final seconds when these guys knew they were about to crash and burn, some “pretty amazing things come out.” And … then [he] tried to bridge the gap with asking the grads to think about what they would say in their last moments. Yes, to eighth graders and their parents!!??
“Inappropriate” doesn’t quite capture it.
Also of note was his anecdote about flight training as a pilot and how he couldn’t barf or he would fail his flight test so he had to swallow…and how sometimes you just have to swallow that throwup and go on and give the thumbs-up!
I almost fell out of my chair.
There was more … but my point in writing that we MUST GET GAYE ELECTED. Brian Dubie is just the tip of the iceburg.
While I’ve had my political differences with the very moderate and centrist former Speaker, it’s clear to me that she’s the most qualified of the available candidates to actually be the state’s CEO/ top administrator. And I will work for that outcome.
As for who the Lt. Governor will be … I can’t say that the reported candidacy of Rutland Rep. Dr. Harry Chen makes my heart go pittypat, but it could be worse. In an impassioned speech seconding the endorsement motion at the State Committee meeting, Chen’s wife, Anne Lizak, related the story of Chen’s entering the Republican-dominated Rutland race for Representative: Before he met with Gaye, he wasn’t much interested; afterward, he was excited about running and ready to make Democratic inroads into previously Republican territory.
NanuqFC
In a Time of Universal Deceit, TELLING the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. —George Orwell
Loading ...