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.
I was kind of surprised to see Virginia Senator Jim Webb at the top of the GMD Veepstakes poll. True, he definitely has some attractive qualities as a potential candidate, some of his economic policies are truly populist, and him being on the ticket would most certainly fill in some of the support gaps where Obama is lacking. But Webb is no progressive, and he's got some views that might (and should) present a problem for women and persons of color. Jack has briefly touched upon this in a post below, but there's a bit more to this story. Go below the jump for more.
Webb is undoubtedly a better Senator than his predecessor, George “Macaca” Allen. And there'd be a certain amount of schadenfreude in Webb making it into the Veep slot, as Allen had presidential aspirations until his not-so-covert racism did him in. But I think there's a just a bit too much “good-ol'-boy” in Webb for him to get the gig, considering that a huge part of our country's problems lie in that attitude being prevalent for so long. Now, this has been discussed before, but Webb's a pretty “traditional” guy when it comes to gender-related issues. Granted, one can hope that with age, he's come around, but there's a lot to be gathered from his 1979 article in the Washingtonian, called “Why Women Can't Fight”:
Lest I be understood too quickly, I should say that I believe most of what has happened over the past decade in the name of sexual equality has been good. It is good to see women doctors and lawyers and executives. I can visualize a woman President. If I were British, I would have supported Margaret Thatcher. But no benefit to anyone can come from women serving in combat.
The function of combat is not merely to perpetrate violence, but to perpetrate violence on command, instantaneously and reflexively.The function of the service academies is to prepare men for leadership positions where they may someday exercise that command. All of the other accomplishments that Naval Academy or West Point or Air Force Academy graduates may claim in government or business or diplomacy are incidental to that clearly defined combat mission.
[snip]
Nowhere is this more of a problem than in the area of women's political issues. Equal-opportunity specialists, women's rights advocates, and certain members of Congress have prided themselves on the areas of the military they have “opened up” to women. The Carter administration has come out in favor of “allowing” women to go into combat. These advocates march under the banner of equal opportunity.
Equal opportunity for what? They should first understand that they would not be “opening up” the combat arms for those few women who might now want to serve in them, but rather would be forcing American womanhood into those areas, en masse, should a future mobilization occur.
Now, personally, I'd like to see less men and women in combat, period. And undoubtedly, Webb is a creation of the military, male-centric culture, his views are hardly unique, and he has said that his views on that have changed.That's not justifying them. But I can hardly see how this will help him, especially as the party is working to pull disgruntled Hillary supporters back into the fold, in particular the ones who feel she was “robbed” of the nomination. The last thing needed right now is a man on the ticket who has more or less told women to “be in their place”, so to speak. And not just strategically… I don't think we need someone who harbors (or has harbored) that attidude in the #2 spot, becuse it's simply wrong.
Now, the Confederacy, and more specifically, how one interprets the aims, essence, and spirit of the Confederacy, has become a much more sensitive topic in recent years, and rightly so (heck, just look at what we've been talking about on GMD about the VT Neo-Confederates in our midst, lately). Often, when symbols of the Confederacy are under attack, or that notion that the “state's right” that it was all about was primarily the “right” to have slaves, the apologists can often try to paint it in the color of “preserving Southern pride and heritage”. Webb has written about the Confederacy over his career, and David Mark at the Politico has just done a piece regarding Webb's views on that subject, and how it may be a problem for him:
He has suggested many times that while the Confederacy is a symbol to many of the racist legacy of slavery and segregation, for others it simply reflects Southern pride. In a June 1990 speech in front of the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, posted on his personal website, he lauded the rebels’ “gallantry,” which he said “is still misunderstood by most Americans.”
Webb, a descendant of Confederate officers, also voiced sympathy for the notion of state sovereignty as it was understood in the early 1860s, and seemed to suggest that states were justified in trying to secede.
“Most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery,” he said. “Love of the Union was palpably stronger in the South than in the North before the war — just as overt patriotism is today — but it was tempered by a strong belief that state sovereignty existed prior to the Constitution and that it had never been surrendered.”
Now, I can't profess to know what is in Jim Webb's heart, but that his statements don't exactly make this Yankee feel all tingly inside. Now, those of you who were paying close attention to the Second VT Republic controversy (or if you pay attention to hate groups in general) may be familiar with the name of Edward H. Sebesta, author of the Anti-NeoConfederate Blog. Sebesta was interviewed for the article, and found Webb's statements troubling:
Edward H. Sebesta, co-author of the forthcoming “Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction” (University of Texas Press), said Webb’s views express an unhealthy regard for a political system that propped up and defended slavery.
His book, in fact, will cite Webb as an example of the mainstreaming of neo-Confederacy ideas into politics…“I don’t think people have thought through the implications of how his ideas have racial overtones, even if they are inadvertent,” Sebesta said.
Let me emphasize here, it's not just about “how it's percieved”. Political junkies know all too well how the perception game, when played sucessfully, can mask a less-than-well-intentioned agenda. Now, I'm not saying Webb is a racist or anything along those lines. I don't think he'd be a good choice in the end, not just because of the perception issue, moreso that I believe Webb, populism aside, is a bit too traditional in attitudes that American needs to be changing, and would not sit well with Obama's “change” mantra, for better or worse. We don't need more good 'ol boys at the top of the ladder.
I might as well take this John McCain-related post to let you all know about why there's so many John McCain links on here. Chris Bowers at Open Left has this great idea going, called Searching for John McCain.
Now that the primaries are over, as the general populace gets more interested in the election, many of them will turn to the internet to get information about the candidates, including John McCain, Unfortunately, due to the perpetual hard-on that the MSM has had for McCain over the last few years, there's still a lot of “maverick” nonsense at the top of the search engines, instead of articles highlighting what a conservative, corrupt Neanderthal John McCain really is, which is quite apparent by looking at his record and his statements.
We're hoping to change that, by getting as many bloggers and blog readers as possible to link to a certain list of articles highlighting the real McCain record, any time you mention John McCain, even if it's in your comment sig line or you leave a comment on a blog somewhere. Just make sure it has “McCain” or “John McCain” with it linked to one of the below articles (which are all hard news articles, not blog posts or anything like that).
Read the article for the details, but I've put the list below for you (with their current rankings), as well. The more they are linked to, the higher they will appear in search engine rankings, and the higher the likelihood that people will come across them when searching for John McCain. Do your part, regardless of how you feel about Obama.
It's BAAACK… Almost two years after the Vermont secession group Second Vermont Republic's cozy ties to racist neo-Confederate groups were publicized here, VT Secession, and Five Before Chaos, the premier organization for tracking hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has finally released its much-anticipated report about the group and its “sister organization,” the Vermont Commons newspaper.
Now, those of you who have been reading GMD for a while don't need a rehash of this fiasco, in which it got to the point where SVR's crazy guru Thomas Naylor engaged in a smear campaign which almost cost GMD founder John Odum his job. For the initial post, go here. There's also a ton of info at VT Secession, the blog that broke the story. To make a long story short, they dug in their heels, people involved with a conscience were either dismissed or left (that would not include VT Commons' Rob Williams, who up until then seemed like a genuine progressive), and SVR's pretty much a one man show now, where when not talking to his Neo-Confederate buddies about the good 'ol days, Thomas Naylor probably wanders his hallways at night in his fuzzy slippers and bathrobe speaking to the ghost of Ethan Allen about the coming revolution. Right.
The SPLC report is quite well-documented, from the nefarious ties, the relationships and trust that were broken, and most importantly, Thomas Naylor's crazy-man, unrepentant demeanor. It's really amazing how a person who repeated ad nauseum how he has fought and opposed racism his whole life (which of course, does not preclude going on a white-supremacist radio show recently, where he was called “obviously a good Confederate”) can compartmentalize his mind so masterfully:
“Naylor also is down on desegregation. In a 2007 essay, “Minority States NOT Minority Rights,” Naylor criticizes segregation but also “forced racial integration,” complaining that the federal government was in the 1950s and 1960s “ordering me to associate with minorities whether I like it or not.” Overall, Naylor can't abide by the idea that since civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, “minority rights always trump states' rights.” “
That's a pretty bold anti-segregationist statement, eh? And VT Commons (whose editor is Naylor's buddy Rob “I-don't know-if-they're-racist-and-frankly-don't-care'” Williams) as recently as Feb. 5th had this quote about freedom and unity from fringe-bat Carol Moore:
“Those “identity groups” of whatever identity who desire separation to preserve their culture or live out a vision or lifestyle should not have to waste time and resources in defending or fighting discrimination lawsuits and onerous zoning laws and can focus it on building community.”
But Naylor, in all his zany glory, is a unreconstructed rebel to the end:
In the face of these criticisms, Naylor remains defiant. “I don't give a shit what you write,” he told the Report. “If someone tells me that I shouldn't associate with the League of the South, it guarantees that I will associate with the League of the South.”
That really says it all, doesn't it? A rebel to the bitter end in the truest sense. Heh.
UPDATE: VT Commons editor Rob Willams bobs and weaves around the issue in an interview with the SPLC here, including his “don't know, don't care” comment. Just to let me refresh your memory, here is the exact quote we allegedly took out of context:
“some of our secession scholars – Don Livingston, for example – happen to be southerners. Anyone who has met and talked with Don knows the man is thoughtful and well-studied. Is he a racist? I don’t know. And frankly, it is none of my damn business, at a personal level.”
Senator Ted Kennedy went in for brain surgery to have that tumor removed today at Duke University. He is out now and doctors say it was successful and accomplished its goals (not sure what to make of that). Kennedy was awake during the surgery and apparently in good spirits:
Asked by his wife, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, how he felt after the surgery, he said, “I feel like a million bucks. I think I’ll do that again tomorrow,” Kennedy’s office said.
He’s going to start chemotherapy, as well. Best of luck to him.
Busy day today, so unfortunately I can't spend a bit more on this, but I was reading this article on CNN this morning that the Dept. of Transportation's latest figures have shown the steepest decline in driving in March since records were recorded:
Compared with March a year earlier, Americans drove an estimated 4.3 percent less — that's 11 billion fewer miles, the DOT's Federal Highway Administration said Monday, calling it “the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history.” Records have been kept since 1942.
This is good news. Now, I know, finding the silver lining in higher gas prices is not a popular notion in mainstream America. But aside from the obvious environmental benefit, there's something much deeper at work here, possibly a reorganization of American society.
Much of the hardship in America due to these prices is unmistakably due to one simple, “duh, obvious” fact: we've designed our entire society around the combustion engine, whether it be the way we live, the way our food is distributed, you name it. It's really a lack of long-term vision, something Americans in general have never had as a strong point. And I predict that $5 a gallon gas is going to make that obvious to even the most clueless, when people who live in tract-housing planned communities really start to realize that they do really live in the middle of nowhere. They have to drive to go everywhere, to do anything.
Now, I live 5 miles up a dirt road on a tiny mountain-hill thing. But I can still bike to numerous farms and such in town and get my food. Work will present a problem should I change jobs, as I work from home – but another positive with the gas prices is that I think we're going to start to see a huge influx in telecommuting jobs. There are a lot of office jobs in this country that really don't need to be in the office.
Some other plusses: I think developers (and potential homebuyers) might rethink the current patterns of development in this country – the cookie-cutter houses out in a former field, with all of the amenities available that can only be driven to. Perhaps a revitalization of downtowns on an epic scale is in the works, who knows?
Another plus – perhaps there won't be so much plastic produced anymore. Granted, transporting glass requires more energy, but if distribution networks get smaller, that won't be as much of an issue, either.
Now, I know it's easy to accuse me of ignoring the many hardships that these gas prices will involve (and I'm not even going to go into the concept that in terms of true cost, such as the dead soldiers and environmental factors , $7 a gallon gas is still a bargain). Any major paradigm shift is never painless. Some people will hurt more than others, and a few are going to be okay or perhaps even at an advantage because of the lifestyles they have chosen. And, yes, unfortunately, like everything else, the poor will be hit much harder than the rich. So it's going to be shitty.
But it's inevitable, and it's going to happen. We can't drill our way out of this mess, as much as many would like to. That's just more short-sightedness. Whatever we do, it's going to take some extremely forward-thinking, courageous leadership (not too common in the U.S.). I remember when Bush the first went to some enviro summit in South America years ago and gave the asinine line along the lines of “The American lifestyle is not negotiable.” Well, it's going to have to be, we're not going to have much say in the matter, shortly. That kind of arrogant behavior is what got us in this mess to begin with. It's not going to be pretty, especially when we have a huge portion of the population that doesn't even think about the impact their lifestyle of perpetual convenience has on the planet and society at large. It's something to both dread (short-term) and highly anticipate.
Once again, it's easy for me to be casual about this, living in the bubble of Vermont. But I'm well aware of how bad things can and possibly will get for everyone, and I don't dismiss that casually. I'm certainly not coming at if from a “that'll show 'em” mindset (although I feel zero sympathy for the guy that commutes to his office job in his Ford Excursion – that's just plain dumb). I think we will make it through this, difficult as it may be, and what comes out on the other end will be something completely different, and ultimately we will be better off because of it.
Some sad news regarding Ted Kennedy and his seizure a few days ago. It has been reported that the cause was a malignant brain tumor:
A cancerous brain tumor caused the seizure Sen. Edward M. Kennedy suffered over the weekend, doctors said Tuesday in a grim diagnosis for one of American politics' most enduring figures. “He remains in good spirits and full of energy,” the doctors for the 76-year-old Massachusetts Democrat said in a statement.
They said tests conducted after the seizure showed a tumor in Kennedy's left parietal lobe. Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma, they said.
His treatment will be decided after more tests but the usual course includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy.
Our thoughts go out to Sen. Kennedy and his family, and let's hope he turns out okay.
A few weeks ago, I wrote here about outdoor writer Dennis Jensen's excellent blast of Jim Douglas' photo-op on the opening day of trout season, in which he couldn't even be troubled by baiting his own hook. Now, as I pointed out before, what I like about Jensen among other things, is his willingness to delve into political matters from time to time that go against the orthodoxy of his generally conservative-leaning audience. I was on the lookout for a backlash after that latest article. The only one to be seen came in the form of a letter to the editor from, who else but, Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Wayne Laroche, one of the few Douglas admins who haven't jumped ship lately. Laroche, the guy who baited Douglas' hook, offered up a defense of Douglas that illustrates exactly why Douglas continually seems to get a pass from voters: the illusion of doing something, as well as a rather selective airing of the accomplishments.
Part of what I attribute to Douglas' continuing electoral success (aside from his role as “The Great Preventer”, who keeps the non-existent nefarious liberal-Marxist elements at bay) is that on the surface, if you're one who doesn't follow politics closely, he sure seems like a busy guy. Breaking ground at new constructions, cutting ribbons, singing the praises of McDonalds' “nutritious food” the day after appearing at an event to support the importance of buying local food, marching in parades, etc. For some people that really seems to be enough. And Laroche's letter to the editor appeals to that mindset.More below the jump.
Laroche's letter (available here for the next few days here) starts of by calling his baiting of Douglas' hook as “enthusiasm” (apparently Douglas wan't so enthused about it as to get his hands dirty), and then goes on to lay it on us thick with this one:
The Douglas administration, of which I am part, has succeeded at improving hunting and fishing opportunities in Vermont during the past five years. The governor has also been there as a supporter of fish and wildlife at events of all kinds and recognizes that there is more to do to improve and protect these important natural resources.
Laroche, like many modern-day GOP politicos, has a rather selective memory. It was not that long ago that Douglas sabotaged the New England Wilderness Act of 2006, in which our delgation at the time worked very hard to add and protect over 45,000 more acres to protected wilderness. At the very last minute, Douglas wrote to then House Enviro Chair Richard Pombo, one of the most anti-environmental congressman in modern history, to complain that there was not enough public input on the bill (not true). Douglas' last-minute sabotage effectively killed the bill at the time. Laroche himself has been no friend to wilderness, as he was a rather vocal opponent of the Champion lands deal a few years back.
So selective memory, and illusion. The illusion:
This is the first governor in 40 years that has stood on a stream bank and supported fishing. Yes, Dennis, I too will not be surprised, “come the second Saturday of April 2009,” to find Governor Douglas at my side at the water's edge, once again, fishing!
How much you wanna bet that “the second Saturday of April 2009” is the only day Jim Douglas goes fishing next year? I sure “will not be surprised” if that' s the case. Laroche insults our intelligence, he really does, when he expects us to construe a contrived photo-op with the real deal (as Jensen pointed out, “It looks good. It makes him look like he's one of “us.” And looking good, saying the right things and acting “the part” is all that matters, when it comes to getting elected and re-elected.”).It kind of reminds me of when you see Bush visiting a factory where people actually work for a living and there's a picture of him turning the lever on a giant machine or something else that makes it look like for a split second ( the click of a shutter, to be more accurate) he actually can relate to the working men and women of America. I'd rather see him have to eat spam three times a week and not go to the dentist for a tooth abscess for three months because he can't afford it, if I were to believe he has a clue about what working people really have to deal with in this country today.
How many Fish and Wildlife meetings has Douglas attended? Does he even know the difference between a rainbow and a brookie, or a goby and a minnow? What's next, a photo-op on opening day of deer season with Laroche loading Douglas' rifle, as Douglas's rubber-gloved hands take it and fire off a shot or two?
I gripe, but the truth of the matter is that this technique seems to be an effective one for our photo-op governor. For many, “acting” is more important than “being” or “doing”(just look at the gooey con-love for Ronald Reagan and Fred Thompson). And whoever faces down Douglas this year, regardless of the party, needs to drive this point home – Jim Douglas is not “one of us”. Photo-ops, obstructionist, and out-of-touch is what really defines Jim Douglas.
