Still Not Getting It - Joe Klein Edition Part III

by shep

“The fixation that Democrats, far more than Republicans, have on heresy is one of the weirder, crippling aspects of the party.”

Dear Joe,

The important difference you missed (one more thing you just don’t get) is not that Democrats are more fixated on party orthodoxy than Republicans, it is that to have heresy you must have religion. Or, in the case of Democrats vs. Republicans, you have to believe in something.

One thing that the Bush presidency should have taught you is that Republicans can’t have heresy because they don’t hold any beliefs sacred enough to rebel against - as long as they’re beating Democrats. They didn’t care about trampling on constitutional rights of American citizens, monarchical power, war profiteering, fear-mongering, the health of the military or our troops, fiscal irresponsibility, religion in public policy or corrupt government from the Abramoff congress to the Gonzales Justice Department to the Pat Tillman/Abu Ghraib/Haditha wing of the Pentagon to outright treason in the Vice President’s Office.

They. Just. Don’t. Care. As long as the miscreant with the R next to his name defeats the guy with the D next to his and the brown people and the homosexuals are kept in their places.

On the other hand, real liberals actually believe in some things. Perhaps first among equals, liberals believe in the truth (you can probably already sense why this isn’t going to turn out well for you). They believe that politicians and media stars should be scrupulously careful with it (in particular, they should never, never, never reproduce falsehood without serious criticism or, at least, disclaimer).

And that brings us to what you believe in Joe. Sadly, by all appearance, the truth doesn’t even enter into it.

The importance of the source, relationship or event, yes that matters. The cleverness of the politics, yes that matters. Even the political effectiveness of the lie, that actually matters more than the truth and the motives behind lie, doesn’t it Joe?

You see, you and your DLC pals have telegraphed, promulgated, catapulted and been had by right-wing anti-liberal, anti-Democratic lies over the last twenty years and this past six years is what it got us.

So it isn’t about heresy at all, it’s about basic morality and the evil that happens when people with power fail to act honorably. Still think it’s “weird” that liberals feel perfectly OK telling you and your ilk to go Cheney yourselves?

Well, don’t fret, Joe. The Democratic Party will have healed itself once it has redeemed or purged Blue Dog Democrats, DLC consultants and faux MSM liberals like you. Good luck in your next vocation.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

What It Is Ain't Exactly Clear...

Steve Benen reports at Carpetbagger there's another reason to strip Junket John Boehner's of his Ohio citizenship and deport him as far as possible from the Buckeye State he so regularly embarrasses -- preferably somewhere that has no decent golf courses.

If you've been paying attention through these lazy summer daze, you caught wind of a flurry of activity to (once again) change the FISA law (the one that's got Gonzo in so much hot water) so the President's spying program can be expanded. Something the White House has blocked for the last two years.

Bush talked about it last week, and much laughter ensued over the very idea that we could give give the Bush-Bots even more lighter fluid to douse the Constitution with. Laura Rosen posted the plea from Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, to Congress for a bill to "modernize" FISA. On it's face, the request seemed reasonable if not a bit vague. He spoke strictly about surveillance of foreign operatives on foreign soil -- something that shouldn't need court review whatsoever.

But now, thanks to House Minority Leader Boehner, and Fixed Noise, we learn that the classified FISA Court issued a secret ruling that we couldn't listen in on foreign operatives' conversations (where both subjects were overseas) when it was relayed through part of the network within the U.S. Just so we're clear, that fact was classified. Undoubtedly, there's more we don't and shouldn't know.

IF that's all there is to it, then by all means Congress should fix this problem. As far as I'm concerned, it shouldn't even be a problem. Boehner's revelations fit within both Bush and McConnell's requests. What is sad is that I would not be supportive of removing any checks on this particular administration's use of surveillance whatsoever without the disclosure of this classified information because of their unreasonable secrecy, previous power grabs, contempt of civil liberties and consistent stonewalling. And now it turns out, that the way the Administration was using (or abusing) FISA was indeed unconstitutional right along.

Neither I, nor any foreign operatives should have reason to suspect that the U.S. has the ability to easily monitor communications between two points in other countries, even if a terrorist from Canada is speaking on the phone to another conspirator in Mexico and we tap the line as it runs through Michigan. Of course we can, and should. But Boehner spelled it out in such plain language that even one of the 25 per-centers who just get their news from Fox, and still believe that Saddam Hussein ordered 9/11 can understand it. They were all to eager to smear the judge than question the integrity of Dear Leader, they didn't need to hear this tidbit.

Did they really need a skeptic like me to be okay with this? Or was Boehner really trying to get the support of the islamophobes who already are willing to bomb Mecca, as if ...

All I require is that any new changes to FISA be very carefully weighed consistent with the principles that the privacy of U.S. citizens be protected, always, and that before my communications are tapped, there be some reasonable suspicion that I may be involved in criminal activity -- that's the probable cause determination that I am entitled to based upon my inalienable rights to due process. That's what it means to live in a free society.

A Bridge Too Far

I'm sensitive to the fact that it may be far, far too soon to begin to point fingers regarding the Minneapolis bridge tragedy. But my memory keeps going back to the embarrassingly pork laden $286 Billion highway bill, the one that brought us the Bridge to Nowhere, the one signed into law about the same time the I-35W was determined to be a 50 on a scale of 120 for structural stability.

More people fell off the I-35W bridge than live in the Knik Arm region the Bridge to Nowhere joins to the mainland, including Senator Steven's Chief of Staff and two former aides.

Hell, there were more kids on the bus that (thank god) escaped the catastrophe than live in the Knik Arm region. Fifty people are going to be served by Steven's disgraceful $200 Million pet project -- there were more than that number injured by the bridge collapse in Minneapolis. Is there any doubt that our priorities are completely out of whack?

The bridge-collapse tragedy is a teachable moment: This is your government on conservatism.

This year two Democratic Minnesotan legislatures passed a $4.18 billion transportation package. Minnesota's Republican governor vetoed it because he had taken a no-new-taxes pledge, Grover Norquist-style. That's just what conservative politicians do.

The original bill would have put over $8 billion toward highways, city, and county roads, and transit over the next decade. The bill he let passed spent much less.

Now four people are dead, and counting.

Weirdly enough, the "Knik Arm" of the Cook Peninsula area that is now home to Anchorage Alaska was first explored by Captain Bligh of the Bounty fame. (I live for such trivia.)

Typically, wingnuttystan doesn't want anyone jumping to conclusions, mainly because this looks like yet another reason to denounce conservatism in its current incarnation as an utterly failed philosophy, and is already blaming the media which hasn't even made up its mind where their group-think will take them, and laughing at KOS for pointing out the obvious, that reporting the facts is equivalent to blame -- because the facts have a liberal bias.

Senator Al Franken does indeed have a good ring to it. Mysteriously absent from Senator Coleman's (R-MN) braggadocio about bringing home the pork, is no mention whatsoever about doing anything about this span which apparently had already been labeled structurally suspect.

Since the blog wars over this issue have already started, I guess it's not too early to point fingers, just tasteless. But my god folks, we've spent so much money blowing up and incompetently rebuilding bridges in Iraq, and we've let our own house go to hell. It's got to stop.

This is a tragic reminder that America must be vigilant to ensure the safety of our nation's infrastructure." -- John Edwards.

Just A Huge News Day

RIP: Ingmar Bergman, Tom Snyder, Bill Walsh.

Giants all. (Okay, Walsh was a 49r, but the Giants play in the same city.) I learned about Bergman's genius through the warped eye of Woody Allen's Death Knocks. Tom was my companion through so many all-nighters I've lost count.

Ted Stevens' home raided by FBI and IRS. Scandal Central explains why.

Chief Justice Roberts has a "benign" seizure, whatever that is, and collapses. The docs said it was idiopathic, which is Latin for, "We have no f---ing clue what's wrong with him."

This of course is where you look for the crass partisan joke at the expense of the Chief Justice, like this one, or better yet, here. Outrage at said laughing matter can be found here, tears here. Personally, I think the joke is on the Democrats. After Senator Schumer said no more Bush SCOTUS appointees will get through the Senate, the Chief decided to make Chuck wet his pants. (That, or when he heard about Gonzales' latest application of Constitutional Ju Jitzu, his head started spinning and he got dizzy.)

Speaking of Gonzo, the Talking Anus, John Edwards' idea to send the Attorney General his own giant copy of the Constitution, along with an additional copy for every one who agrees to sign the petition, reminds me of a story.

I was fresh out of law school and saw one of the older attorneys standing at the copy machine, snickering. He pulled a sheet of paper which contained a blown up paragraph from the Ohio Revised Code, six or seven lines enlarged to fit on one sheet. He winked, nodded for me to follow him to his office where he got out a yellow marker and highlighted a key phrase. As he put it in an envelope with our office logo and addressed it to another lawyer, he said, "Sometimes you just have to force people to actually read what the law says." No note, no cover letter. Less can be more!

And no roundup of the day would be complete without news of the future, which could spell doom for Junket John Boehner if it is indeed him in the D.C. Madame's little black book.

Data Mining - Just So We're Clear

The phrase you're looking for is "probable cause."

The source of the conflict is the Bill of Rights.

That's what keeps gnawing at the back of your brain when reading the Sunday Times piece on Data Mining and hearing the Resident's plea to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The idea is simple. Simple so long as you understand the basic principles of what it means to live in a supposedly "free society." For the same reasons that you cannot arrest someone just because they "look guilty," the government cannot order someone's privacy be violated -- searched, wiretapped, etc. -- unless there is a reason to believe the suspect is connected to criminal activity.

You cannot "search" (enter into an area or monitor someone's communications where they have some expectation of privacy) to "discover" probable cause -- it must exist prior to the search.

"So what!" say the Neo-anderthals who surely consider such notions even more quaint than the Geneva Conventions, or habeas corpus. "National Security is at stake! They want to KILL us!!!"

Leaving aside that we survived Nazi Germany and the Soviets without rejecting this cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence, the scheme cannot and will not make us more safe. Not from terrorists, not from drug dealers, rapists, thugs or most certainly, not from the government. But Oh MY! Some nutjob with internet access and a disposable phone really, really hates us. THEY HATE OUR FREEDOMS, so we better eliminate the threat -- by eliminating our freedom.

Feh!

Follow me on this. What happens when someone is prosecuted and in the course of the trial the court learns that the evidence collected was tainted, obtained illegally -- without probable cause? They must throw the evidence out. If that tainted evidence, or other evidence collected as a result of learning the of existence of the original improperly obtained evidence (fruit of the poisoned tree) is the only thing the government has on the suspect -- the suspect goes free. He walks, with the added knowledge that he is being watched, and how he's being watched. Such means become more than useless, worse than counterproductive -- they are dangerous because they create smarter bad guys.

Such doctrines that insist on probable cause were put in place for a reason. It's how we define being free -- free from unreasonable government intrusion into our daily lives. They should not be allowed to harass you because you are somehow different, the wrong color, sexual or political persuasion, the wrong religion or look like you belong to the wrong ethnic heritage.

Nobody is "wrong" in this nation. People do wrong things, true. But here, we correct/punish/prevent wrong behaviors, not eliminate people's freedoms due to their status.

We don't do that here, not in America. At least we're not supposed to. And the only way to insure that our liberties are protected from the government who derives its authority from us, is to prevent it from using evidence it never should have acquired in the first place against us.

State police power is an awesome thing, subject to a whole host of abuses and unjust applications if not checked by reasonable limits. The government has the power to end your life, take away your freedom and throw away the key, and confiscate all you own. It is hardly too much to insist that it only does so within reason -- and that means having a legitimate, reasonable suspicion that you are involved in a criminal enterprise before they start listening to your every conversation and put a tail on you and everyone you associate with, especially those that attend the same mosque.

And that's the hat trick all in one fell swoop, ignoring our first liberties as Americans embodied in the First Amendment. Speech, assembly and religious freedoms assaulted by one program gathering all the information it can find on all of us, looking for smoke where there is no fire, and trampling on our 4th, 5th and even 6th Amendment rights for good measure.

Indeed, when you take a look at the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear that the neo-cons only honor the Second and Third, (and only to a point). The rest of it are quaint 18th century notions they refuse to accept even though they reflect the balance of power between the government and the governed that had evolved since the 13th century. This tried and true system just hasn't been sufficient to these fools who prefer a society, culture and economic system more akin to feudal times than a 21st century civilization.

Much of our Bill of Rights was taken directly from a document one hundred years older, the British Bill of Rights, which also influenced the drafting of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. And, much like our Bill of Rights came about as a reaction to a despot's abuse, so did the British Bill of Rights.

This accumulated judicial wisdom must triumph, and I'm confident it will -- because I truly believe in the genius of our system. The Seventh Amendment incorporated that historical wisdom by referring directly to the "Common Law." The Common Law is awash with means for protecting us from would-be tyrants, some scoundrel with power who used fear and prejudice as a weapon against his enemies.

That is the quaint tale, abuse of power by the sovereign and the public, through their elected representatives, stomping out such transgressions against our liberties. It's the reason the Eight Amendment talks of prohibiting excessive bail and the Sixth Amendment speaks of speedy trials -- to thwart the government from making it easy to dispose of inconvenient people and political enemies who otherwise are law abiding.

I've a strong suspicion that the current throwbacks to Jacobinism (in both senses) which spawned the British version of liberty guarantees will create a backlash of similar proportions -- which is not a bad thing. That may be the lasting legacy of George W. Bush, that his policy of unfettered executive power is rejected so strongly that we never permit such disasters as epitomized by his reign be tolerated again, and that our institutions are transformed to prevent its recurrence.

One can only hope. But keep in mind that this struggle has been a backdrop of democracy for centuries -- and in the end, democracy has proven superior to despotism every time.

These are the bedrock principles of our civilization, unlike the relatively new notion called executive privilege (a limited doctrine first recognized in 1974 and not -- as Tony Snow would have us believe -- since George Washington).

Not Bad At All

The Capetbagger Reports on Do-Something Congress from the Democratic Caucus

• Democrats Passed First Minimum Wage Increase in a Decade.
  
• Democrats Passed War Spending Bill that Included $6 Billion for Hurricane Relief.
  
  
• Democrats Passed Legislation Out of Committee Providing the Largest Increase for Veterans Affairs Funding in History.
  
  
• Iraq Supplemental Appropriations Bill Included Additional $1.8 Billion for Veterans' Health Care.
  
  
• Democrats Passed Ethics and Lobbying Reform Bill.
  
  
• Democrats Passed Bill to Cut Subsidies to Student Lenders and Provide $17 Billion in Grants and Other Student Aid.
  
  
• Democrats Passed a Fiscally Responsible Budget.
  
  
• Democrats Passed Energy Bill That Increased Fuel-Efficiency Standards for First Time Since 1975.

It could be better, much, much better as anyone who's read my bitching lately can attest. But it's hard to argue with this sentiment -- and a good idea to push this meme:

After six months, with a hostile White House and an obstructionist GOP, that ain't bad.

So I Was Thinking...

About what a lying bunch of ball sacks the Republicans are, especially listening to Thom Hartmann on Air America today with his guest ... Bob Barr?

Yep, that Bob Barr, one of the House Managers for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Thom and Bob were suprisingly chummy, and I didn't catch the whole interview. But Hartmann did ask the ITMFA question.

Barr converted from a GOP lackey and is now a Life Member of the Libertarian Party, a card carrying member of the ACLU and has been fighting the Patriot Act and illegal NSA wiretapping program. I didn't know that until I got home and checked up on him, finding out his conversion is complete -- he even is a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project**. You may have heard of them if you watched Stephen Colbert tonight -- they're pot-heads in suits. Gotta love 'em. I guess Barr found God ... or Jimmy Hendrix. Something.

Barr hesitated in answering whether he would have supported impeachment today, since he did such a fine job impeaching the last president. I decided to slow down instead of crash through a yellow light so I could give his answer my full attention (safety first!). While he didn't go as far as to say either Bush, Cheney or the topic de jure, Gonzo, should be impeached -- he did say he'd welcome an impeachment inquiry at the very least.

I looked at my radio in disbelief and said aloud, "you lying piece of shhhh..." and the light turned green. "Oh sure," I thought, now that Bahr is out of government and not under the thumb of his controllers in Wingnuttystan, he's all for taking down a bunch of crooks -- even if they're GOPers. But if he was still there in Congress, there's just no way he would have done anything but the White House's bidding -- just like 98% of the other neo-con-poop sycophants doing Karl Rove's bidding.

Thoughts of Barr returned tonight as I learned of Democrat Republican Arlen Specter's predictable boot-licking after getting a ride on Air Force One, despite his public disgust with the testimony perjury of Abu Gitmo this week. (There's some excellent analysis out there tonight on our highest law enforcement official's unique manner of fulfilling his duties.)

There's a theme out there, that the inept cover-up is covering up something even more pernicious. Avedon is also pointing to dots that need connected where there were no dots before.

This analysis of Gonzales' testimony by Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel suggests that something even more sinister than has been previously acknowledged is at the heart of the whole spy program issue. A few bloggers have wondered just what must have been going on - and how bad it must have been - that Ashcroft and Comey wouldn't sign off on it, but the corporate press so far as failed to ask that question. Ackerman and Kiel are raising the speculation to a higher level. I forget now who it (Somerby?) was who originally suggested that this has been about spying on Democrats, but we already know they have been spying on peace groups. (We also know that Republicans in Congress were essentially hacking Democratic members' e-mail.) It's not at all far-fetched to suggest that the administration has been using the program against political enemies, not just to anticipate their moves, but for blackmail. It would certainly explain a lot.

Explain a lot indeed.

It would explain Specter's about-face. Somebody in the White House must have the goods on damn near everybody who matters -- and is making sure they don't rock the boat.
Why else would Phase II of the Senate Intelligence investigation still be gathering dust -- specifically what Doug Feith and his Special Plans operation were up to and (what we've wanted to know all along) and what our senior officials did with the intel versus what they said to us to mislead us into this fucking war? It makes you wonder what they have on a few select members of the Supreme Court that got us into this mess in the first place too.

It also explains why Bob Barr talks big now, but wouldn't be calling for the impeachment of anybody if he still had an office in the Capitol, but would just STFU and go along with his betters. Silly pot-head. They would have ruined him.

Based on just what we know from the Libby case, the way they value loyalty over competency, the cronyism, the bribery, the torture, the ridiculous secrecy, they've been running the government of the United States like a mafia fiefdom. Why would blackmail somehow be shocking. If they'll cover up a possible murder, they're capable of anything.

I've got more respect, grudgingly as it might be, for Bob Barr (who is now the ex-congressman I'd most like to do bongs with) than most of the Democratic Congressional leadership who took impeachment off the table and continue to fund our disaster in Mesopotania. Maha, whose gift for combining prose and outrage is better than mine, said it thus:

Long after the 2008 election is but a distant memory written about only in history textbooks, generations to come will ask not what strategies we used to achieve electoral victory in some House or Senate race somewhere, but rather what we did to stop these villains and hold them accountable for their crimes.

**(To be clear, I completely understand that the Marijuana Policy Project does not necessarily advocate the recreational use of dope, but lobbies for sensible medical use of marijuana. It is also obvious that Bob Barr does not necessarily smoke pot -- he's in no way paranoid enough to use it on a regular basis.)

Reality Based Partisanship

Whether you're a moderate triangulator who prefers to be called "progressive" instead of "liberal," a neo-con who claims to "defend the liberal tradition," or just an old fashioned lefty peacenick who's into social justice and still wears the liberal moniker proudly -- like me -- you have to agree that a partisan Democrat calling another Democrat: Joe Lieberman's protege, is a devastating slam.

Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake is one such Proud Partisan:

One of the most pernicious and popular soundbites being exploited these days is the denigration of ‘partisanship.’ When it comes out of the mouths of Republicans who perfected the art of soulless political grandstanding in the 90s, it’s hard enough to take. It’s even tougher to stomach when it comes from George Bush with his thorough devotion to Karl Rove (who needs no better reason to sabotage national security and flagrantly violate the law than the fact that someone is a Democrat). Then there are the useful idiots like Sam Waterston and the Unity ‘08 nuts who really just don’t know what they’re talking about.

But people like Joe Lieberman (and his protege Barack Obama) who consistently indulge this frame ought to know that sometimes the right thing to do is to acknowledge that the other side cannot be bargained with, that no negotiation is possible, that what you’re up against is just wrong and it’s incumbent upon people of conscience to draw a line in the sand and say ‘enough.’ That too is partisanship, and they need to stop decrying it just because it focus groups well with people sick of the GOP and their bully tactics. Partisanship in fact has a glorious history.

To which I offer my own quote from another proud partisan...

But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?
And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.
I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.

–John Edwards, YouTube Debate.

Did She Really Say That?

by shep


So Barack Obama says, if president, he’d meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

And in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, "I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything".

Badly coded offer of the Secretary of State job?


[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Do You Believe . . . in Hair?

Politico quotes John Edwards' "key response" during the debate last night, pronouncing him the winner, having found his "theme" and because, "He is bold and he will use his boldness for you." (Please note that is no typo -- Politico, which has written more about John Edwards hair than any other semi-legitimate media outlet except Drudge, did not say he is bAld, but bOld!)

Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power! The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!

He's received rave reviews for the "Hair" video, views over 24,000 times in just one day -- the most watched video of all the candidates -- which takes a slash at the media and turns a supposed weakness "on it's head."

The biggest winner: John Edwards, who should have buried the discussion of his haircut finally with a campaign ad which played the theme song of the musical "Hair" with a video montage of visuals which provided a stark reminder that there are more serious issues confronting our nation than whether a rich guy blew too much money on a haircut.
- Crooks and Nannies

You can watch it here at YouTube if the embedded player doesn't work...