Not a new generation age-wise, but a new generation of leaders in Congress who weren't there at all, or at least weren't in leadership positions, on 9/11 and in the years immediately thereafter. Those folks, fundamentally decent and hardworking though some of them are, are simply too compromised to be able to lead us out of the wilderness into which Bush and Cheney have led us. That is the plain and simple truth.
It is clear to me now that what happened on the FISA bill was exactly what Jonathan Turley described on Countdown on Thursday.
OLBERMANN: And, also hidden in here behind this headline - if you immunize the telecoms, are you not also immunizing the president, the Bush administration and, to some degree, the Congress that went along with all of these crimes in the last seven years?
TURLEY: Well, there's no question in my mind that there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members.
And, I'm afraid this is Washington politics at the worst. And, so, I think that what you're seeing with this bill is not just caving in to a very powerful lobby, but also caving in to sort of the worst motivations on Capitol Hill since 9/11. You know, the administration was very adept at bringing in Democrats at a time when they knew they couldn't refuse, to make them buy in to this program, and now that investment is bearing fruit.
OLBERMANN: So, it's self-protection is the answer to the question of why Congress didn't let FISA, this bill, at least, go sunset and do this in the next administration. The answer is really self-protection?
TURLEY: I'm afraid it is.
I think that's exactly right. But Barack Obama was not in the Congress until January, 2005. He represents the kind of leadership we need. I do believe he opposes the FISA Bill and understands precisely why it is wrong and unconstitutional. I also believe he is sincere in wanting to craft a new kind of response on national security that doesn't cower before the Bush/Cheney regime, that espouses and sticks to a few basic principles, including the limits of military force and the false trade of civil liberties for safety, and that is nuanced and smart. He wasn't (and still isn't) one of the leadership group who was briefed on so much of the Bush/Cheney constitution-shredding measures that they were sucked in up to their gills, to the point that they were never able to really confront Bush/Cheney. (Kind of explains taking impeachment off the table, doesn't it?)
But Obama wants to get elected, and he knows he will need Congress to govern effectively. He doesn't want to meet the fate of Bill Clinton, who was stymied in several initiatives in his first two years by congressional egos. So Obama knows he will need their help. He must have made the calculation, when they explained their problem to him, that the best he could do was to come out against at least parts of the bill, but he would have to give them cover and couldn't give the ruse away. That's why they waited for the compromise until we had a nominee, why he waited to make a statement until it was basically meaningless, and why he really won't do anything to stop immunity, nor will anyone else.
He is far and away the best we have, precisely because he has been part of that world, and only a minor part at that, for only four years. But he is going to need a leadership team in the Congress, if not next year then in 2011, who is not tainted by their collusion with the worst of Bush/Cheney regime. Slowly but surely the Congressional leadership must be purged and replaced by new leadership who was not suckered into selling our constitutional rights for the chance to feel a little bit powerful, to stay in office, out of fear at being tarred as a traitor.
In the election of 1868, the generation that had brought about the Civil War was summarily thrown from office and replaced by men twenty and thirty years their juniors in what Strauss and Howe call "the largest generational landslide in American history." This time age need not be the determining factor, but whether a person colluded with Bush/Cheney. We can start by electing better Democrats and promoting new leaders, and by exposing what the current leadership appears to have done.
As we approach the point where Hillary Clinton has to clobber Barack Obama and begin to win delegates or fade away, the candidates are finally debating what is, to many, the central question of any presidential campaign: in order to secure this most perfect union, who can best provide for the common defense?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Five priorities are listed in the preamble, not one. I took the "liberty" of highlighting the non-security related priorities: Justice, general Welfare, and Liberty. In fact, "Justice" is listed before the two security-related priorities, even though it was left out of Marc Ambinder's formulation above. Security and / or common defense was not the single, over-riding concern of framers of the Constitution, even though in our contemporary political discourse it is usually the only task anyone seems to remember the Constitution appointing to the government of the United States.
A second thing that bothers me about comments along these lines is how it ignores that we did not declare our independence from the British because they were failing to keep us safe. Instead, we declared independence from the British because they were denying us our rights. In other words, democracy, liberty and justice were the overriding concerns in forming the nation, not security. Declaring our independence in order to secure our liberty actually put us at great risk, considering that a higher percentage of Americans died in the War of Independence than in any other war in our nation's history. The country was formed quite squarely by putting our liberty on a higher priority level than our security. If we took security as the dominant value, then we would never have declared independence at all. And then, eighty years later, we fought the bloodiest war in our nation's history once again over rights and justice, not over security.
Our growing national obsession with security over justice, liberty and democracy is one of, if not the, clearest sign of the eroding stature of America in the geopolitical scene. Until about thirty years ago, America had pretty consistently been the most progressive great power, or super power, in the entire world. Now, due to the rise of conservatism in America, we have unfortunately lost that title to the European Union. It is a painful irony that most of Europe has become more democratic than America itself: in a sense, they have become more American than thou. Our loss of priorities in governance is one of the main reasons for this. In an American contest, "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" should matter just as much as life (remember Patrick Henry?). Justice, the general welfare and liberty should matter just as much as the common defense and domestic tranquility. We have really lost our way on this front, to the point that even saying your first priority as President or in Congress is anything but security is considered blasphemy. That is an incredibly frustrating, teeth-grinding loss of our national purpose, to such an extent that it has become an untouchable symptom in our national decline.
Ending Military Privatization: Obama has introduced legislation targeting military contractors. Also, in a conversation I had with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the House leader on this issue, she praised Obama's leadership on the issue without even being asked about the Presidential campaigns. Schakowsky is from Illinois and an Obama supporter, so take that with a grain of salt, I guess. Again, I think Obama has a clear edge in this category.
The well-publicized contrast between Hillary Clinton's early backing of the Bush administration's war effort and Barack Obama's early opposition, has to a degree been replicated in the less visible network of foreign policy advisers that each candidate has cultivated -- the early war opponents by Obama, and the one-time hawks by Clinton.
Combine this with the real threat of Harold Ford Jr. as DNC chair, and once again, there is a clear advantage to Obama.
Global Warming and Energy Policy: Pretty much everything I have seen praises both Obama and Clinton's plans, so this appears to be a draw.
Restoring civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances. This is the one area where I see an edge for Clinton. There are indications, including a Wesley Clark interview for Open Left, that Clinton would continue the investigations into Bush administration wrongdoing. I seriously doubt we will see anything from Obama on this front, giving at least his desire for unity, post-partisanship and leaving the past behind. Obama also wasn't very good on Habeas Corpus, to say the least. Pretty clear edge to Clinton in this area.
So, that makes four clear advantages to Obama, one to Clinton, and two areas that are about even. Overall, that is a very strong advantage for Obama. While I have issues with Obama's rhetoric and health care proposals, on balance this list outweighs those negatives. Further, that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton has not only refused to admit a mistake and her advisers boast of her hawkishness, matters quite a bit, too. Also, I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well. So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton.
Right now, I still prefer John Edwards, and I have explained why on several occasions (see here, here and here for starters). However, if he finishes third in Nevada, I will probably begin rethinking my preferences.
Have progressives and progressivism made more of an impact on the 2008 Democratic primary than in 2004? This is a very large question that I think we need to spend a lot of time analyzing, but given that Iowa is tomorrow the question probably isn't answerable yet. I want to believe that progressive Democrats have advanced on our performance in 2004, and I think preliminary reviews show that to indeed be the case. In the extended entry, I provide the outline of this case.
Here is a thought experiment that has been running through my head for the past three days, and which effectively serves as my final decision making process on which candidate to support in the Democratic primaries: which candidate is best at ending the causes of the war? In this context, "war" is flexibly defined as not only the war in Iraq, but also the "war on terror," the war on American democracy, etc. As I see it, there are seven main issue areas at stake:
Media Reform: An improved, open, non-corporate consolidated media that no longer has a vested interest in military contracts, internal and world conflict, or in holding back open, citizen produced media is key. Matt says that Obama is very good on this front, with Edwards close behind.
Sustainable Energy Development: Achieving sustainable energy independence and reducing the negative effects of global warming is another key to preventing wars that are, at least in part, apart increasing the American sphere of influence on foreign oil. As far as I can tell, many energy experts in the blogosphere, including A Siegel and Dave Roberts, think that the three top Democrats all have pretty good energy plans.
Ending Military Privatization: The privatization of the military continues unabated, and at its current levels it threatens not only to break the military, but to make it much easier for future Presidents to engage in wars like Iraq. Rep. Jan Schakowsky has a bill to end military privatization, but this isn't something that I have seen many, or really any, presidential candidates discuss. Please, enlighten me in the comments if I am wrong.
No residual forces: This is one I have harped on for a long time. As long as we have residual forces in Iraq, we can't end the war in Iraq. No residual forces means no troops, no bases, and no equipment. Obviously, I think Richardson is the best among all Dems on this front, but among the top three I think Edwards is better than Obama and Clinton.
Election reform: Stolen elections, especially the 2000 election, obviously played a major role in starting both the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Maintaining election integrity and preventing future meltdowns are thus key to ending the causes of war. I don't know which candidate is best on this front, but I've heard some good things from Obama.
Think Tank and Advisor Reform: Clearing out the community of professional foreign policy advisors that have led to things like pre-emptive war, the Iraq war, and the war on terror is also key. I think the candidates have all rejected neo-conservatism and pre-emptive war as a philosophy, but the differences between Clinton and Obama's advisors should be noticed. Also, Edwards has rejected the war on terror frame while Obama rejected the war from the start on the grounds that pre-emtpive war was a bad idea. Not sure who has the edge here.
Constitutional Restoration: Ending executive over-reach and restoring checks and balances are also key. This touches on a wide range of civil liberties issues, as well as investigations of Bush administration wrongdoing and laying making sure an executive as powerful as bush never happens again. Dodd has led the fight on several civil liberties issues, Clinton has promised to continue investigating Bush and to set aside the executive powers created under the Bush administration. Kucinich has called for impeachment. Overall, again I'm not sure who is best.
The more I think about it, I come to the conclusion that the candidate who is best on this set of issues will almost certainly get my vote. Collectively, they not only end the Iraq war, but are the issues most closely connected to preventing such a disaster from ever happening again. I'm going to keep investigating how the candidates matchup in each of these areas, and probably come to a conclusion in about two weeks or so. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Now that Mr. Reid will be making a critical decision on the FISA legislation and we need so desperately our Representaitives to be vocal about their opposition to immunity, let's be clear about where Kucinich stands:
"I object to any immunity for telecommunications companies and demand a full accounting of these companies' involvement to Congress and to the American public. When corporations cooperate with the government to strip people of their Constitutional rights, that is a text book description of fascism. There must not be any place in America for this type of conduct." -Dennis Kucinich
Michigan's January 15th primary / caucus / something has been struck down by court order. It actually appears that a progressive civil liberties issue was at the cause, too:
Michigan's star-crossed bid to leap to the head of the presidential primary nominating process appeared to go up in smoke Wednesday as an Ingham County Circuit Court judge ruled that a provision in the law giving the Democratic and Republican parties exclusive access to voter lists from the Jan. 15 primary was unconstituional.
Judge William Collette said giving the parties exclusive access to the lists was equivalent to transferring public property to private interests and would have required 2/3 votes in the Legislature when the law was enacted last summer.
The list provision presented "a clear injury to the public interest," Collette said, shutting out citizens, journalists and activists for the benefit of the two major political parties.
What happens now is unclear. Until it is sorted out, don't expect New Hampshire to announce its date. If Michigan is forced is forced to retreat, then a calendar with Iowa on January 3rd, New Hampshire on January 10th, and Nevada / South Carolina on January 19th becomes possible. Maybe it won't even be too late to salvage my personal favoriate of all Saturday contests: Iowa on January 5th, New Hampshire on January 12th, and Nevada / South Carolina on January 19th. My actual preference would be for it all to start at least two weeks later, but that would be a start.
Of course, it is also possible that Michigan will stay on January 15th, and the dumbest primary calendar ever will stay in place:
Democratic Party leaders were not immediately available for comment, but Michigan Republican Party chairman Saul Anuzis said Collette's ruling makes it clear there is no problem with holding a presidential primary in early January.
"This is just a hiccup in the process and Michigan Republicans still plan to hold their presidential primary on Jan. 15, 2008," Anuzis said.
All they have to do is change the law slightly to invalidate this judge's opinion. Michigan could also appeal his decision and go forward that way. I give it 2:1 that Michigan still has its primary on the 15th of January.
This primary calendar race to the bottom remains an excellent example of one of the major flaws in our federalist system of government. Is anyone willing to trumpet just how great "state's rights" are in this case?
Author Note: The following essay was co-authored with Coleen Rowley, retired FBI agent and former Minneapolis division counsel.
Among the most important public health advances of the past century has been the development of potent vaccines against dangerous and life-threatening illnesses. Polio, tuberculosis, and measles quickly come to mind. Through a process of inoculation, a small dose of the pathogen is intentionally administered to the patient which induces immunity against the full-blown disease.
In a similar way, social scientists have demonstrated that attitude inoculation can be used to prevent the transmission of hazardous beliefs and behaviors from one person to another. For example, research reveals that adolescents can more effectively resist pressure from cigarette-smoking peers if they are given role-playing opportunities in which they rehearse their responses to students pressuring them to smoke.
But today we are in urgent need of an inoculation campaign against an entirely different threat to our nation's health--namely, the Bush administration's exploitation of its "global war on terror" to eviscerate the rule of law and our constitutional checks and balances; to prolong the disastrous occupation of Iraq; and to lay the groundwork for military strikes against Iran. Ever since the tragic events of 9/11 six years ago, the White House has promoted this agenda by working non-stop to spread a simple yet infectious idea: All actions taken by this president and his representatives are necessary to protect the United States from future catastrophic terrorist attacks.
I am really glad the Senate condemned us all yesterday, because there is no real danger such a condemnation will lead to anything worse. From TPM:
"Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or you don't; whether you agree with the surge or you don't; Democrats even came back from Iraq and said that he's having more success than anybody had thought.
"So to attack the man's integrity, and honesty, and decency, is in my view indecent. It passed a line that we should not allow American political organizations to pass."
Maybe it is just me and other such people who were condemned by the Senate yesterday, but I think that when the Republican candidate for President currently leading in most national polls suggests that it should be illegal to criticize members of the military, that might qualify as a "gaffe" the media should focus on. Or, perhaps the Senate should condemn Giuliani for saying that political speech against the military should be outlawed entirely. Or, maybe some Democrats who condemned me and the other three million members of MoveOn.org should say something about this.
Rudy Giuliani wants to make ads like MoveOn.org's illegal. Let me restate just so everyone understands: he thinks it should be illegal for ads like that to appear in the American press. And yet, somehow, half of all Senate Democrats are taking Rudy Giuliani's side in this argument. Welcome to McCarthyism revisited.
Since the Senate seems poised to vote on a Sense of the Senate resolution condemning political speech against the war and General Petraeus, at the very least the Senate should be comprehensive about it. Before the vote takes place, someone should offer an amendment to the resolution, condemning all of the following:
[A] dirty trick on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political sell-job...It's not only a dirty trick, but it's dishonest, it's hypocritical, it's dangerous and irresponsible.
Condemn protests against the war, especially those that took place last weekend. Surely, Americans freely assembling to protest the war hurts the troops, and I bet that more than one of the protesters were MoveOn.org members.
Condemn the press for conducting polls showing that more people think Petraeus was not being honest in his testimony than think he was being honest. Surely, they are also calling Petraeus a traitor, by suggesting that he would lie. News outlets in question include CNN and Fox News.
Condemn those Americans who voted against members of Congress who are in favor of the war back in 2006. I know that is over forty million people, but hey, if they are going to send a message against the troops, then the Senate should send a message against them.
Condemn the United Church of Christ for organizing against the war. Once again, I bet that some MoveOn.org members are also in the United Church of Christ.
Condemn General Petraeus's superior, CentCom Chief Admiral William Fallon for insulting Petraeus, and for daring to actually be Petraeus's superior officer:
Fallon told Petraeus [in March] that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickensh*t" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
Condemn every woman who General Petraeus found attractive in high school for not going out on a date with him.
Democrats should offer such an amendment to any condemnation of political speech in the Senate. And maybe, while they are at it, they should throw in a condemnation of Edward Murrow for talking about Senate McCarthy on television in a negative light. I mean, if the Senate has decided that there is time to be spent condemning political speech and no time to actually hold extended debate on things like the Webb amendment, then they should at least be thorough. After all, talking negatively about the Iraq war, and especially talking negatively about General Petraeus, should probably be illegal, but if condemning is the best we can do, then so be it.
Yesterday I managed to get myself to services for Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. The familiar rituals and rites of Judaism can be comforting but often lapse into rote recitation. But yesterday, the rabbi's sermon woke me up and put a new spin on the moral code that underpins all humanity, which is at the heart of not only Jewish teaching, but the foundational premises of our country, principles we are rapidly losing over the course of the Bush Presidency.
The rabbi talked about a little-remarked-upon section of the Old Testament. Leviticus is filled with a laundry list of commandments and guidelines for life in Biblical times. One section focuses on "just weights and measures."
35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. 36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
Prior to the recently passed Protect America Act, warantless interception of international communication was illegal. In 2005, the NSA allegedly engaged in such interception. The parties that got illegally wiretapped have taken the government to court. Now the government is saying that it wants those records back and a court can't declare the wiretapping illegal because the records of it are "state secret" or "privileged." Oh, on top of that, in a 2005 press conference President Bush denied such warantless wiretapping ever happened. […]
