[This is the great post masaccio originally posted to Oxdown Gazette--before we delayed the start of it. I wanted to publish it here to further the great discussion masaccio started. -ew]
What can we get from an Obama Administration in exchange for our money and our work on his campaign?
There is no doubt we will vote for Obama. Many of us will do more, contribute money, do phones, door-to-door and all the other nuts and bolts of an election. Many of us were stirred into action by Jane and Christy, and without them would never have thought of doing this stuff.
But what are we going to get for it? Right now, the pols and consultants think we will work because we are afraid that four more years of McBush will ruin the country. They don’t expect to have to do anything for us in exchange. They think Obama can run to the mushy middle, and we will hold our noses and work hard like we always do. In the past, the Democrats have been able to take advantage of the fact that on most of the issues, their views are close enough to ours that we’ll just work for them, and be happy with whatever we get. Some of us will be active because of health care, or ending the war, or the Supreme Court, or some other specific issue, and that will seem like enough to motivate us; we’ll provide our services and our money, and once in office, they pat us on the head and say “aren’t those bloggers cute”.
This election is different. For the first time, it isn’t the candidate, party pols, rich business contributors or consultants who are leading us. Our leaders come from our own ranks. Each of us votes with our clicks and our dollars for those we think express our views, those we select to teach us about issues, and those whose sense of humor resonates best. The issues we care about grew organically from our own efforts, not some pointless national poll, tilted by the views of too many ill-informed potential voters, but in the robust give and take of post and comment. It manifests itself in phone calls, e-mails and letters, contributions of money, and all the rest of the efforts we saw in the FISA battle.
In this election for the very first time, the hard-core political operatives know a large number of activists are reading lefty blogs, and are getting fired up, not by their efforts or the candidate, or press releases with pallid promises on traditional Democratic Party issues, but by our own issues. Even the mainstream media recognizes this. Glenn Greenwald and our own Jane Hamsher are now worthy of being quoted.
Activists have never made demands in the past. In fact, we have never had the ability to make demands. We have never had a voice. Now we do. If the netroots can come together on a single demand, we can make it stick.
We offer our enthusiasm, our money, and our work. They need to put something on the table to earn it. Remember, we can put our efforts into other parts of the campaign for what we want: working for more and better democrats at every level. Many commenters here and at firedoglake have made it clear they think this is a better use of our efforts anyway. You want us working for Obama? Give us something. Something real, and something we select.
If you don’t, the blogs will say so out loud, and encourage every one of their readers to move to the other part of this election: more and better democrats. This is a real threat. We have the template for that here at FDL, many other sites. We want legislators who will be responsive to us. We know that many of the democrats we elect, like Donna Edwards, will listen to us, even if we aren’t in their district. That will be a better outcome than helping Obama with no return. It won’t be perfect, many of us will work for Obama, but there will be a noticeable difference.
And remember this. A big chunk of the netroots is angry because of the way HRC was treated. Another big chunk of us are angry because of the cavalier way Obama dealt with women’s right to control their own bodies. And another big chunk are angry about FISA. Cass Sunstein’s comments have angered more than they might guess. If he wants a big victory, he needs all of us.
How do we get this to work?
Emptywheel posted here a workshop on lessons learned from the FISA fight, and the commenters joined in. Here is a list of ideas that will serve as action points focused on offense rather than defense
1. Identify the real terms of debate. EW
2. Recognize when leadership begins to negotiate. EW
3. Profile all the key players. EW
4. Open up better lines of communication with our allies in the media. wigwam @ 9
5. Better counter-messaging when we draw fire, while holding our own points. EW in text and @ 11
6. Transparency and coordination in decisions about strategy. maryb2004 @ 28
7. Start earlier. MadDog @ 38
8. Build a broad based coalition earlier. klynn @ 89
9. And the money: Ron1 talks intelligently about money in several comments.
These ideas are the nucleus for an action plan. We find out who we need to influence, and gather information about them. This makes it easier to figure our how to make our demands work. We have a backup plan, our minimum demand, in case we have to negotiate off our initial position. We make sure the people doing the negotiating are competent. We work on a media strategy to make our views open to the nation. We start now. We seek allies. The money follows along in due course.
Earlofhuntington made a strong point that the blogosphere isn’t like the groups traditional politicians are used to dealing with. We are fractious and demanding, and it is not easy to hold us accountable. We need to figure out how to be more like traditional bargaining partners. This means being accountable, reliable, and responsible.
What do we demand?
I want to call special attention to maryb2004’s view that the decision on what to demand must be as transparent as possible. Moveon polled its members on the endorsement of Obama, and regularly seeks input from members. We can’t do that, and I don’t think that kind of thing works well anyway. But if there is an open and robust discussion on the front pages of lots of sites, we can learn from comments if we are in the wrong place with a particular demand and alter it to one that resonates with more people. Only then will we be in a position to make a demand we can enforce.
We have to act responsibly. There is no point in making demands that relate to existing campaign issues, like ending the war, health care, or taxes. Instead, we pick something currently off the radar for the general election. It has to be something we can get that won’t throw the general campaign off balance. If we demanded and got something really splashy, it might well backfire.
That said, there are many issues that we deeply care about. Here is a starter list: FISA reform; Patriot Act changes; Input on selection of the Attorney General; Appointment of some of our people to responsible positions in the new administration. This list can grow.
An Example: Accountability
I really care about accountability. I think lack of accountability is at the root of the damage this administration and its cronies have inflicted on us for the past seven years. It has the advantage that it can be publicly announced, without upsetting the general campaign. Obama has already promised to do something vague on the issue, although this was recently undercut by Cass Sunstein.
Here is the first step: we prepare a demand letter; not to send, but to serve as a discussion paper. Here’s how it might look.
1. We want accountability for specific issues:
a. torture
b. eavesdropping
c. the lies that led us into war
d. corruption in the Department of Justice
e. politicization at all other departments
2. If Bush pardons people, we want an independent truth and reconciliation commission with subpoena power and the power to examine witnesses in public. We don’t want whitewash artists like Lee Hamilton or Warren Christopher on such a commission but people with the courage to take us where the truth leads. We want input into selection of the staff. We want a written report. And we want Obama to speak about the report publicly, naming names and publicly accusing people of the evil they have done in our name.
3. If Bush doesn’t pardon people, we want a new unit of the AG set up immediately to work on criminal prosecutions. We want either prosecutions or a report, and a report that Obama will stand behind.
4. We want public release of all of the torture opinions including those of Judge Bybee, John Yoo, and Stephen Bradbury, and of all related files.
5. We want an end to stalling on FOIA requests and Congressional staff inquiries.
The letter has to be clear and pointed. It has to state our demand precisely. And it has to be something we are willing to enforce. Once the terms are in place, we have to deliver, so they will. The letter creates public accountability both ways.
Conclusion.
I am sick of seeing my money and work go for nothing. I am disgusted that the few progressive issues we get moving are stalled and crushed by Steny Hoyer and the Blue Dogs. I am stunned that the Congress has let this sleazy administration have its way on issue after issue, ignoring the will of the people who elected them.
Can we have accountability in an Obama presidency? Yes we can! But only if we force the issue.
Login Here




97 Comments
Spotlight



Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Emptywheel
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
I like the focus on accountability. Just when I think someone in the present administration is going to be held accountable–poof–the Dems back down. We can’t let this pattern continue.
I, who am so mad about the FISA vote, let every single Dem entity that phones me for money know that I will NOT be contributing financially to the Dems, but will be volunteering my time locally to help Dems I know & trust.
masaccio!! Congrats! Now to read…
I totally agree with you on the accountability issue, masaccio. Someone suggested putting money in an escrow- type account, and reward people who vote the right way. I can see something like that working, particularly if is something like FISA. If we had $1 million bucks to spread around, it would have an effect I would think. Same for the DCCC and like groups. Bring the vote on the issue we care about and you get the money, if not, it grows for the next important issue.
Excellent post, masaccio, thanks.
IMHO, we as liberals have to learn to be tolerant of each other and our allies. AFAIK, we are incredibly dependent on at least four other groups, labor, black caucus, the GLBT community, and environmentalists, for gaining political traction. As you know, none of those four is monolithic.
I think as liberals, we have to take positions on issues, such as food prices, inflation, fuel costs, banking reform … . If we don’t, we’ll be largely seen as irrelevant.
FWIW, I think the tragedy of PVC Lavena Johnson is a huge opportunity for liberals to support the black caucus. Most of the netroots are 100% European American. In terms of identity politics, men within the netroots group have leverage that women and people of color do not. Universal health care is another code word for support for the black caucus. Jane’s been great on Jena, but liberals in general have ignored it. The liberal wing of the black caucus knows we’re not going to help them with reparations for slavery and legalized white supremacy.
How we support unions, GLBT communities, and environmentalists is something I am even less fluent about. I think the complexity of all these issues reinforces how “creative” we have to be in building coalitions that will move the liberal agenda forward.
I am in. I absolutely agree with the points posted above.
This is the kind of blog I love. I missed the original discussion but can see that you all came to solutions.
I saw the movie “Amazing Grace” about the fight to end slavery in great Britain. In Great Britain, it was a long, arduous intellectual fight. The primary players were beaten down time and time again, but they just kept getting back up, holding to their values, looking for new strategies, waiting for the right timing.
We needed a long term plan. I see this as being exactly what we need. We can have short term goals along the way, but we need to have a coalition to save our constitution and in my mind accountability is the only way to get our constitution back.
There is nothing more important or sacred to me. I am willing to sacrifice and work to make this happen. I am not willing to sacrifice to elect someone if this is not the mutual goal. My money, time and energy will be focused on accountability with my long term eye on saving our constitution from facism.
Congratulations masaccio! Well done. Hope we will see your byline often.
This is a great idea.
I want to add something, but I want to put it in the positive. Obama has expressed an interest in working in a bipartisan fashion, and we need to explore what that means, in addition to the above.
First of all, here is what it does NOT mean: The dirty dozen laws passed with Blue Dog support that Glenzilla highlighted back in January. We need this kind of bipartisanship like we need to inhale anthrax powder.
How to state that in the positive? I think it relates to EW #1: identifying the real terms of debate. But I think in order to do that, we need to more positively identify the values and principles that draw us to progressivism. I know this leads us into troubled waters, but isn’t this something we have to face? Here are a few things I have in mind:
* The rule of law, equally and fairly applied to everyone, whether Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, President or pauper. (In other words, justice must be blind and impartial. No one is above the law.)
* The over-riding authority of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, and the separation of powers, and the over-riding obligation of every member of each branch to actively uphold their oath of office to defend the Constitution. This is not a Motherhood and Apple Pie thing; it requires active engagement of every member of each branch.
* Our commitment to international agreements (treaties, etc), including a commitment to honor extradition treaties and agreements. Conservatives will attack us for this, but if we want war crimes to mean anything, we’ve got to step up to the line on this.
* Our recognition that the World is increasingly an inter-connected, organic whole for which we must all take responsibility, not pecuniary advantage. This means stepping up to the plate for Al Gore’s challenge, as well as seeking a fair and equitable global marketplace balancing the needs of labor, business and environment. Oh yes, and immigration issues, too.
Well, that’s a start. I’m in favor of handing this off to Christy Hardin Smith and others to “refine and reformulate” as needed.
Bob in HI
I like the idea in the abstract. In effect, this is what happened when the FISA accountability group made donations to congressfolk who voted right. PACs are the way to go on this front, and the BlueAmerica PAC is a great candidate for the job.
You know Obama did juxtapose the rule of law against torture in his Berlin speech.
Good positive post. After FISA tho, fuck obama and fuck the dems/pugs. not like it matters.
See, now this should be rewarded:
Glad there is finally a replacement for that bmaz jerk. Very nice post. Since Obama already sold the farm on FISA, I would like a promise, and one that he doesn’t break, to help make things right vis a vis the Constitution in the reform of the Patriot Act that will be upcoming. I would also like a promise to lead the Congress in repealing the retroactive immunity portion of the FAA as soon as he and the new Congress takes office in January 2009 among other targeted reforms. And I would like a promise for a true single payer universal health care plan.
Good as far as it goes. Brief, focused, straightforward.
But remember, at this point progressives are now going up against the money crowd. The latter were happy to watch all the contributions from the rest of us flow in during the primaries. Once that outcome was determined, however, the big bucks started rolling in and Obama was happy to start ducking, bobbing and weaving vis-a-vis his campaign promises. The choice now seems to be more of the same, or somewhat less of the same.
The implications of Massacio’s post are that there needs be some sort of line in the sand drawn–i.e., that if some minimal act towards accountability is not taken, there will be political consequences. I wonder how that is to be effected. Nancy is going to be back. Dianne is being run up the pole as the next potential governor of California. Until there is a majority of people in Congress like Donna Edwards and Russ Feingold, I do not see a stick big enough to impress the Pelosi’s and the Reid’s and the rest of our own enablers with a harsh enough response to their corporate votes.
Since I think we have yet to see just how bad things are going to get in this country, I wonder if it is not time to reverse-engineer Disaster Capitalism over the coming years to leverage progressive building on the local level, i.e, to keep focused on the state offices. Smaller scale, longer term. That is, after all, what led the Grange and the Trade Unions finally to have some political effect. Replace an Al Wynn or his clone 50 or 60 more times in Congress and that will make a difference. I do not think that is going to happen in the next 100 days or so. Nancy and Steny are both going to be back.
While it is great to talk about accountability, until there is the muscle to back it up we are only going to hear all the good reasons why we keep needing to put our anger behind us.
I am not really gonna be happy until there is a Starbuck’s in Kabul and the coffee shop recession is over.
We also need reform of the way information is classified and unclassified. We need to be able to trust that secrets kept in our name really NEED to be kept secret, and we need these determinations to be challengable in some way. We need a structure within which we can have secrets examined by a neutral body to determine the validity of the classification that is independent of political authority.
And just so you don’t get ideas about me being a “latte liberal” I always get a “medium regular.”
Throughout US history, people of color and women have routinely been denied among other things, the 4th Amendment and habeas corpus.
Exactly!
We need to make sure that the criminals don’t get back into government, or anywhere close to it, even if they aren’t convicted.
Watergate -> Iran-Contra -> Bush/Cheney and all their activities
Forgive these people, maybe, but only for misdemeanors.
Forget what they did, hell, no!
Ask not what Obama can do for us, but what can Obama do for our country.
Seriously, there is a single issue that is the underlying cause of all the problems identified here.
Secrecy.
Until we deal with that, there is nothing that will stop the next Bush-Cheney style petty tyrants. We need to lay out a clear anti-secrecy agenda and whip up popular support. What are they hiding is a question that even Joe Sixpack understands.
So what sort of structure would suffice?
the FISA court model has turned out to really, ummm, suck. and the fact that it was evaded was itself secret.
and
No Secrect Sofware!
I think we have more muscle than we think. The ranks of the door-bell ringers and envelop stuffers aren’t filled with paid staff, but with volunteers. If we move the volunteers to congressional candidates and State legislature candidates, we can put a significant dent into the quadrennial gathering of the party faithful.
I agree that electing new folk is necessary, and I have a small group to which I make regular contributions. And remember, they have fences to mend. Accountability doesn’t cost anything to speak of, and can be done with minimal effort.
We won’t know if we don’t try.
Secrecy is indeed a significant issue, but it doesn’t do much for me as a campaign motivator. Accountability does.
Secrecy and accountability are mutually exclusive. Get rid of unnecessary secrecy, and existing law will take care of accountability.
And that is a good question. William Ockham, I think it was WO anyway, had a nice list the other day. I would start out with no secret law – all laws must be published, and some type of commission petitioned if that is to be circumvented for national security. No signing statements. No pixie dusted executive orders; EO is law and must be changed in the CFRs or whatever before a change is effective. All proposed legislation must be not only given to all Congressmembers at least five days before a vote, it must also be posted on Congressional website that far out so that the people and the press know what they are doing. Amendments ahead of time too, maybe a shorter period though. Every regulatory agency must post all of their rules and regs on their website as well as all action taken on a day by day basis.
Got to be a lot more, but that is a start for ideas.
KISS – no secret law. It covers almost everything, I think, if it is kept literally.
I think that the classification process should be removed from the executive entirely. There should be a process whereby the executive applies for classification, and a set of criteria that must be met to aquire it, and if the criteria are not secret, and cannot be secretly changed, it could be trusted. All we would need to know would be the criteria for secrecy, not the information itself.
If I could add a couple of things to be “looked into” I would include the information that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has concerning Jack Abramoff. Also, everything Cheney did as VP.
Of course we could start at the top of the Famous Hugh List and work through it. There has to be accountability.
Actually we needed this post before July 19– i.e., before Obama’s “Listening” to the grassroots regarding the Democratic Party Platform. A national effort during that time (July 19-27) would have been a great way to get his ear. I blogged about one of our Hawaii “Listening” posts, but if I’d seen masaccio’s post earlier, it would have given me some more ideas.
And when is the Oxdown Gazette gonna fly for the rest of us?
Aloha,
Bob
This is the kind of list we would have to put together to move this issue forward. To me, not as inspiring a campaign issue as accountability.
Oops, my 32 is a response to bmaz @ 27.
The day is coming where failure to have corporate employment will be a stigma like walking in LA. Secrecy is deeply encoded in the corporate culture. In other lands the corporation is the Societe Anonyme after all. It is natural that corporate mores would infiltrate government when a pro business regime ascends. With the loss of agrarian roots so deeply tied to an organic self-sufficiency the trust busting mystique has a long way to go if it will emerge.
Policy is a matter that transcends the White House. The day when a constitutional convention can be convened and some idealogical norm may yet emerge is largely come and gone. Still the gothic workplace leaves much to be desired. Political idealism like realpolitik ultimately relies on a kind of coercion. I think the best we can hope for is a bicycle society behind a nuclear firewall.
I am really not calling for a resurgence of Dadaism, but I fear things are much worse than they appear. With the decline of the tort system, the riding rough shod over the general principles of per se wrongs in the savaging of Iraq, bankruptcy reform, the reformulation of punitive damages and the eviscerating of state contract law with enforced national arbitration our society cries out for a new understanding of wrong that is not minimized through fictional legal veils.
The multi-decade phenomenon of sustained containment of the hegemony of business totalitarianism emerging of the opposition to Viet Nam and the emergence of civil rights have been overcome. The temptation is to use the system but the system follows the narrative, it does not set it. The uber-class is engaged in a retrenchment action. Adverse actions are residue of the old paradigm. Hydrogen on demand and medical marijuana are the future. Surely some learned soul out there can clarify the appropriate punishment for war crimes.
That exactly right. Can we form an accountability PAC?
I’ll tell you what Obama needs to do for me;
he needs to get me my money back, he needs NOT to “tax the wealthy” but “RECLAIM MY ASSETS”
Reagan RAISED taxes and bush RAISED TAXES, both of these presidents removed taxes and regulations for the wealthy and corporations
Obama needs to get my money back by RESCINDING THE TAX INCREASES OF REAGAN
that’s right, Obama needs to go BACK to the tax codes before Reagan raised taxes
he also needs to get back ALL the “tax credits” his wealthy contributers received, THAT’S MY MONEY NOT THEIRS
I want my infrastructure REBUILT WITH THE FUNDS THAT WERE MISAPPROPRIATED FROM THE MIDDLE CLASS AND MISPLACED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON PLANET EARTH
I want Obama to STOP ALLOWING PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM COUNTRIES THAT USE SLAVE AND CHILD LABOR
if a corporation does not clean the crap the create out of the environment then that product needs to have a tariff to offset these costs the corporation is costing me
if they use slave labor, wages so low the laborer cannot afford healthy food on the table, if he cannot afford the health care that will heal his kids broken arm or his wife’s cancer, PRODUCT FROM THAT COMPANY NEEDS TO HAVE A HEAVY TARIFF
and I want Obama to MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR CORPORATIONS TO CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGNS
corporations ARE NOT PEOPLE AND THEY DO NOT GET THE BILL OF RIGHTS OR THE CONSTITUTION AS THEIR CHAMPION
I surely have some other issues Obama needs to address but these will do for a start
Yeah, that is pretty much what I was thinking when I said “commission”; something like you just described.
Masaccio, I agree with you, but I also think the next couple of years are going to be at least as disappointing to progressives as the past couple have been.
Yesterday Harry Reid agreed to split what had been one Republican energy bill into four separate bills that would make it to the Senate floor, opening up the possibility for new off-shore drilling. Reid and Pelosi have enabled the current administration at just about every step during the past two years. Meanwhile, Harry Reid is clueless as to how to be able to get the ‘Tomnibus Bill’ in front of a real vote. (That would be the mega-bill whose multiple components all enjoy strong ‘bipartisan support’ but with one senator holding up the entire package.)
Adding Obama to the Reid and Pelosi equation does not fill me with a sense of eager anticipation for 2009. I am not trying to say there is nothing to be done. I am just saying that being ready to channel the anger and disappointment I think is going to come in January into practical, local, progressive results is ultimately a realistic and politically profitable approach. Small steps with an eye on the bigger picture. (Or, boy, am I tired of being cold-cocked every time I pick up the morning paper.)
Shorter 38: We just need to start carrying guns to all those knife fights we’ve been going to for eight years.
I’m thinking we make the demand of Obama, and give him the task of dealing with Reid and Pelosi and the rest of them. It looks like we might get some support from Dick Durbin in the Senate, but unless Pelosi can get some left support in the leadership, she’s what we would have. Of course, if he uses the theme in the campaign, even if only occasionally, we get some leverage with leadership.
Isn’t that just a rehash of the FISA debacle sans an issue.
A spotlight should kept shining on the contracting out to private corporations (AKA outsourcing) functions that, when legitimate, should be performed by government, with allowance only for absolutely necessary and carefully monitored contracts and arrangements for corporate assistance. We’ve seen (when secrecy has allowed us a peek) the growing roles of private corporations in military support and training, surveillance and personal data collection for intelligence and law enforcement programs, civil defense and disaster relief, and elsewhere.
Barack Obama’s decision to go-along-with-to-get-along-with the current intelligence community and its private service-provider partners, as manifested by his support and vote for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 as passed by Congress, does not encourage hope that he will stand up and demand significant changes that will begin to restore our constitutional rights and the rule of law. Barack Obama should not be allowed to make a comfortable bed with those who tread upon our liberties while pursuing political or career advantage, or profit, or even (purportedly) security.
I don’t think so. We have a much smaller audience: Obama himself. In the FISA fight, we had to persuade a huge number of congress people with widely varying personal and public agendas. We had to motivate thousands of readers to write and call and contribute, but they had nothing to give those congressfolk in exchange for a vote that conflicted with those agendas.
Obama doesn’t just need to win. If he wants to govern, he needs to win big. We are part of that mosaic, and if we don’t do it, he loses something he needs. Check the threads here or read revdebs comment @ 12 on the FDL version. Obama is losing people, and needs to do something. Our audience of one may well see accountability as a cheap win.
I like your point about posting the bills on the web. That way it would give the general public a chance to vet the bill and they would have to read through the hundreds of pages of their own colleagues bills, which should result in shorter and less laws and which would be probably be a good thing. I would add an amendment to this though: I would add the author’s names and mandate who worked on it; for instance Sen. So-and-so “wrote” this bill with the “help” of Dewey Cheatam and Howe Lobbyist Group for The Robber Baron Corp.
OT, but I hope you saw the Radiohead link I left for you a weekend or so ago:
http://benfry.com/writing/archives/142
I did check out TNGW, thanks. I don’t see FISA in the same light. For me from the get go it was about Obama squandering a leadership opportunity and I have talked to members of his campaign staff post FISA who conceded that his political calculation is a move to the middle. Other long time Obama supporters rebut me with references to Obama’s statements about “moving on” and political staleness when I raise accountability.
And I am not sure the netroots created the FISA passion, it merely provided some focus. I don’t anything comes near to eliciting the same kind of interest without specific consequences in the balance. Leaning on, or dividing existing democratic leadership just isn’t really much of passion inspiring matter in my book, and that is accepting their pitiful capitulations and ineffectiveness.
Maybe I am not the best person to discuss this with from a “party” perspective being a “Nader” independent. I just don’t see Obama recognizing or even desiring a significant gain from “Nader” democrats sufficient for him to perceive the possibility of a landslide by dividing democrats along lines other than those he has already taken as acceptable. The reality of FISA was the passion of people resenting the intrusion of surveillance.
I suppose I have become more cynical following FISA. I liked the Berlin speech and McCain has continually enlightened me with his cheap base aimless shenanigans. I have supported the rebuilding of Afghanistan since Sep. 12, 2001 kinda from a 51st state pov. And so Obama’s asking for NATO help in this regard seemed realistic. I am one who appreciated Obama’s position in promoting a non mandatory health care program and this is probably beyond the mainstream democratic position. Whether he can foster an economic dynamism is yet to be seen. And with respect to the fundamental issue of the promotion of a multi-cultural globally sensitive body politic Obama’s leadership dimensions are quite significant.
The way matters are configured at the moment the score is the one Balkin was writing up a couple of weeks ago. Presidential elections are about the big issues and the media has an interest in portraying a horse race to keep their ratings up.
I just don’t see progressives, anti-corporatist or libertarians getting much from Obama beyond an appealing tone at this point. We will have to see where abundance will be found in the Obama administration and I really don’t see him tanking to the degree you fear. I won’t mind voting for him if I am going to vote especially as McCain continues to show is colors in unbelievable ways. Just the mere hope of the presence he showed in Berlin was enough to buck me up.
It is clear however that deep change and correction is required if the shallow coercive mores that have poisoned are government will be cured. True accountability here would reflect the cost and brutality of an irrational illegal war. I just don’t see Obama having the stomach for it.
Hey, missed it. Thanks for the repost. I hope California is still there in a month.
I agree. And there should be electronic congresscritter signatures tagged to any and all additions/deletions to the bill, so we the Public can figure out in real time and after the fact who is helping to shape the progressive bills we are watching grow in “the womb” and who is throwing poison pills and wrenches into it to produce a stillborn.
I’m sure that analogy would eventually work as a double-edged sword and horrible bills the righties will write will have to be “killed” outright or tabled and left to die but for the hand of God to save it.
I emailed my similar idea last year to Virgil Griffith hoping he could figure out a way to do this for pending Congressional bills. (I don’t know if he got my message). Griffith is the CalTech grad student and inventor of Wikipedia Scanner, a datamining tool for researching the IP addresses of people making changes to Wikipedia entries.
See Wired.
[snip]
“are government” = “our government” … so much for earnestness…
Obama has repeated his pledge to review executive orders. This time he said it in Congress, apparently.
He’s saying the right things, but I want the followthrough to match.
JThomason, what do you mean, ‘a stigma walking in LA’? There’s no stigma about walking here; a lot of people do it. (In some areas it’s faster than cars and buses.) Now, Beverly Hills, they don’t believe in it.
I thought Dale Bozio had set the record straight on that count. But I am willing to stand corrected. I walked from Union Station to Beverly Hills a few years ago, past the Masonic Temple and everything. But then again I am not adverse to being stigmatized. That said I should own that I am adverse to the corporate monoculture.
My list was this:
There’s an even simpler topic that we have to hit: secrecy. Behind every single point that masaccio makes for his demand letter is one simple fact. The current regime was able to corrupt the democratic process by using secrecy to hide its nefarious plots. If we want to save our democracy we have to fight back against the total control that the executive branch has over secrecy in all its forms. We need strong and effective legislation reforming:
1. Classification – Congress and the Judiciary need to automatic clearance at the very highest level. Each committee gets it for its area and Oversight gets for everything. Improper classification has to have real penalties attached. Classification of illegal or questionable activities are prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Members of Congress should have complete immunity for violating classification during debate.
2. State Secrets – Any claim of this privilege gets an automatic ex parte review by the judge with the presumption that the claim is invalid (i.e. the government has to prove their is something to protect and the judge is required to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-governmental party). The executive branch should be required to file a complete report to Congress detailing the exact nature of the activity being protected by state secrets.
3. Executive privilege – We need legislation that defines a clear adversarial process to adjudicate executive-legislative disagreements. The judicial branch can’t hide behind the ’political question’ bs. No one except the President is exempt from appearing before Congress. The GAO needs to be given the power to enforce Congressional subpoenas and contempt citations, subject to a judicial appeal.
4. Deliberative privilege – Needs to be eliminated or seriously restricted. The government belongs to the people and its decision-making process should be open to all.
5. Secret legislation – No secret legislation. No secret appropriations. Closed Congressional hearings should be severely restricted.
6. FOIA improvements – FOIA exemptions should be reduced to privacy and classification. All documents must be produced to the judge hearing the case and the judge decides what can be released. Failure to produce relevant documents should be treated as obstruction of justice.
7. Espionage Act reform – Espionage should be redefined to be possible only during a declared war.
8. Whistleblower protection – any government employee with a well-founded belief that laws are being violated has a positive duty to report that to his departmental IG, the GAO and the relevant Congressional committees. Failure to do so implicates the employee in the activity.
An excellent list! It should be passed immediately!
But it probably won’t. The Republicans won’t let it happen in this Congress, and out of deference to Obama, Democrats will lose interest in the next Congress.
Bob in HI
Does anyone understand how this is legal?
I wonder why candidates don’t sue for crap like this.
You lost me here
It’s more likely when Bush pardons people. And each person pardoned, doesn’t have to cooperate and won’t.
Examining witnesses has not worked at all in HJC and Waxman’s tea parfty and it will never work.
Either
a) They don’t show and it ends up for John Bates to stomp on it. District Court in the D.C. Circuit is a joke for an issue like contempt.
b) No committee has the guts to invoke inherent contempt if they get a contempt vote.
c) Or you have people like Issa obstrcut any meaningful questioning and oversight doing mini fillibusters on the virtues and contributions to the country of Bush and every criminal enterprise the witness engaged upon.
You lost me here masaccio because I dont’ see the purpose of a “report.” Who would do this report, and what would be the purposes and consequences that you want Obama to stand behind? To inform an already disinterested America.
There was next to nothing in the entire news cycle on one of the most craven hijackings of Main Justice by one of the least qualified adult mush brains, Goodling, qualified to hold a job there. And the glee of Rove is he stuffed Goodling up the netroots’ and progressives kazoo and they can’t do a thing to her. Mukasey has refused to prosecute her and no Hatch Act is in the way of an 18USC 1001 indictment for her, Sampson, Williams, possibly Margolis, Nowaki, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Miers, Bolten, Comstock and many others who were complicit in her operation. Not at all.
I would add that I respectfully disagree with anyone that Hillary Clinton was mistreated. Hillary came into this campaign all but crowned. She had an enormous machine. She has a personal fortune and she is shamefully vamping that she get money from Obama contributors to pay a couple who has nearly a hundred and fifty or more million in the bank currently when many of us have real day to day responsibilities to pay bills in our homes and businesses that are only getting tougher to pay.
Not a penny of mine is going to help an enormously rich couple who could pay their debt with a flick of the wrist who think so little of me that they won’t reveal the source of their fortune that have an excellent chance of being illegal sources that would be reflected in the 2007 tax returns, the Clinton Foundation, and the Clinton Library.
I have received emails nearly every other day to volunteer time and money for the Obama campaign and to go out and register voters, and do other things for the campaign.
I have made it a point to email back that my all my time volunteering and money for Obama stopped with his craven and frankly false stance on FISA which was predominantly not crafted by Sunstein but by Greg Craig at Williams and Connelly. I emailed Craig directly and having followed the work closely here on FISA I had no trouble making my points. The locals for Obama for the most part don’t even know what FISA is.
After confirmation of one of the most craven hijackings of DOJ hiring and Immigration judges that displaced qualified people with totally unqualified people who voiced a cretinesque right wing ideology, even Keith Obbermann devoted exactly 500% more time tonight laughing about Miley Cyrus and her pictures with her father than he did digging into using an airhead like Goodling to do some systemic damage to DOJ and a lot of good applicants in the process.
If you mean why the false claims of so many politicians that don’t fact check accuracy cannot be taken into court and attacked the answer is simple Loo Hoo. And remember their are limitations on applying the laws for defamation (slandar, libel, etc.) to public figures.
This should help you. It’s titled on line defamation but it explains the basic tenants of litigation limitations for public figures as to libel or slander.
Bloggers’ FAQ – Online Defamation Law
You have noticed for years that Republican attacks have next to no facts to back them up and an example of this would be Don Young’s ranting on the floor of the Senate that Democrats need to do what’s right for America and allow drilling and that if Clinton hadn’t prevented it 13 years from now (which is laughable because Congress prevented it not Bill Clinton) we would not be dependent on foreign sources for oil now. That’s pure crap.
Buckle up because your gas is going to cost $8/gallon very soon and soon after that $12 and rising. The freeways of California are going to have some different cars on them, but this will not happen overnight.
A very rich multimillionaire psychiatrist that few people know about makes his millions by advising companies on how to brand and sell. He views cars as an extension of someone’s wardrobe like that cute little ubiquitous Polo Pony on the left nipple of so many Ralph Lauren shirts.
California Offers Change In Car Rules
Issues like health care, taxation reform, energy policy-these issues can be viewed and argued from the left or the right. But there doesn’t seem to be anything at all in WO list @52 or accountability that really seems to be a partisan issue. It is a sad state of affairs that these issues are claimed primarily by lefty bloggers.
The FISA fight seemed so important. That was the moment, that was the time to have a confrontation over excessive executive power. That confrontation had to be between Congress and the president. I do not see how President Obama can restore Congress’ power to limit excessive executive power. A benign dictator is still a dictator.
massacio, great post!
What if I said, “I’m sick of a system in which 4 people get to hold 300 others hostage?!” Wouldn’t everyone find that bizarre? But that is exactly what’s happening with the screwy way the arcane, outdated US Senate works.
I’ll compare a few statistics.
===============================
CALIFORNIA, Sen Barbara Boxer: After the 2006 elections, Boxer took over Inhofe’s spot to become Chair, United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
OKLAHOMA, Sen. James Inhofe: In a July 28, 2003, Senate speech, Inhofe claimed to offer “compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax…” At that time, he chaired the Senate committee charged with overseeing global warming.
=============================
Economic Activity:
CALIFORNIA entertainment, aerospace, agriculture, computers and high tech, and wine.
OKLAHOMA: natural gas (2nd), crude oil (5th), active drilling rigs (2nd),
(96 percent of its electricity being generated by non-renewable sources in 2002, including 64 percent from coal and 32 percent from natural gas)….
** three of the largest private oil-related companies in the nation are located in the state,
** all five of Oklahoma’s Fortune 500 companies are oil-related
===================================
State Populations:
CALIFORNIA: 36,553,215 in 2007; pop density = 233.8/sq mi (12% of US pop)
OKLAHOMA: 3,617,316 (2007 est.); pop density = 50.3/sq m
================================
State Land Area:
CALIFORNIA: It is the third-largest U.S. state by land area.
OKLAHOMA: 69,898 sq mi, 20th-largest state
================================
State Economies:
CALIFORNIA: $1.812 trillionin 2007…13% of US GDP.
OKLAHOMA: $134.6 billion in 2006
=================================
The ‘red state/ blue state’ mantra is far, far too simplistic.
Two states. Two senators. Two votes in the US Senate.
One vote represents 35,000,000 people who develop computers, grow food, and think global warming is a problem.
The other vote represents 3,600,000 people who drill for oil and fix airplanes (and grow some wheat), by a loon who thinks that global warming is a hoax.
This isn’t about red/blue.
It’s about 35 million people and the world’s sixth largest economy being wagged by the tail of fewer than 4 million people in the nation’s 26th largest state with an economy smaller than what Californians spend on cars in a single year.
This is lunacy.
I’d like to add that there has been much hype about Obama needing Hillary voters and needing the money of her enormous machine even though she has a personal fortune with her husband pushing $200.000,000 and growing and won’t pay herself back but wants to put her debts on the backs of people who don’t do a Kazakhstan uranium deal on their way to the grocery or to get their oil changed.
In fact, Obama doesn’t need the votes of Hillary’s supporters or their money to win if they choose to be hardcore and stupidly go for McCain. Most of Hillary’s supporters or Obama’s are in fact barely conscious if at all of the downticket theme masaccio referenced of “more and better democrats.” Correct me if I’m wrong but this Congress was supposed to have the tool of “more and better democrats” and that has failed miserably so far.
In June 2008 Obama raised $52 million dollars. The Hillraiser contributed $20,000 to him. That’s 0386% of his contributions for June.
Hillraisers Donated Less Than $20,000 To Obama In June
Hillraisers are contributing next to nothing for Obama and thus far, Bill and Hillary Clinton have done nothing significant to help Obama. The Hill/Norma Rae Pickup Truck 200 millionairess has scheduled some events with her appearing separately (probably to advance whatever the hell fantasy she has delusions about for 8 years from now) but so far the Clintons haven’t lifted a finger to help Obama or mobilize her bitter intrepid army who feel that since she wasn’t crowned women have somehow been gender insulted.
Bingo.
The thing about this two party system is that candidates don’t usually worry too much about pissing off the lifers in the party. They figure, “who else they going to vote for”.
They have to know we will take them down if they don’t deliver on the big issues. FISA was such an issue. McCain was forced to drink the kool aid in the primary, it was required. He’s not the same guy he was just two years ago. FISA came after the primary. Obama blew us off, and I still can’t see the political calculus.
Primaries are the first line of enforcement. We HAVE to be willing to take down incumbants from our side of the aisle. Pelosi and DiFi are damn fine examples of senior congress critters that need to be made into examples at the next opportunity. We start woodshedding some of these folks in the primary, and the bullshit games will stop.
But now we’re heading for the general election. I gave Obama money during the primary, and was planning on giving my personal max during the general, but I’m pissed over FISA and I’m not sure I’m giving him any more money. We have a fine Senetorial candidate ready to thump John Cornyn (and I don’t care if I spelled the dicks name right) down here, and I’m likely going to redirect to there. Obama has peace to make with me.
Bottom line, if he’s going to pull a FISA on every other issue we care about, why should we give a tinker’s damn if he gets elected. I’d rather focus on congress, toss Obama to the wolves and make sure we’ve got the nominee’s attention in four years.
At the end of the day, these guys need to fear thier consituancies more than the lobbyist, more than the media. They need to know we don’t forget, and that we’ll vote issues over party. We will send our own home.
We need to make a few examples. To answer a bumper sticker, “Yeah. We’ve had enough, and not just of Republicans.”
I think the major problem is that although Joe Six Pack could understand if it were properly explained, he and the bellshaped curve not only does not undersand they are deliberately indifferent.
Most Americans have no clue about the issues massaccio listed nor or they taking steps to learn about them.
A large number of voters will touch the easily hacked Diebolds (we don’t pull levers any more in most places) based on some ignorant gut impression. Across every socioeconomic spectrum are people who hate Obama because they believe he and his wife pose a muslim threat showing their ignorance not only of Obama’s background but of Muslims in general.
Some will vote Republican because the Democrats are not dispatching their puppie dogs out to drill off shore since there are no damn boats available for years to do the drilling if it were a wise choice and it’s not.
And I’m plenty aware of the economic issues that grip this country and the totally ridiculous asleep at the switch planning that helped drive them by people who oversaw banks like Greenspan who blithly ignores the enormous role he played and the huge component of the nearly half billion dollar debt Bush waltzes away leaving.
pdaly, He could have a contest to figure out how to refine and provide better government services, a la United Kingdom’s current competition:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blog…..aycom.html
Sorry that should be half a trillion dollars in debt left by Bush that still doesn’t factor in much of the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mistyped by a factor of a thousand.
AND who’d have ever thought that the far left’s big issues would be restoration of basic constitutional balance, and bringing back ANY level of accountability.
The scale is so far out of balance that we can’t even see the floor from our side of it. The basic operation of government is now the progressive adgenda??? I mean, holy shit. And our golden child presidential candidate is voting against basic accountability to seem moderate??
We need some fucking ruby slippers here, people. This is Oz!
Great post, by the way.
I think a lot of people have been turned off to politics through negative ads, a sense that it’s AllInsultsAllTheTime, the corrosive non-solutions of Bill O’Reilly and Coulter and the rest of the GOP exhibitionists.
That doesn’t mean people are stupid.
I take it to mean that they’re fairly sane, and they prefer to avoid nasty, unpleasant people.
Let’s hope Obama stays positive, and that the ads (like MoveOn’s “HOPE” ad) stay humorous and upbeat. I think a lot of people are thirsty for that right now.
I believe strongly that the people aren’t stupid and that they can be educated but whatever the components and yours are very valid, so many of them are tuned out.
I wish I had a nickle for all the posts at fdl and here that mourn the media’s distorted coverage and their terrible priorities in daily, weekly and monthly news cycles. And they’re all valid. The media has never had more crucial issues to cover and instead of rising to the occasion, for the highly lopsided most part, they’ve buried their heads in the sand.
I don’t have the magic answer, but whateer the chemistry, people are totally unaware and unconcerned about many of the vital issues as far as their government being taken away from them in a very snide fashion. I don’t think they’re all stupid at all, although a lot of them have hitched on to stupid prejudices and a high percentage of them are behaving in ways to insure they won’t be educated.
The media is not helping and I don’t know when it’s been worse desite the paradigm shift in technology over the last 20 years.
There is an interesting trend I don’t understand. As Bob from Hiwaii questioned there are two separate sets of comments for the same post by masaccio.
So, what’s the deal? Are there two whole different sets of comments to the same post, one here, and the other over next door?
Bob in HI
Separate set of comments for this same post are What Should Obama Do For Us at Firedoglake segregated from the same post and differnt comments at Empty Wheel
By segregating the posts you have people going crosseyed trying to figure out why there are two segregated sets of comments masaccio.
This list by Hugh at FDL on the same blog@ 31 over at FDL is simply grossly wrong as to many of its tenents listed that are not at all and have never been Obama’s stated positions and they cannot be butressed by facts on the ground or things he has ever held or said.
Well here is some of what Obama hasn’t done for us
1) Voted for the FISA Amendments Act
2) OK on SCOTUS overturning DC gun ban
3) Thinks women who want late term abortions for mental health reasons should tough it out
4) Against overturning death penalty for child rape
5) Belligerent on Iran
6) Backed unified Jerusalem as capital of Israel and then backed off his stand
7)Wanted to pull down walls in Berlin but said nothing about Israel’s or our own border fence.
Dennis Ross is his Middle East adviser
9) His healthcare plan is not universal or mandatory
10) He favors faith based initiatives
11) He voted for Petraeus and Odierno for CENTCOM commander and head of MNF-Iraq respectively
12) Cass Sunstein is one of his legal advisers
If there are other things to add please feel free.
Also it’s an oversimplification if you know anything about Sunstein or have read his books or law reviews to begin to demonize Sunstein. Greg Craig is the advisor who pushed him and Obama certainly should be faulted for his cynical FISA vote. Greg Craig is also one of his chief foreign policy advisors and Dennis Ross is hardly his major middle east advisor. There are roughly a couple hundred people who are shaping Obama’s foreign policy positions.
He has not emphatically stated many of the things that Hugh has listed above.
Bmaz has stated this on this same blog that is duplicated at FDL with a whole different set of comments and commenters:
Bmaz’s definition of Obama’s job at UC Law
Bmaz wrote:
From the University of Chicago School of Law:
Statement Regarding Barack Obama University of Chicago The Law School
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”
In fact he did teach three courses there for a period of time and was not an ad hoc lecturer the whole time. I’m not sure where Bmaz got that idea.
From the article in this morning’s NYT:
Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart
This is reminiscent of FDR saying, in short, “I think it’s a great idea. Now go out and make me do it.” Whatever it is we want, we have to make him do it.
Obama has demonstrated himself to be absolutely unreliable. His term or two will be one chronic disappointment after another, without a credible plan in place to exert all possible pressure on him to act consistently with his promises.
Well i got that idea from the fact that I have spent significant time around a law school and know people that have done the exact thing Obama did. They were never considered professors by the school, nor did (and still do in one case) they themselves consider themselves professors. That’s how. Lastly, and i will be brutally honest about this, I have seen nothing out of Obama personally that indicates he really has all that great a grasp on Constitutional law. Since the campaign started, there have been several instances over the time that there were little telling moments; times when a real Constitutional scholar would have indicated the interplay of one or another Constitutional principles. If he is a “Constitutional scholar”, he is the most vacuous one I have ever seen. Oh, and by the way, any person that made the pathetically disingenuous BS rationalizations and position statements he did on FISA should be immediately excommunicated from the “Constitutional scholar” club. If he were a lecturer at my law school, I would actively call for him to be terminated for cause for having violated the tenets of the very thing he was teaching students to love and protect.
Accountability in politics? Is so last century. I pay my accountant a healthy sum just to squeeze a moderate lifestyle. War, nukes, fraud, planed obsolescence, corporate socialization, you name it, American life needs a people powered progressive revolution. It’s true Obama radiates hope, but sh*t ain’t going happen unless we push, organize and push hard.
While I celebrate Marcy, Jane’s , Christy’s, and many others on line efforts to organize people. I suspect many people who come to this site and other sites have been involved in active citizenry for a very long time. I also celebrate the folks who have been committed to active citizenry their whole lives and have set examples for all of us. By recognizing old tried and true methods of active citizenry, petitions, visits, phone calls, power of the purse, street demonstrations, etc etc combined with the power of the internet we have entered a new day with the collective power and focus of active citizenry.
Recognizing the efforts of the folks who have come before us and the folks who will come after us is a unifying factor and demonstrates wisdom.
“Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
- Margaret Mead
Obama has on numerous occasions brought up the people who have come before him to open the gates of opportunity via their commitments to social and economic justice. I respect this about Obama. He is riding this wave of opportunity and I’m not sure if he understands it is not necessarily his own actions that have put him on that wave but the American peoples hunger for change, justice and accountability.
What I do not respect about Obama are his repetitive words about “moving forward”, “turning the page”, “letting by gone’s be by gone’s”, this is complete hogwash.(and Cass Sunstein said some of these very same things during his interview on Democracy Now with Glenn Greenwald). This has me very worried, very worried. We can not move forward as a nation until the Bush administration officials and any complicit Democrats are held accountable for the list of crimes that they have committed.
http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html
Accountability Now Pac could expand it’s active citizenry out reach modeled after Aipac’s website one of the most effective lobbying websites and organizations going.
An Accountability Now Pac conference in the fall would be well worth attending just after the election hell it would be great before the election.
Hit the hill in mass after the conference
How about this: A pledge that science and observation of actual results will guide policy rather than ideology. If a program is demonstrated to not work, it will be abandoned, even if ideology says it should work. An example from the current emperor: If abstinence-only sex education is demonstrated to not work, it will be abandoned or modified in a meaningful way to respond to actual data rather than someone’s idea of what they think god wants. Ideology may suffice for initiating programs, but ONLY observed data will suffice for the maintenance of it. I am certain someone can say this better than I am saying it, but you get the idea.
I second your analysis.
I’m voting for Obama because hope is the only alternative left, and
I hate everything Repugs stand for.
Good job, masaccio, on accountability.
I fear though, that our country has reached the democracy tipping point.
I’m way cynical.
We have lost our greatness and are in decline.
Maybe we will find our way, but I’m not optimistic, greed has taken hold.
As pundits say with their trite “at the end of the day”, the “reality of the situation” and “transparency” bull shit, we are FUCKED.
Jesus, that’s easy. First things first:
1. get us completely out of Iraq and
2. redistrict like hell before the next census.
Thereby becoming the Tom DeLay of the left? Good idea.
I read your post innitially as suggesting a demand of Obama in return for support. How does framing the request in starkly political terms forward us to the supposed goal of receiving a discrete policy point? Isn’t the idea to get something nonpolitical out of the political process? If the demand itself must be a point of political motivation, I fail to see how demanding more politics helps.
IG Glenn Fine before SJC on C-SPAN3
(Or is liveblogging happening elsewhere?)
greed took hold long ago/has reached a tipping point. I am hearing local Appalachian people talking about forming militias. It is getting serious in these hills, lots of metal thieving going on for heroin and oxycontin, thieving in these parts is off the charts right now. Folks in towns like Glouster, Trimble, Chauncey Ohio (old coal mining/union towns) economically depressed, high welfare areas, lots of young people using lots of drugs and alcohol…heading down hill quickly.
During the last three elections I tried hard to get the DCCC to employ some of these young people. The Democrats needs to demonstrate that they have real interest in the people in these economically depressed areas not just come to town just before the election. These are the folks I am hearing talking about forming militias
I like “Accountability”, as outlined by masaccio, and rule of law, like most readers of this blog defined by its coverage of the Plamegate and the Libby trial.
As an addition to this, though, I’d like to mention that the anti-American notion of a “unitary executive” should be publicly recognized and renounced. The principle of dictatorship (albeit plebiscitary dictatorship) has been given the patina of legitimacy. It’s a bit arcane for the voter, but I want every single judicial nominee asked to explicitly reject and renounce this attack on liberal democracy. It might be too much to ask that Judge Alito be impeached (or even asked to resign) for openly espousing but there should be a taint on him for it, if only indirectly, when future judges condemn his beliefs as a litmus test for confirmation.
I am very cynical of Obama. I had them take my name off his registry after his vote and decided he must earn it back. THere are times when my cynacism makes me want to give up.
I will say this again. We are in a constitutional crises, much like we were over slavery, and womens rights. This battle will not be won over night. We have to sort of radically accept that this is a “long haul” battle.
These are the facts:
1) these current problems have been brewing and bubbling out throughout the life of United States of America. They have always been in the under currents of discussion. Have you ever read the speeches given by our most beloved leaders during the political battles during the late 1700’s, 1800’s?? The same themes, the same arguements can be found on both sides of the aisles. The neo con belief system has always been with us.
2) We can be apathetic (which calls to me when I feel hopeless and powerless) or we can understand that apathy, giving up will only ensure their (the neo cons) victory over the constitution. We have to see this in the long term picture. Even if the only thing we accomplish are the writings of the people on this blog, even if these writings are analyzed a hundred years from now, and we never see the thoughts and ideas here, come to fruition, we have still accomplished something important. We cannot stop trying to influence the situation just because we have been effectively stopped in our tracks for now. We haven’t stopped. Anne Franks died, but we still have her story.
3) Change takes time. I do think we need to organize our thoughts and perhaps create think tanks to work on these issues. We need to organize our thoughts and prioritize the changes.
The first major peice of legislation passed by the Bush adminstration was the one that allowed big corporations to own the media companies. When it passed, I tried to get people in a panic. This was long before I had found these blogs. No one understood at the time, the impact this would have. But the impact has been even greater and faster than I would have predicted. First we have to get our airwaves back so that we CAN once again communicate with the american public.
I think sometimes you have to start with something less controversial. Something that only the neo cons really care about. We need to repeal that law. We need to break up the huge corporations that now own our media.
Blogging will never be able to reach the masses.
We need our media back.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN3_rm.aspx
The Dept of Justice Inspector General
Senator Whitehouse ripping through the bull crap
“reading the report was creepy”
“this administration has no gag reflex”
“new Attorney General has basically said ‘we will sin no more”
Perris,
I think you’ve got a good start.
1. Corporations are not people and cannot contribute to political campaigns in any fashion.
My first reply got eaten by the now permanant and regular fixture that eats comments with a lot of MySql file paths listed that’s been a feature lately so I’ll be briefer.
I agree with you entirely on FISA. However it’s not fair to Obama to call him vaccuous. He never held himself out to be a con law scholar, but he sure could hold his own against anyone on Feingold’s Constitutional Law subcommittee if he took the time and applied himself.
You know well he hasn’t wanted to appear to be a constitutional law scholar anyway because he is already being beaten up for his education as “too elite.” Why the hell do you think a woman with $200 million from Yale law school kept standing up in the back of pickups and tossing down boiler makers in Pennsylvania and Virginia? You can’t campaign for President by incorporating Scotus Blog’s Academic Roundup in your campaign speeches
If you get on a train Joe Sixpack is probably going to be able to voice an opiinion on the kabuki playing out with Brett Favre and the Pack, but not likely to lightup if you ask his opinion on Glenn Reynolds’ (University of Tennessee College of Law) and Brannon Denning’s (Cumberland School of Law) essay entitled “Heller’s Future in the Lower Courts,” in the Northwestern Law Review
although guns may be near and dear to his heart.
As to your views on FISA, you’ll never have anyone more firmly in your corner who appreciates them than me. I was just as disappointed in Obama there.
However if you compare Obama to almost every Presidential candidate he knows a lot more about con law than they began to.
If and when Obama were to apply himself to a con law issue he would be able to drill it in depth and knows without googling how to get hold of an army of constitutional law scholars, one of which happens to be Cass Sunstein whether he is currently being satanized by the liberal blogosphere or not.
Let’s look at the federal appellate bench. I can go circuit by circuit with you and trial court by trial court. I know some of these people and they are far from constitutional law scholars, and I think I read more constitutional law than a number of appellate judges I know or know about do, and more law reviews and hell that’s not my main occupation. I can show you cases of first impression on the planet in the Eleventh Circuit where one of the better judges Stan Birch (whose conservative leanings I often don’t agree with and his law clerks particularly in criminal opinions) who hires some of the better law clerks at that Circuit who has missed key precedents including precedents that he himself wrote.
And just because I didn’t take care of or talk about a pheochromocytoma yesterday or in a long while, doesn’t mean that I can’t or that I can’t marshall enormous resources to do so in a state of the art way if I have to.
If Obama were occupied day to day in drilling con law as many law professors or the appellate attorneys who are immersed in it who run SCOTUS Blog, he could hold his own.
On the other hand, Clarence Thomas wasn’t denied a job in Atlanta out of law school because he was black. He was denied a job because he couldn’t have begun to cut it at the law firms where he applied period.
And when I see lists like Hugh’s (for some goofyreason separate comments to this same blog were put up on FDL by separate commenters–you go figure that one because I simply can’t) when someone like Hugh writes that Obama didn’t offer universal health care and Hillary did that’s simply naive to the max.
If you want to get an idea and this goes for Hugh as to what health care isn’t, try delivering it for years. I’ve paid close attention to health issues and studied them and the promises by candidates who began making them before I was born. There are always promises rolled out particularly in the last few campaigns and not one of them sees the light of day.
Right now we have a tremendously systemic problem that in many large states ambulances have a ridiculous ETA to a hospital in major trauma cases and this kills. We have a huge problem that middle income Americans are vastly underinsured with huge deductables and have a helluva time getting to see the right physician. 1/5 Americans claims to have this problem. Of those reporting access to physician problems last year, 43.5 million had insurance, compared with 25.9 million in 2003. Many of the underinsured earn 200% of the federal poverty level. The poverty level is $17,600 for a family of three and that number of 200% included 11.4 million in 2007 up by 7.2 million since 2003.
17.5% of the uninsured said they had a major unmet medical need for health care in 2007. 28.6% of people said they could not physically get to a doctor’s office when it was open.
All of this means for example that someone who has AODM Type “II” may not get care early on when it can be tightly controlled with two rather inexpensive default drugs out of the hundred or so we have at our fingertips like Glucophage and Glipizide BID and when they are seen they may have significant retinal lesions, renal problems and skin problems that can lead to amputation. And the care for many of the inner city hospitals affiliated with tertiary centers that end up caring for them is exponentially higher when that happens. I don’t see a lot of “solutions” for that in either of the Democratic Senators’ plans, and I don’t need to tell you that while McCain wants to pour billions down the tube in Iraq so that we can get oil deals for Big Oil, his health care plan is “let ‘em eat fucking cake.”
It has now become a struggle for most physicians who are not part of a very large corporation or Kaiser type clinic one day at a time with insurance companies and their red tape and bureaucracy.
Hillary’s plan and Obama’s plan as I’ve said before left much that they couldn’t acount for or deal with, and that’s before Congress would metabolize them thoroughly with legislation written by the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies.
For the most part, access to health care is being completely controlled by insurace companies who additionally are paving the way for identity theft by mailing out 250,000 Social Security numbers to the wrong addresses like Blue Cross did the other day.
Constitutional law scholarship isn’t going to be paraded in any presidential campaign. However you’re correct that Obama could have shown the background he has by doing the correct thing and exhibited leadership in FISA and I subscribe to all your statements there and I’m deeply disappointed with what he did.
Unfortunately, we don’t know much really about how a candidate will perform until he spends time in the Oval. Look at Bush. What experience did he have in Austin? Not much and it damn well shows now.
The Supreme Court appointed him in the first election and it is not likely we’ll know what happened in Ohio in thesecond one for Bush.
On WO’s list, I like 1 and 2 the best. ”No secret legislation” runs into problems with things such as the intelligence appropriation where you don’t want possible counterintelligence knowing anything. We might say ”no secret non-appropriation legislation” or ”OLC interpretations of the law to be made public in a timely manner”. Also, if we run spies during a time of peace, we need to expect that other countries are running spies as well.
I agree with PP that the knowledge which Obama has of constitutional law and the thought he has had to have about it is light-years beyond McCain’s. Of course this is a very low bar.
Telecommunications Reform Act which allowed radio consolidation is a creation of the Clinton administration. May not have its name correct.
How about an on-line searchable database of government contracts & bids (both bid and no-bid) that also shows who the bids are from and identifies thier corporate officers. Corporations are tools to get a job done, not to hide behind.
And why we are at it, how about closing down GITMO and terminating the lease, unless we are willing to allow unrestricted travel to Cuba for all Americans (as long as they promise to visit the gulag as part of their visit).
Being elected the head of Harvard Law Review and getting there after growing up dirt poor without a father and then actually teaching a course at the University of Chicago which is predominantly a right wing leaning faculty when you are already known to be a progressive liberal activist is hitting a pretty high bar and as I argued, I know plenty of federal appellate sitting judges that are bright enough and will admit they are learning constitutional law as they go along.
The Republicans who are prominent who have Harvard Law backgrounds are lying to you every day and two of them are are Ken Mehlman and current Senior White House Counselor and Major Strattegist who in effect replaced Andy Card along with Josh Bolten Ed Gillespie. Much of what people who comment here hate, and Marcy and Bmaz and others expose can be laid at the feet of those two individuals along with Addington and their collective staffs.
Obama attended a small unknown college and was picked in a special project from little known Occidental College in LA to go to Columbia University where he excelled. He did not go straight to law school. He went back to South Chicago, lived humbly, and worked his ass off in the streets and actually did help a large number of disenfranchised people on the South Side of Chicago.
While at Columbia Obama majored in poly sci and minored in international relations. He worked in NYC for 4 years after graduating college, then moved to the South Side of Chicago. After 7 years of working after college, he applied to and got into Harvard Law School. There aren’t many kids with his upbringing in the freshman class at Harvard Law ever. Many of them fit the mode where daddy is ensconsed in a 6-7 figure job in a major player law firm.
From Wiki:
He never ever represented slum lords–he was on the other end of the stick. I say this because one “LHP” a blogger here and on FDL and a lawyer who has never practiced in an environment in the streets, although she thinks if she went to Harlem that qualifies, and did not drop out of her academic game planafter college before going to Yale Law school to work in the streets of NYC or anywhere else has falsely accused Obama on a FDL blog that gained her some web noteriety as representing slum lords, and as “just another Chicago Pol.”
LHP even tried to smack Obama over his poker games as if they were the stuff of quintissential Boss Tweed graft.
She also misinterpreted Obama’s Present Votes in the Senate which were done expressly at the request of liberal activist entities like Planned Parenthood and NOW.
One Avner Mikvah who was a D.C. Circuit Judge and then went to the White House to serve as President Bill Clinton’s White House Counsel and who is now a full professor at University of Chicago Law School wrote an op ed in NYT explaining Obama’s Yes Votes that LHP critiqued without having any knowledge of what they meant at all. Mikvah served in the Illinois Senate, was an federal appellate judge in arguably the most prestigious although I would hardly say most important circuit (but many would) and is a full time law prof at U Chi. LHP has not yet done those things which might have given her (or a small amount of research) some insight into Obama’s real background far flung from what she portrayed.
When and if LHP can get the Clintons to release
a) Tax returns
b) Foundation Contributors
c) Library Contributors
that will be helpful. And to use LHP’s vernacular, the contributors to the Clinton’s fortune pushing $200 million people are “not particularly law abiding citizens” and muchof the money is dirty and some of the major contributors have now been put in federal prison. Some of them make Tony Rezko look absolutely chiorboyesque.
Incidently, Planned Parenthood is on record with 100% support of Obama’s pro-abortion stance which was mischaracterized in Hugh’s little list on this same blog with different commenters! go figure that one out that exists on FirePuppyLake that I linked here.
I know one who had no federal litigation experience and I have watched her repeatedly at oral argument and I would hope I could deliver a quicky course to a tenth grader and they could ask better questions on the facts and the law of the case. She is poorly prepared most of the time, and I think she frankly lacks a decent 2nd year law student’s grasp of constitutional law, the application of legislative history, (despite Scalia’s objections it’s a major part of the vast percentage of opinions in any Federal Reporter you can throw up in the air and let drop on the floor,k and certainly she cannot find key on point precedents nor can her law clerks seem to.
That’s be one Frank Hull on the Eleventh Circuit CA.
This is a solar system away from McCain and I would submit a pretty high bar. And someone who is now a conservative federal judge recommended Obama to U Chicago Law School in the first place and it has a very conservative faculty for the most part which is why Sunstein who is not was able to fit in there and thrive before recently moving to Harvard Law to live with his fiance Samantha Power.
Teaching Law, Testing Ideas, Obama Stood Apart:
You can spew all the repetitive bunk you want about Obama the boy constitutional genius. I have seen it already, but I know that won’t keep you from endlessly repeating it. He has shown nothing to back the claim up. Nothing. He is a typical Chicago politician, nothing more, nothing less; and a fairly blank slate one at that. Imprint all the beliefs you want to delude yourself with on him; I am not buying one bit of it.
You obviously didn’t read what I wrote Bmaz. And in a courtroom as you well know there are plenty of ways to keep you from putting words in your opponent’s mouth and I’m not your opponent. Read it this time.
I didn’t characterize him as a boy constitutional genius at all. I said he has the tools in his head to become a con law scholar if he wants to. Some lawyers have them, and others have as much chance to do so after graduation from law school as my new puppy does.
He has also tried to play down his academic credentials just as the bitch Clinton did although she was much more disingenuous and just plain phony about doing so.
I know what a con law scholar is, and most of the ones I know who are stick with it for years as a living whether academic or practicing lawyers. The population who definitely are not con law scholars, as Judge Posner makes clear explicitly in his new book, are appellate judges and district court judges.
Obama has never claimed to be a con law scholar. I haven’t claimed that for him. I said that he has the means to become one if that’s what he chose to do just as you have in spades.
And you can tear into me all you like. You get a very thick skin doing what I do for years. Go for it.
But read what I said again–you mischaracterized and conflated it. And it’s not repetitive.
You obviously didn’t read what I wrote Bmaz. And in a courtroom as you well know there are plenty of ways to keep you from putting words in your opponent’s mouth and I’m not your opponent. Read it this time.
I didn’t characterize him as a boy constitutional genius at all. I said he has the tools in his head to become a con law scholar if he wants to. Some lawyers have them, and others have as much chance to do so after graduation from law school as my new puppy does.
He has also tried to play down his academic credentials just as the bitch Clinton did although she was much more disingenuous and just plain phony about doing so.
I know what a con law scholar is, and most of the ones I know who are stick with it for years as a living whether academic or practicing lawyers. The population who definitely are not con law scholars, as Judge Posner makes clear explicitly in his new book, are appellate judges and district court judges.
Obama has never claimed to be a con law scholar. I haven’t claimed that for him. I said that he has the means to become one if that’s what he chose to do just as you have in spades.
And you can tear into me all you like. You get a very thick skin doing what I do for years. Go for it.
But read what I said again–you mischaracterized and conflated it. And it’s not repetitive.
Wow…I have to say that calling Clinton a “bitch” is in my opinion a very sexist and misognist thing to say. It’s a word that is designated for women only. It is a word that is used perjoratively to describe women. Why is it any different than using the N word.
Women have died as their husbands used that word. Women have been tortured and raped while that word was uttered to rationalize the behavior.
Please. Think about your use of that word.