Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:00:04 -0400
Both Barack Obama and John McCain have a closetful of flip flops on issues. What is interesting about the flip flops is McCain has flip flopped towards the right - on the Bush tax cuts, on torture, on immigration, on everything. There is no moving to the "middle" for McCain. There is only moving to the far right. He is really running for Bush's third term. Obama's flip flops have him moving to the right as well, aligning him closer to Bush's third term, instead of making clear he will be a break from the extremism of the Bush years.
It as if Obama has an inner Dick Morris he is listening to. McCain playing to his base will not be covered as pandering. Obama should consider that for a moment. That perhaps honoring his own base will be seen as a moment of strength for him. In Nigel Hamilton's book on Bill Clinton, "Mastering the Presidency", Hamilton describes the inner cowardice of Morris, who advised Clinton to cave in to Newt Gingrich even though Morris' own polling told him that Clinton was winning that battle in political terms:...
[...]
Bill Clinton had appeared strong by standing up to the Republicans. He looked as if he stood for something, and he explained what that something was. It amazes me that Democrat have never understood the political significance of what happened in that episode.
Obama's inner Dick Morris is leading him down a terrible path politically. Yesterday, the NYTimes Ed Board wrote:
We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any “redefining” on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.
What is unstated in the editorial is the lack of confidence that there will not be changes regarding those "vital differences." Obama now appears a "finger in the wind" pol (forget whether he is or not.) He does not appear ready to stand for anything. And that is a dangerous image for a pol. Indeed, it is the typical image of the Dem running for President. Bill Clinton helped himself overcome that image by standing strong on the government shutdown against Newt Gingrich.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/5/94955/15951
Of course...speaking for myself.....O has never appeared to stand for anything and is the definition of a "finger in the wind" pol.
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
...over there, nails it, imo....
"Caving in" to another party has the clear implication that one is giving up something one very much wants out of fear of consequences.
Yet the deep truth about Obama appears to be that he has never had a firm commitment about any of these issues. Why should he hold firm on FISA, or Iraq, or campaign finance reform, or late term abortion, or NAFTA, when he has never had strong convictions on any of these issues?
The story of Obama's political life is that he doesn't hold any values deeply enough that sharply opposing values offend him. That is the true and inescapable moral to be drawn from his attendance for 20 years at TUCC. Values, for Obama, would appear to be fungible; chips at the poker game of political power.
BTD's recommendation that Obama should hold firm and not cave to the Republicans can at best be understood, therefore, as a strictly political strategy for Obama. Obama is, at base, motivated only by such considerations. If indeed one can make the case to Obama and his campaign that he would be held in higher regard if he seemed to have "firm principles", then I expect that he will suddenly show that he has "firm principles". If that case can't be made to seem compelling, then he won't.
And this really is a way in which I think Obama is unlike any other major Democratic politician I can remember. I'm absolutely sure that Hillary (as Bill before her -- demonstrated by his fighting Newt Gingrich) has very strong basic values that she wants to fight for. She and other Democratic politicians will compromise on some issues, and "act like pols", but they always bear in mind the need to achieve more basic goals. While different politicians reckon the consequences differently, the basic calculation is typically: what do we have to do politically to attain what we most value in terms of policy?
But in Obama, I see nothing like this. Everything appears to be expendable. Political consequences drive every decision. He'll compromise if that would seem to make him more popular. He'll hold firm if that would seem to make him more popular.
I can't see a single major issue on which he's take a stand, or flip flopped, that can't be explained by that calculus.
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
In fact, I've been saying much the same for some
time. When he seldom if ever talked about issues
on the campaign trail, when he so casually
adopted Hillary's positions during debates, it
began to be obvious that there was nothing he
cared about beyond advancing his only cause --
the aggrandizement of Barack Obama.
Honestly, after reviewing the events of this week is that come November, Barack Obama will have decisively thrown himself under his own bus, backed up & driven over himself dozens of times.
November will be a self-inflicted wound at this point for Democrats. This garbage about Barack Obama being the new Democratic Party & the leader is all a bunch of bunk. Sorry, that's not even hyperbole.
Leaders have to prove themselves. Leaders have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
The Wheels of the Bus Go Round & Round
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEtuXrV_KnM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kUmwI54Zu8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzvL1iOAOT4&feature=related
The wheels on the bus go round and round
Round and round, round and round
The wheels on the bus go round and round
All through the town.
(Roll hands over each other)
The wipers on the bus go "Swish, swish, swish,
Swish, swish, swish, swish, swish, swish"
The wipers on the bus go "Swish, swish, swish"
All through the town.
(Put arms together in front of you and 'swish' like windshield wipers)
The door on the bus goes open and shut
Open and shut, open and shut
The door on the bus goes open and shut
All through the town.
(Cover eyes with hands on 'shut' and uncover them on 'open')
The horn on the bus goes "Beep, beep, beep
Beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep"
The horn on the bus goes "Beep, beep, beep"
All through the town.
(Pretend to honk horn)
The gas on the bus goes "Glug, glug, glug
Glug, glug, glug, glug, glug, glug"
The gas on the bus goes "Glug, glug, glug"
All through the town.
(Pretend to fill tank using pointer finger as gas nozzle)
The money on the bus goes "Clink, clink, clink,
Clink, clink, clink, clink, clink, clink"
The money on the bus goes "Clink, clink, clink"
All through the town.
(Pretend to put money in cash box on bus)
The baby on the bus says, "Wah, wah, wah!
Wah, wah, wah, wah, wah, wah!"
The baby on the bus says, "Wah, wah, wah!"
All through the town.
(Fisted hands in front of eyes and rub them like baby crying)
The people on the bus say, "Shh, shh, shh,
Shh, shh, shh, shh, shh, shh"
The people on the bus say, "Shh, shh, shh"
All through the town.
(Put pointer finger to mouth to 'shhh')
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/3/224439/9467
There, of course, is a silver lining that shouldn't go unmentioned. I sincerely mean "Welcome!" I'm more than delighted to see people newly involved and engaged, it tickles me to death. But, I hope that more than a few of you will take this opportunity to at least revisit and think about your collective hysteria and the way you trashed a good woman who has devoted her life to public service; a woman who is responsible for searing the idea of universal healthcare into the modern political mind.
FISA: A Time To Sit In At Obama's Campaign Offices?
Many activists involved with the struggle to preserve our 4th Amendment rights and oppose the latest revisions to FISA were deeply disappointed by the substance of Obama's response, which contained a whole series of misleading arguments, as Glenn Greenwald documented here.
While some were ecstatic that Obama listened at all, others had a higher standard, and found the disingenuous arguments to be insulting to their intelligence, particularly given how fundamental the issues are, and how clearly Senator Obama had previously stated his intention to filibuster if telco immunity was part of the deal.
Although running to the right after the primary--and losing--is a time-honored tradition in the Democratic Party, many of Obama's supporters were expecting something more from him. And when he spoke of reaching out and bringing people together, they did not envision the unifying cause to be the embracing of Bush/Cheney/Rove lawlessness.
Which brings up the question, what next? One possibility is to up the pressure by sitting in at campaign offices this coming Monday.
More matter with less art. -Queen Gertrude to Polonius, Hamlet Act II Scene II
By Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers
Those denizens of the White House and Capitol Hill and all those gray granite buildings that line avenues with names like Constitution and Independence in the nation's capitol would have us believe that we must trade our rights, all of our rights, for some measure of security from the terrorists.
They would have us believe that a nation of 300 million people must surrender what a million other Americans gave their lives in war to protect in order to protect us from a couple of hundred fanatics hiding in caves in Waziristan.
Benjamin Franklin himself wrote of such a debate:
"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The fact that British troops, operating on flimsy general warrants handed out by local magistrates, were kicking in the doors of ordinary Americans and rifling through their pantries and papers in search of smuggled, untaxed goods was a prime reason why our ancestors rebelled against their king and went to war.
This is WHY we celebrate the Fourth of July. This is why the vote on renewing the expanded version of FISA and whitewashing the egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment for seven long years by our government is important.
If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
~snip~
The questions I pose are these:
How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?
How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?
"When faced with untenable alternatives, you should consider your imperative."
-Commander Helena Cain, BSG "Razor"
A national treasure.
Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times.
My reply:
Yes, I learned how to cry.
Joe Galloway
John 11:35
Saturday July 5, 2008 09:29 EDT
The political establishment and telecom immunity -- why it mattersNancy Soderberg was deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration. Today, she has an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times defending the FISA bill and telecom amnesty. The entire Op-Ed is just a regurgitation of the same trite, vague talking points which the political elite are using to justify this bill, accompanied by the standard invocations of "National Security" which our Foreign Policy elite condescendingly toss around to justify whatever policy they're claiming is necessary to protect us. But it's the language that she uses -- and the brazeness of the lying (and that's what it is) to justify this bill -- that's notable here.
It's notable because the political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing....
[...]
...Contrary to what the Nancy Soderbergs of the world want people to believe, these laws enacted by the American people in order to prevent spying abuses weren't only directed at the Government but specifically at the telecom industry as well. The whole point was to compel telecoms by force of law to refuse illegal Government "orders" to allow spying on their customers. That's why Qwest and others refused to "comply", but the telecoms that were hungry for extremely lucrative government contracts agreed to break the law. They did it because, motivated by profit, they chose to, not because they were compelled. Breaking the law on purpose and then profiting from the lawbreaking is classic criminal behavior. The conduct which those laws were designed to make illegal -- and which they unambiguously outlawed -- is exactly what the telecoms did here.
* * * * *
Nancy Soderberg shouldn't be singled out. She's just disseminating the settled-upon talking points of the Democratic establishment and media elite in justifying this bill -- the same basic ones that pervade the manipulative and at times misleading statement issued by Barack Obama on Friday. She's speaking from the same script.....
Much more...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/05/monarchy/index.html
“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self.” - Susan B. Anthony, 1872
Wes Clark