Historians looking at Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 02-15-2008, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Again you seem to suggest that there would be no circumstance under which you could conceive of violating a law. "Bad laws", need to be broken, they need to be challenged. My first rule in life is to always do what I think is right. If I happen to break a law doing what is the right thing to do, I will accept the consequences but I will always be able to hold my head up high. If I were President and felt I needed to break an outdated FISA law, I would.

That's fine...for you, but hoiw is your philosophy compatible with this oath, taken by a person as a condition of assuming the office of President of the United States?

Quote:

..."I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ...

Doesn't this discussion come down to whether the current president honored his oath, or not....and not what your reaction, or the reaction of a congressional majority is? Isn't the issue here that the president is pushing hard to have his failure to uphold his oath of office, somehow retroactively legitimized, by a congress that should be instead, drafting articles of impeachment against him for said failure?

dc_dux · 02-15-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Again you seem to suggest that there would be no circumstance under which you could conceive of violating a law. "Bad laws", need to be broken, they need to be challenged. My first rule in life is to always do what I think is right. If I happen to break a law doing what is the right thing to do, I will accept the consequences but I will always be able to hold my head up high. If I were President and felt I needed to break an outdated FISA law, I would.

Congratulations, you've just committed an impeachable offense.

Of course, you could attempt to cover it up by having subordinates shred any incriminating evidence......oh wait, another impeachable offense.

I got it...make it known to all of your subordinates that if they lie under oath in the course of a Congressional hearing or FBI investigation, that you will commute their sentence. The cover-up is safe.

Ustwo · 02-15-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Congratulations, you've just committed an impeachable offense.

Well get going, the Democrats did bury the Cheney impeachment hearings for 'some' reason. What are they afraid of, deal with this law breaker!!!oneone

dc_dux · 02-15-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well get going, the Democrats did bury the Cheney impeachment hearings for 'some' reason. What are they afraid of, deal with this law breaker!!!oneone

I get it....because the Democrats havent proceeded with an impeachment inquiry, it makes the lawbreaking by the Pres/VP acceptable....at least in Ace's world. Do it for as long as you can get away with it - such upstanding moral and ethical standards for a chief executive.

aceventura3 · 02-15-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

That's fine...for you, but hoiw is your philosophy compatible with this oath, taken by a person as a condition of assuming the office of President of the United States?

I don't understand where you and DC want to go with this morality issue, and I don't know how to explain my view of right and wrong relative to what is legal in a manner different from what I have already done in this thread.

However, my approach to supporting political leaders is to first try to understand their core beliefs. Those beliefs that are inherent in a person's nature, how they would act under extreme pressure. When a person's core beliefs are not clear, I generally don't believe they have strong core beliefs other than doing what is convenient.

Personally my first "oath" could never be to the Constitution. I think if pressed, Bush would have to say the same. As I stated earlier, my first "oath" would be to doing what I think is right.

For example if I took an oath that included enforcing slavery, my taking that oath would be a "lie". However, prior to taking that oath I would make it clear that I did not support enforcing slavery. And that I would do everything in my power to not enforce slavery.

Getting back to FISA and the real world, Bush stated on many occasions that he would do everything within his power to defeat terrorists, and that was his top priority. I understood that every time he said it. I understood that he would take risks. I understood that he would do thing outside of the "norm". I was o.k. with it, as long as his actions were reasonable. I do understand how different people view "reasonable" differently and that is why I think it is fair to call Bush on his actions. However, Congress is simply playing political games with what I think is very serious.

You generally think Bush lies. I don't because I hear what he says. You and DC seem surprised - which may come down to they way certain people communicate. I often don't get "liberal" speak.

Quote:

Doesn't this discussion come down to whether the current president honored his oath, or not....and not what your reaction, or the reaction of a congressional majority is? Isn't the issue here that the president is pushing hard to have his failure to uphold his oath of office, somehow retroactively legitimized, by a congress that should be instead, drafting articles of impeachment against him for said failure?

Yep. That is what it comes down to. Impeach Bush and get it over with, or move on. Why do we have to be in this state of limbo?

dc_dux · 02-15-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You generally think Bush lies. I don't because I hear what he says. You and DC seem surprised - which may come down to they way certain people communicate. I often don't get "liberal" speak.

Yep, this is "liberal speak"

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Tully Mars · 02-15-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Again you seem to suggest that there would be no circumstance under which you could conceive of violating a law. "Bad laws", need to be broken, they need to be challenged. My first rule in life is to always do what I think is right. If I happen to break a law doing what is the right thing to do, I will accept the consequences but I will always be able to hold my head up high. If I were President and felt I needed to break an outdated FISA law, I would.

It seems if you were POTUS and you had the majority of the congress as members of your own party it wouldn't be that difficult to update an "outdated" law.

dc_dux · 02-15-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

It seems if you were POTUS and you had the majority of the congress as members of your own party it wouldn't be that difficult to update an "outdated" law.

The sad irony of this entire illegal action was that, after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2002 which included some FISA updates, the Bush crowd said additional FISA updates were unnecessary.

Republican Senator DeWine proposed legislation to update FISA later in 2002 to give the administration greater flexibility in requesting FISA warrants...changing the "probably cause" standard to "reasonable suspicion"

The administration praised the FISA update that was included in the 2002 Patriot Act as "giving them the tools they needed" and said DeWine's bill was "unnecessary" and possibly unconstitutional:

The reforms in those measures (the PATRIOT Act) have affected every single application made by the Department for electronic surveillance or physical search of suspected terrorists and have enabled the government to become quicker, more flexible, and more focused in going "up" on those suspected terrorists in the United States.

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

While all of this was occuring, they were already acting unconstitutionally by their actions outside of FISA.

The sordid details here.

aceventura3 · 02-15-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

It seems if you were POTUS and you had the majority of the congress as members of your own party it wouldn't be that difficult to update an "outdated" law.

True, however changing the law would have put the world on notice including the terrorists. You and I differ on how much weight we would put on the trade off.

DC,

What would you do if two laws were in conflict, and you had to take an action that would clearly violate one of the laws?

What would you do if violating a law would lead to a greater good?

What would you do to the person who violated a law to save the life of someone you loved?

dc_dux · 02-15-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

True, however changing the law would have put the world on notice including the terrorists. You and I differ on how much weight we would put on the trade off.

Ace...please read my post above....but even beyond that, if you recall after the passage of the Patriot Act, Bush/Cheney/Gonzales/Ashcroft all spoke loudly and clearly, shouting to the world, about how the Act would put terrorists on notice!

Quote:

DC,

What would you do if two laws were in conflict, and you had to take an action that would clearly violate one of the laws?

What would you do if violating a law would lead to a greater good?

What would you do to the person who violated a law to save the life of someone you loved?

ace...as a private citizen, I would do one thing.

As the president, having "solemnly" sworn to uphold the Constitution, I would consult with Congress over what I perceived to be conflicting laws and make my case for changes that I believed were needed and in the best public interest, particularly if my party controlled both houses of Congress. If that failed, I would take my case to the American people.

Tully Mars · 02-15-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

True, however changing the law would have put the world on notice including the terrorists. You and I differ on how much weight we would put on the trade off.

DC,

What would you do if two laws were in conflict, and you had to take an action that would clearly violate one of the laws?

What would you do if violating a law would lead to a greater good?

What would you do to the person who violated a law to save the life of someone you loved?

You're right we differ. I think the POTUS should follow the law, period, end of story. Claiming it's an outdated or "bad" law is a not a good argument. You can't swear to up hold and defend the US Constitution and then decide later you'll pick and choose which parts you'll actually defend.

In regards to your argument that passing or fixing the law would alert the terrorist- I firmly believe if the law needed changed and it would endanger the national security to do so with a press release there are ways in place to effect that change. I'd look to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence et el for a solution.

aceventura3 · 02-15-2008, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

As the president, having "solemnly" sworn to uphold the Constitution, I would consult with Congress over what I perceived to be conflicting laws and make my case for changes that I believed were needed and in the best public interest. If that failed, I would take my case to the American people.

That is a bullshit answer.

Say you are Kennedy handling the Cuban missile crisis and you don't have time to "consult with Congress" or take your case to the American People. Let say you have to make a decision and do it in real time and there is a conflict, what do you do?????

If this is so clear cut, why waste your time with me (my mind is made up), you should be calling on Congress to impeach Bush!

dc_dux · 02-15-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

That is a bullshit answer.

Say you are Kennedy handling the Cuban missile crisis and you don't have time to "consult with Congress" or take your case to the American People. Let say you have to make a decision and do it in real time and there is a conflict, what do you do?????

If this is so clear cut, why waste your time with me (my mind is made up), you should be calling on Congress to impeach Bush!

ace....in the highly improbable scenario in which the threat to the nation was so great and so imminent that action needed to be taken at that very instant or in a matter of hours, I would have, at the very least, called the leaders of both parties in Congress into the Oval Office and said "this is what I am preparing to do..with or without your support." I would not have kept my actions hidden from a co-equal branch of government for three years.

Is that less bullshit?

But I wont waste anymore time

... other than to suggest you read up on Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis. He not only consulted with Congress, but with the Organization of American States as well, and gave a national TV address to the nation...all while in the midst of the "crisis"

aceventura3 · 02-15-2008, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace....in the highly improbable scenario in which the threat to the nation was so great and so imminent that action needed to be taken at that very instant or in a matter of hours, I would have, at the very least, called the leaders of both parties in Congress into the Oval Office and said "this is what I am preparing to do..with or without your support." I would not have kept my actions hidden from a co-equal branch of government for three years.

Is that less bullshit?

But I wont waste anymore time

... other than to suggest you read up on Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis. He not only consulted with Congress, but with the Organization of American States as well, and gave a national TV address to the nation...all while in the midst of the "crisis"

O.k. Tully and DC,

Give me the names of three of your favorite Presidents who you think never violated their oath of office.

P.s. - To anyone innocently reading this and wonder why I don't throw in the towel. I have a personality quirk. There are times when I sink my teeth into something and I just can't let it go. I have been administering self-treatment and often use this forum to measure my progress. I have clearly relapsed. Because if Tully and DC give me three names I am going to obsess over the records of the Presidents they give to try and prove them wrong even though I know it won't make a difference. I often ask why, why was I born this way?

dc_dux · 02-15-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

O.k. Tully and DC,

Give me the names of three of your favorite Presidents who you think never violated their oath of office.

P.s. - To anyone innocently reading this and wonder why I don't throw in the towel. I have a personality quirk. There are times when I sink my teeth into something and I just can't let it go. I have been administering self-treatment and often use this forum to measure my progress. I have clearly relapsed. Because if Tully and DC give me three names I am going to obsess over the records of the Presidents they give to try and prove them wrong even though I know it won't make a difference. I often ask why, why was I born this way?

Sorry, ace.....I am not going to be an enabler and contribute to any further relapse.

Perhaps a humorous post will suffice...or at least bring the discussion to a close.

Quote:

From The Onion, Feb 2006

President Creates Cabinet-Level Position To Coordinate Scandals

In his State of the Union address to the nation last night, President Bush announced a new cabinet-level position to coordinate all current and future scandals facing his party.

"Tonight, by executive order, I am creating a permanent department with a vital mission: to ensure that the political scandals, underhanded dealings, and outright criminal activities of this administration are handled in a professional and orderly fashion," Bush said.

The centerpiece of Bush's plan is the Department Of Corruption, Bribery, And Incompetence, which will centralize duties now dispersed throughout the entire D.C.-area political establishment.

The Scandal Secretary will log all wiretaps and complaints of prisoner abuse, coordinate paid-propaganda efforts, eliminate redundant payoffs and bribes, oversee the appointment of unqualified political donors to head watchdog agencies, control all leaks and other high-level security breaches, and oversee the disappearance of Iraq reconstruction funds. He will also be responsible for issuing all official denials that laws have been broken.

"Many of the current scandals in Washington are crucial to the success of my priorities for the nation," Bush said. "The Department of Corruption will safeguard these important misdeeds."

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44892

Happy Presidents Day weekend!

Tully Mars · 02-15-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

O.k. Tully and DC,

Give me the names of three of your favorite Presidents who you think never violated their oath of office.

Ah, the old stand by favorite- "So? So what? Your guy did it too" defense.

Ethics 101, chapter one- two wrongs don't make a right.

host · 06-19-2008, 09:19 AM

Well...we may have enough new information to attract a few more informed voters to to post an opinion in this thread's poll, now.....

I've maintained that Obama, billed by the right as "the most liberal member of the US Senate".... is actually a candidate with the stamp of approval of the "Powers that Be".... a center-right "offering" intended to placate "the center", (they lean to the right, but they consider themselves "middle of the road"....), who will say and do anything he has to, to win this election. The PTB seems pleased with his performance, so far, and that is enough for me to remain a sadly disappointed skeptic of a once promising candidate looking more and more, to me....like an "empty suit", as David Sirota put it!

It's time to post again in this thread....

Here is the link to the first page, the thread title, and the poll:
Historians looking at Bush presidency may well wonder if Congress actually existed
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130417

From the January 18, 2008 OP of this thread:

Quote:

....If Clinton and Obama do not join Dodd in the senate to speask and vote against passage of this bill, and with the democratic congress accumulating a legislative record as "Bush's poodle"...and, if you believe that sometimes violence is the only appropriate response to attempt to redress grievances against a government undermining the foundations of our constititutional bill of rights, would lack of firm oppostion to this bill by Clinton and Obama, and it's passage, be one of those times when consideration of responding with violent protest, in lieu of defense of our rights by either party's leaders and likely successors, be something you would consider, or....would you elect to wait.....for what, and for how long?.....

Yesterday, from dc_dux in another thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...65#post2470665

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

host....the party of Hoyer, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Reid stopped Bush's illegal "terrorist surveillance program" that wiretapped American citizens w/o a warrant.

I dont agree with the compromise proposal on telecomm immunity in the current that would leave it to the FISA courts to determine immunity.

But the bill does reinforce, and some might say strengthen, the basic underpinning of the FISA program that prohibits warrantless wiretaps of citizens.

I accept that I wont likely agree with the Democratic party on every provision of every bill but I wont disavow the party based on those relatively few disagreements (at least for me).

dc_dux, you left yourself a way out because, while you gave an impression that Rockefeller, Reid, and Hoyer had:

Quote:

.....stopped Bush's illegal "terrorist surveillance program" that wiretapped American citizens w/o a warrant......

.....you posted "the party of", in front of their names, because you know they are, and have been working to retroactively legalize the Bush warrantless wiretapping, complete with provision for amnesty for telecomms cooperating with administration requests....documented in court filings to have begun with requests from the administration issued as early to some telecomms.....as nine months BEFORE the 9/11 attacks.

The choice seemed pretty clear as to who Obama should endorse in the Georgia congressional primary of rep. John Barrow on July 15. I believe you have to oppose the things John Barrow stands for, with a passion. I don't see that passion in Obama, or in his campaign handlers. I think outrage about this will buid to the point that denials of this endorsement of Barrow will be belatedly issued by Obama's campaign.

The point is that word from Obama could help mightily to pause Steny Hoyer's efforts in the house to move the democrats away from the FISA "reform" bill that they already passed, into a new version that gives Bush everything he demands.....at the expense of our rights and even knowing what the telecomms were told, when they were first told it, and what they did to cooperate, without receipt of warrants, signed by a judge, to monitor our communications and billing records......

.....not only is that "word", not coming from Obama, he is reported to be endorsing this DINO, republican sock puppet:

Watch Rep.John Barrow's (D-GA) campaign ad:

YouTube - Bush Dog John Barrow Ad

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Barrpw

"I stood up to the leaders of my own party....fought to eliminate the "death tax", and in Iraq, we "can't cut and run"...

Background:

Targeting "Bad" Democrats:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ats/index.html

In february, rep. John Barrow signed this letter, with other "blue dog" democrats, urging Nancy Pelosi to support the Rockefeler-Cheney warrantless surveillance/telecomm amnesty bill that the senate was about to pass:

Quote:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congre...531&id=8376129
Text From the Congressional Record

Hastings, Richard [R-WA]
Debate: H.RES.976
Begin 2008-02-13 12:05:05
End 12:08:16
Length 00:03:11

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us many lessons. One of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm our fellow Americans. Now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority.

Mr. Speaker, that was a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi less than 2 weeks ago by the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

CONGRESS of THE UNITED STATES,

Washington, DC, January 28, 2008.

DEAR MADAM SPEAKER: Legislation reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President before the Protect America Act expires in February.

It is our belief that such legislation should include the following provisions: Require individualized warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad; Clarify that no court order is required to conduct surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court of minimization procedures; Targeted
immunity for carriers that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.

The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our country.

It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong, bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing such a measure could place
our national security at undue risk.

Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell, ------, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim Cooper, Zachary T. Space, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie Melancon, Christopher P. Carney.

A democratic party member emerged to challenge Rep. John Barrow:

Quote:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/...hn-barrow.html
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
ARCH-REACTIONARY BUSH DOG JOHN BARROW GETS A SERIOUS CHALLENGER-- MEET SENATOR REGINA THOMAS

Quote:

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/...a-primary.html
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
OBAMA TAKES A STAND IN A GEORGIA PRIMARY-- FOR THE WORST BLUE DOG IN THE COUNTRY AND AGAINST A HARD WORKING PROGRESSIVE

In sync on the issues

When I allowed myself to be talked into supporting Barack Obama for president-- I had been an early enthusiast when he was a longshot state Senator in Chicago running in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate-- I warned the young man urging me to abandon my post-Edwards neutrality and forget that Hillary Clinton had a more progressive voting record, that he (and his generation) should steel themselves for some tremendous letdowns that Obama would surely be serving up. He laughed at me. But when I was his age I would have laughed at me too.

So today when I heard that Obama had endorsed John Barrow, the most reactionary Democrat in Congress, in a primary pitting him against Regina Thomas, a progressive state Senator, I wasn't in the slightest bit surprised. No one who recalls Obama's enthusiastic endorsement of Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont could possibly be surprised. Obama, like McCain and Clinton, is a professional politician. One of their basic tenets is the Incumbency Protection Racket. That Barrow is running the ads everywhere in the district is a tribute to the powerful grassroots campaign Regina Thomas is waging... and to the polling his campaign just completed that shows he's going to get his head handed to him by constituents who know he represents the corporations and the elite power structure, not everyday Georgians. Look at his first TV commercial and what how he choses GOP talking points to lean on-- eliminating "the death tax," a McCain-Bush perspective on unending war in Iraq, and scapegoating immigrants.

A friend of mine says that Obama taped the ad not realizing there is a primary. I don't believe it. He's a smart guy and knows exactly what he's doing. And he has nothing to lose-- at least nothing he cares about. Still, when Obama is president he may well regret that he taped an ad that says “We’re going to need John Barrow back in Congress to help change Washington and get our country back on track,” since the moderate Obama and the ultra-conservative Barrow differ on most important issues that Obama will have to face starting in January. Let's start with this one:

As far as the current contretemps over retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretaps which Senator Obama opposes, Barrow is a major supporter-- one of the original 22 Blue Dogs who signed the letter to Nancy Pelosi demanding that Bush's policies be adhered to. Of course that forces one to notice that while Obama is refusing the corrupting influence of PAC money-- and insisting the DNC follow his lead-- and then you make realize that his endorsee, Mr. Barrow, is a typically corrupt Blue Dog scarfing up whatever he can get from the companies who need his help. So... Obama refuses to take money from the telecoms and he is opposing-- like most Democrats-- granting them retroactive immunity for breaking laws. Barrow, on the other hand counts the telecoms, particularly AT&T, Comcast and Verizon-- the very ones who broke laws and demand immunity-- among his most generous supporters. He's taken tens of thousands of dollars from these shady characters and rather than recusing himself from voting on their special interests, he becomes one of their biggest supports... against Senator Obama's principled stand.

Regina, of course, whose candidacy may be harmed by Senator Obama's endorsement, has been working hard in the Georgia state Senate for the same exact principles and values Obama claims to represent. So while Barrow has publicly bragged about being a rubber stamp for Bush (watch that top video again), Regina has been opposing the war and working hard for the well-being of her constituents. As for the FISA bill Bush and Barrow want so desperately for their campaign donors... Regina and Obama are on the same page. "After reading the bill," she told me this evening, "the first thing I thought was that this was not good for any American citizens-- and it seems like a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't look like what the Bush Administration wants is just the power to eavesdrop on terrorists-- I think we all agree that's his job-- but to also monitor any communication he wants to between any American citizens he wants to and without any lawful judicial supervision."

Like I told my young friend, be ready for lots of this kind of thing from President Obama-- or President Anyone Else; just don't be fooled... again. He really is just like all the rest. Meanwhile, we are not powerless, we're making a real effort to help Regina overcome this latest obstacle. Please donate to her campaign directly or to our PAC, which will be targeting Barrow in the July 15th primary.

Quote:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sha...help_john.html
Home > Political Insider > Archives > 2008 > June > 18 > Entry

Obama cuts an ad to help John Barrow in his primary fight

Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 07:02 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has taped a radio commercial on behalf of U.S. Rep. John Barrow of Savannah, who faces a July 15 primary challenge.

It’s the first case of Obama involving himself in a local race in Georgia.

Details of when the ad will start airing and where it will be broadcast — the 12th District covers much of east Georgia, including portions of Augusta and Savannah — were not immediately available Wednesday.

But the Obama campaign made clear to my colleague Aaron Sheinin that it sees Barrow, a two-term Democrat, as an important ally. We’ve got calls into the Barrow campaign, but haven’t heard from them yet.

“Senator Obama believes that Congressman Barrow has worked hard to bring change that families in his district deserve, and we’ll work hard to help John Barrow win in November,” Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.

In the ad, Obama asks voters to join him in supporting Barrow. “We’re going to need John Barrow back in Congress to help change Washington and get our country back on track,” Obama says in the 60-second ad.

Barrow beat a Republican incumbent in 2004 and had tough GOP opposition in 2006. But this April, Barrow picked up unexpected opposition from Regina Thomas, a well-known African-American state senator based in Savannah. Barrow is white, and In past primaries in the 12th District, black voters have cast nearly 70 percent of the ballots.

Barrow had endorsed Obama in late February, a few weeks after the Illinois senator won the Georgia primary. And within weeks of Thomas joining the race, Barrow, a conservative Democrat, was placed at the top of a list of 14 national co-chairs for Obama’s massive, 50-state voter registration drive — along with the likes of singer Melissa Etheridge and the Rev. Joe Lowery.

Barrow has plenty of cash to make use of the Obama ad. He reported $1.3 million in cash on hand this spring.

Update....and now, it's done....the "compromise" that the motherfuckers who lead the majority party in congress ...the party you so consistently defend, dc_dux, is exposed as the other right wing party. How much more are we going to quietly take from these bastards? Does anyone here have personal limits? All the house leadership had to do was to stand pat on the version of the bill that they had already passed. It wan't perfect, but it wasn't a sellout to Bush/corporatism that this is.

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...com/index.html
Thursday June 19, 2008 12:26 EDT
George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress

(updated below)

CQ reports (sub. req.)
http://homeland.cq.com/hs/displayale...tchId=60706424

that "a final deal has been reached" on FISA and telecom amnesty and "the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday." I've now just read a copy of the final "compromise" bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the "Protect America Act," so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is:

The provision granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, Title VIII, has the exact Orwellian title it should have: "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Section 802(a) provides:

[A] civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be properly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that . . . (4) the assistance alleged to have been provided . . . was --

(A) in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States" and

(B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful.

So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words -- the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists -- and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.

That's the "compromise" Steny Hoyer negotiated and which he is now -- according to very credible reports -- pressuring every member of the Democratic caucus to support. It's full-scale, unconditional amnesty with no inquiry into whether anyone broke the law. In the U.S. now, thanks to the Democratic Congress, we'll have a new law based on the premise that the President has the power to order private actors to break the law, and when he issues such an order, the private actors will be protected from liability of any kind on the ground that the Leader told them to do it -- the very theory that the Nuremberg Trial rejected.

I'll post more in just a bit on the new warrantless eavesdropping powers George Bush is going to have under this law. They've vast and precisely the kind of powers that were abused by our Government for decades prior to FISA. Returning to that era is going to be part of the legacy not just of George Bush, but of this Democratic-controlled Congress. ....

dc_dux · 06-19-2008, 10:15 AM

Host...

Here are my thoughts:

The Democratic majority in Congress, while not aggressively pursuing or achievieng the policy objectives of its most progressive/liberal wing, has agressively conducted numerous oversight hearings of the many questionable policies and practices of the Bush administration.

As a result, numeorus bill were enacted and the federal government is (marginally?) more open and transparent than it was pre-2006. IMO, that is a good first step.

A Democratic president and a larger Democratic majority in Congress are likely to expand that even further.

BUT FIRST THEY MUST GET ELECTED!

I believe an overly expansive progressive agenda would be destructive to the Democratic party as an expansive social/religious conservative agenda is to the Republicans. Most Americans do not want, and will not support either.

So....I fully support the goals of the Democratic party to become the "bigger tent" and to extend its outreach to be more inclusive, rather than to define itself so narrowly that it chokes on its own unpopular ideology.

The upside of that approach is bringing into the party guys like Webb in Virginia, Tester in Montana, and others, including more "Blue Dogs" in the South and expanding the Democratic majority. The downside is a requirement to be more pragmatic and open to compromise in order to fairly represent the interests of these "new" Democrats and not just the "liberal/progressive" wing.

I accept the compromises (so far) as a necessity in order for the party to maintain a position to grow and govern...and only by governing (with a working majority), can ANY of the party's policy and program goals ever be implemented.

I dont believe it is making a pact with the devil...rather it is accepting the realities of government in a divided and polarized nation.

I understand that you would rather hold out for a truly "progressive agenda" in the US...but I would suggest you might be holding out until hell freezes over.
-----

(and now I am off to a meeting with Wal*Mart, Wells Fargo, Verizon and Office Depot....to discuss common policy objectives...should be interesting

)

host · 06-19-2008, 10:38 AM

No, dc_dux. the democratic leadership in congress is aggressively selling us out:

Link to Hoyer's "compromise" bill:
http://majorityleader.house.gov/docU...RO_001_xml.pdf

Hoyer has a poll on the front page of his official site,
http://www.hoyer.house.gov/
...asking for opinions on Bushs' favorite failed domestic issue. This is the democratic house majority leader, carrying Bush's water on unconsitutional surveillance, and on Social Security "reform", too!

Two right wing dominant US political parties..... what else can one conclude is going on here?

Quote:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...579/535/538477
HOLY CRAP! Amnesty Bill Covers Torturers Too Hotlist
by wj [Subscribe]
Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:17:31 AM PDT

The text of the Protect AT&T Act posted on the front page is way more horrible that we thought. The language of that bill not only protects AT&T, et al., but also anyone who assisted the intelligence community. You know who that covers? Let's examine it below the fold.

* wj's diary :: ::
*

Who is anyone? Persons are immune from suit include "Anyone" who "provid[ed] assistance to an element of the intelligence community . . . in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States and (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful."

In America, corporations are persons, so they are part of "anyone" as are people like you and me. So, what corporations and people are protected? Well, a few come to mind pretty quickly: Blackwater, KBR employees, Halliburton employees, any person who the government paid to help with interrogations, and any member of the military or government (US or Iraqi) that helped interrogate alleged terrorists. All of these people would be protected from any suit because they were all assisting the gov't at the written request (i.e. a contract) of the gov't and the gov't said it was legal (just ask John Woo - that d'bag).

If this bill passes, it will obliterate any possibility that anyone associated with spying or torturing will ever be held accountable. While the bill seems limited to "civil" actions, any lawyer worth his/her salt can argue that the Congress intended, through this bill, to preclude criminal actions as well. Indeed, it would violate basic rules of statutory construction to interpret the bill otherwise. How could Congress mean to protect people from civil actions if it didn't also mean to protect them from criminal ones? After all, while you can be innocent of a crime but liable for the same actions (See OJ Simpson), the reverse can't be true because the burden of proof for a civil action is much lower than for criminal. Thus, if you can't prove (or are prevented from proving) someone is civilly liable for their actions, they sure as hell can't be criminally liable.

For god sakes, this bill must be killed immediately.
Poll

....and, just to make that the democrats complete our tranformation into a Bush junta "poice state", as close to overnight as is humanly possibe:

Quote:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6...413/558/538470
They're going to bundle FISA with the War Supplmental Hotlist
by dday [Subscribe]
Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:03:10 AM PDT

Here it is. The final indignity. Funding for endless war AND etching out the 4th Amendment will be combined into the same bill to force enough compliance from Bush Dogs to get this bill passed. "By any means necessary" for Hoyer and his corporate lobbying buddies.

The House Rules Committee is meeting at this hour on the "FISA Amedments Act." Later today, they'll be meeting on a technical fix that allows them to waive PAYGO rules and waive consideration of a bill within 24 hours of its rules being set.

The plan is to put the two together.

To be precise, the war supplemental will be attached to the FISA bill. This is being fast-tracked well beyond our ability to stop it. The royalists in the House want war without restrictions and free passes for lawbreakers.

Keep up the calls and emails and faxes, but this is eventually going to take muscle. There is an organization being built right now to combine a defense of civil liberties with the masses of money needed to fight for them. The Strange Bedfellows coalition will remember the betrayal being done today. And they will make each and every member of Congress who votes for this abomination pay.

More as I know it...

...Sen. Obama, incidentally, can't be found.

The two presumptive presidential nominees have differed over the issue. A senior aide to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., recently indicated the senator would support granting immunity to the phone companies. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was among the most vocal opponents of immunity in the Senate debate last year.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Bankston applauded Obama for his opposition to immunity for the phone companies, and he said he would "call upon him to be as vocal as possible on immunity in the coming days."

A spokesman for the Obama campaign didn't return phone calls or emails seeking comment for this article.

Hope! Change! Please call again soon when we're not so busy!

UPDATE: Russ Feingold:

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President's illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration."

We have about 15 Senators and 100 or so Congressmen that get this.

aceventura3 · 06-19-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

No, dc_dux. the democratic leadership in congress is aggressively selling us out:

Host there is another possibility, perhaps they were never with you. Perhaps, they knew what Bush wanted is the right thing for the nation, but they used empty rhetoric for political purposes. You folks already know what I think.

dc_dux · 06-19-2008, 12:29 PM

host....

Historians may also look back at the accomplishments of the Democrats over the last two years that stopped or overturned many of the questionable, unethical and unlawful practices of the Bush administration:

* exposing and ending Bush's illegally program to wiretapping American citizens w/o warrant that would otherwise have continued unabated

* exposing Bush's policy of torture and denial of basic rights to foreign detainees that resulted in the USSC restoring some (not all) basic Constitutional rights

* enacting FOIA reform legislation to overturn Bush's executive order that denied most FOIA requests

* exposing Bush administration violations of the Hatch Act to politicize government agencies beyond what is permissible under the law (several high level persons fired)

* exposing Bush's dismantling of the legislative intent of the DoJ Civil Rights Division and attempts to politicize voter rights investigations counter to agency policy (forcing several DoJ resignations)

* exposing Bush administration unlawful political interference with government scientific findings and recommendations (forcing several firings/resignations at EPA, DOI)

* proposed new FBI procedures and oversight regarding use of national security letters as a result of WH ignoring intent of Congress by issuing signing statement that permitting unlawful practices

* proposed legislation to provide greater independent contracting oversight and control as a result of abuses in Iraq reconstruction (and other sole source) contracts given to "friends of Bush'Cheney"

* proposed revisions to the Presidential Records Act as a result of WH destruction of e-mails

The issue listed above deal with open/transparent government and the restoration of rights. I didnt include other legislative accomplishments....restoration or expansion of many domestic programs that Bush and the Republican Congress previously blocked or cut significantly (minimum wage, student loan reform, headstart, CDBG, COPS,alternative energy r&d....).

IMO, this is not a "right wing" agenda or a "sell out"

By any measure, the Democrats accomplished more in their first two years than the Gingrich "Contract with America" revolution..and they did so by enacting top priority Democratic domestic programs and programs to stop the abuses of Bush and make the government more open and transparent.

Their greatest failure was to overpromise that they could stop the war in Iraq and bring the troops home when they didnt have the votes in Congress...when many Republicans went back on their word to support a new policy if/when the political/economic benchmarks for Iraq were not met (they, and Bush, just lowered the benchmarks instead).

I know you prefer digging in your heals and demanding more dramatic solutions/responses to other problems/issues resulting from Bush, but that generally do not have public support (eg retroactive immunity for telecomms...most people dont care as long as spying on citizens w/o a warrant stops).

IMO, what the Democrats have put in place is a new foundation....probably more "centrist" or "left-centrist" than you might like, but one on which they can govern with the support of a majority of the American people...because that is where most of America is today...they are not as "progressive" as you.

IF, they win the WH and increase their majority in Congress, you are likely to see an agenda that includes:

* a new Iraq strategy that focuses on redeployment in a manner that is in the US interest and provides Iraq with the economic/political support it needs during the transition.

* USSC appointments that protect women's rights and the rights of consumers over corporations

* the first steps to universal health care by covering all children

* a refocus on middle class tax relief and not the top 2% of wage earners

* an enhanced effort to focus on energy alternatives rather than drilling our way forward

* an enhanced role for government regulation overturning some of the worst deregulation of the 80s that resulted in the most abusive corporate excesses and practices

* a refocus on environmental enforcement

* a refocus on voter rights enforcement and legislation to ban voter caging

* and more

But not if the most extreme forces on the far left of the party drive away the others.

It may not be the Democratic party of the 1920s or 1960s that you would like to see, but that just aint gonna happen anymore ..unless you want it to be a permanent minority party.

At least, that is my take on it and I am more than comfortable with the party as it moves forward in this direction.

I still support your passion to want more and the failures you see in the system (Unlike some here, I read your posts and agree with many, but not all)...but again, I will take what we can achieve rather than go for broke, lose the majority, and achieve nothing as a minority party.

aceventura3 · 06-19-2008, 04:42 PM

Host,

I heard that Democrats are supporting the new Iraq war spending bill. They are authorizing another $165 in part on a war in Iraq that you think is illegal, a war they call Bush's war, a war they have no ownership of, a war that some were for and against at the same time.

I guess they were forced into "compromise" again. They needed to pass unemployment compensation extensions, some added GI benefits and flood disaster relief. We can say one thing about the Democrats - they always have good reasons for supporting the war you think is illegal.

host · 06-19-2008, 11:10 PM

dc_dux, the democratic house leadership capitulated, the republicans are laughing at them.....

Now, the "vote" on the house bill is rushed, the vote will take place 24 hours after the bill was printed....just the way the patriot act was rammed down the throats of congressmen in 2001....rushed, hushed, no time for debate, only one hour is scheduled before the vote takes place later this afternoon, no time for hearings or public feedack. At least the patriot act included a 5 year sunset provision.

I don't want to be right..... ratbastid has stayed away when I've criticized Obama as an approved candidate of the powerful people who engage in the very practices and agendas Obama is supposedly vowing to reform if he is elected. Obama and the house and senate majority leadership are complicit with and further empowering the criminal president whose policies and abuses they've claimed to oppose.

All of them are, by their actions, my political opponents....

With Nomination Clinched, Obama Now Free To Be Horrifying Scumbag
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002364.html

Link to 15 pages of Obama supporters defending his campaign's strategy of limiting access of the press covering him on the campaign trail:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_108094.html

I would have much preferred that he had made himself available to the representatives of the press who cover him, on thursday afternoon or evening, to show some leadership by disclosing his vehement objection to the imminent attack on our constitutional rights, negotiated by Hoyer and approved by Pelosi, that will take place via a house vote on FISA "reform" on friday. Why would Obama do anything but caefully control his image and access of the press, by strictly limiting it, with a "fan base" like those commenting on the pages accessed at the above link?

How many times have I hammered Bush for giving a secret speech to a CNP audience in San Antonio during his 1999 presidential campaign?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us...Lw&oref=slogin

...But such efforts at times appear to conflict with the candidate’s stated desire to be unusually transparent and open, and they have already occasionally put him at loggerheads with news organizations pushing for greater access to him now that he is the presumptive nominee.

In spirited discussions with reporters barred from Monday’s meeting with African-American civic leaders, aides said that no cameras were allowed because the participants wanted the meeting to be private, even though it was announced on the daily hotel roster of events. Later, other aides said the lighting was not properly set up for television quality.

When Mr. Obama met with religious leaders last week, his campaign kept out photographers and reporters and refused to share a full list of participants.

Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative constitutional scholar at Pepperdine Law School, said Mr. Obama told him and others in attendance that he was keeping the meeting private so everyone could speak without fear of public judgment.

“He said, ‘I want the terms and conditions of the meeting to be such that anybody feels free to ask me anything in as challenging a way as they’d wish to,’ ” Mr. Kmiec said, adding that guests who wanted to avoid reporters were directed to a special exit...

Note that Hoyer and Pelosi have rushed this through for a vote so quickly that opponents won't have time to spend the grassroots fundraising proceeds on targeted ads intended to discourage key blue dog democrats from voting for it's passage.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/wa...in&oref=slogin
Deal Reached in Congress to Rewrite Rules on Wiretapping

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 20, 2008

....The agreement would settle one of the thorniest issues in dispute by providing immunity to the phone companies in the Sept. 11 program as long as a federal district court determines that they received legitimate requests from the government directing their participation in the warrantless wiretapping operation.

With some AT&T and other telecommunications companies now facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”

“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence.

The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.

The White House immediately endorsed the proposal, which is likely to be voted on in the House on Friday and in the Senate next week.....

Nancy Pelosi speaks positively, thursday, of the bill and of Hoyer's "efforts":

Quote:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...comment-500393

....Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. But I have to say this about it: it's an improvement over the Senate bill and I say that as a strong statement. The Senate bill is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. This bill improves upon the Senate bill. . . .

And it is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. It has a strong language in terms of an Inspector General to investigate how the law has been used, is being used, will be used.

So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I'm sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support.

I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way.......

House republicans and the Bush admin. used the same tactic....a vote before the ink was even dry on the pages of the printed bill, just after 9/11:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63
A NATION CHALLENGED: CONGRESS; House Passes Terrorism Bill Much Like Senate's, but With 5-Year Limit

By ROBIN TONER AND NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: October 13, 2001

The House of Representatives approved legislation today to give the government broad new powers for the wiretapping, surveillance and investigation of terrorism suspects.

But, in recognition of many lawmakers' fears of the potential for government overreaching and abuse, the House also included a five-year limit after which many of those powers would expire.

Passage of the bill, by a vote of 337 to 79, was the climax of a remarkable 18-hour period in which both the House and the Senate adopted complex, far-reaching antiterrorism legislation with little debate in an atmosphere of edgy alarm, as federal law enforcement officials warned that another attack could be imminent. Many lawmakers said it had been impossible to truly debate, or even read, the legislation that passed today.

Civil liberties advocates implored Congress to slow down and consider the legislation's impact, which they said could be a dangerous infringement on Americans' privacy and constitutional rights. But the drive to send an antiterrorism bill to the president -- it was called the Patriot Act in the House, the U.S.A. Act in the Senate -- was strong. With lopsided votes in both houses, enactment of the measure, perhaps in a matter of days, is now seen as a fait accompli.

The bill passed by the House is essentially the legislation approved by the Senate on Thursday night, although with a few key changes, including the five-year sunset provision. It was the product of last-minute negotiations between top House Republicans and the Bush administration, and was suddenly substituted this morning for a more cautious antiterrorism bill that had strong bipartisan support. Many Democrats were furious, and even some Republicans voiced dismay.....

dc_dux · 06-20-2008, 03:07 AM

host...the only thing I can say is that I look at the totality of the Democratic "successes" over the last two years (as I painstakingly highlighted above) as opposed to the far smaller number of "failures"....

....that could very well be moved to the "successes" column if they win the WH and a larger majority in Congress.

On the issue of how bills are crafted/combined....someone once said (I think it was Otto von Bismarck):

"Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made".

And no, I am not comparing the Democrats to the German "Iron Chancellor".

aceventura3 · 06-20-2008, 07:14 AM

I am sure someone said this:

"Why eat sausage when you can eat steak?"

View Poll Results: Can you ever envision a scenario where you'd consider violent anti goverment protest
No	5	27.78%
Yes	11	61.11%
If you answered yes, would passage of FISA without objection by Clinton and Obama be a time?	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

06-19-2008, 10:15 AM	#98 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Host... Here are my thoughts: The Democratic majority in Congress, while not aggressively pursuing or achievieng the policy objectives of its most progressive/liberal wing, has agressively conducted numerous oversight hearings of the many questionable policies and practices of the Bush administration. As a result, numeorus bill were enacted and the federal government is (marginally?) more open and transparent than it was pre-2006. IMO, that is a good first step. A Democratic president and a larger Democratic majority in Congress are likely to expand that even further. BUT FIRST THEY MUST GET ELECTED! I believe an overly expansive progressive agenda would be destructive to the Democratic party as an expansive social/religious conservative agenda is to the Republicans. Most Americans do not want, and will not support either. So....I fully support the goals of the Democratic party to become the "bigger tent" and to extend its outreach to be more inclusive, rather than to define itself so narrowly that it chokes on its own unpopular ideology. The upside of that approach is bringing into the party guys like Webb in Virginia, Tester in Montana, and others, including more "Blue Dogs" in the South and expanding the Democratic majority. The downside is a requirement to be more pragmatic and open to compromise in order to fairly represent the interests of these "new" Democrats and not just the "liberal/progressive" wing. I accept the compromises (so far) as a necessity in order for the party to maintain a position to grow and govern...and only by governing (with a working majority), can ANY of the party's policy and program goals ever be implemented. I dont believe it is making a pact with the devil...rather it is accepting the realities of government in a divided and polarized nation. I understand that you would rather hold out for a truly "progressive agenda" in the US...but I would suggest you might be holding out until hell freezes over. ----- (and now I am off to a meeting with WalMart, Wells Fargo, Verizon and Office Depot....to discuss common policy objectives...should be interesting ) __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-19-2008 at 10:24 AM..*

06-19-2008, 12:29 PM	#101 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host.... Historians may also look back at the accomplishments of the Democrats over the last two years that stopped or overturned many of the questionable, unethical and unlawful practices of the Bush administration: * exposing and ending Bush's illegally program to wiretapping American citizens w/o warrant that would otherwise have continued unabated * exposing Bush's policy of torture and denial of basic rights to foreign detainees that resulted in the USSC restoring some (not all) basic Constitutional rights * enacting FOIA reform legislation to overturn Bush's executive order that denied most FOIA requests * exposing Bush administration violations of the Hatch Act to politicize government agencies beyond what is permissible under the law (several high level persons fired) * exposing Bush's dismantling of the legislative intent of the DoJ Civil Rights Division and attempts to politicize voter rights investigations counter to agency policy (forcing several DoJ resignations) * exposing Bush administration unlawful political interference with government scientific findings and recommendations (forcing several firings/resignations at EPA, DOI) * proposed new FBI procedures and oversight regarding use of national security letters as a result of WH ignoring intent of Congress by issuing signing statement that permitting unlawful practices * proposed legislation to provide greater independent contracting oversight and control as a result of abuses in Iraq reconstruction (and other sole source) contracts given to "friends of Bush'Cheney" * proposed revisions to the Presidential Records Act as a result of WH destruction of e-mails The issue listed above deal with open/transparent government and the restoration of rights. I didnt include other legislative accomplishments....restoration or expansion of many domestic programs that Bush and the Republican Congress previously blocked or cut significantly (minimum wage, student loan reform, headstart, CDBG, COPS,alternative energy r&d....). IMO, this is not a "right wing" agenda or a "sell out" By any measure, the Democrats accomplished more in their first two years than the Gingrich "Contract with America" revolution..and they did so by enacting top priority Democratic domestic programs and programs to stop the abuses of Bush and make the government more open and transparent. Their greatest failure was to overpromise that they could stop the war in Iraq and bring the troops home when they didnt have the votes in Congress...when many Republicans went back on their word to support a new policy if/when the political/economic benchmarks for Iraq were not met (they, and Bush, just lowered the benchmarks instead). I know you prefer digging in your heals and demanding more dramatic solutions/responses to other problems/issues resulting from Bush, but that generally do not have public support (eg retroactive immunity for telecomms...most people dont care as long as spying on citizens w/o a warrant stops). IMO, what the Democrats have put in place is a new foundation....probably more "centrist" or "left-centrist" than you might like, but one on which they can govern with the support of a majority of the American people...because that is where most of America is today...they are not as "progressive" as you. IF, they win the WH and increase their majority in Congress, you are likely to see an agenda that includes: * a new Iraq strategy that focuses on redeployment in a manner that is in the US interest and provides Iraq with the economic/political support it needs during the transition. * USSC appointments that protect women's rights and the rights of consumers over corporations * the first steps to universal health care by covering all children * a refocus on middle class tax relief and not the top 2% of wage earners * an enhanced effort to focus on energy alternatives rather than drilling our way forward * an enhanced role for government regulation overturning some of the worst deregulation of the 80s that resulted in the most abusive corporate excesses and practices * a refocus on environmental enforcement * a refocus on voter rights enforcement and legislation to ban voter caging * and more But not if the most extreme forces on the far left of the party drive away the others. It may not be the Democratic party of the 1920s or 1960s that you would like to see, but that just aint gonna happen anymore ..unless you want it to be a permanent minority party. At least, that is my take on it and I am more than comfortable with the party as it moves forward in this direction. I still support your passion to want more and the failures you see in the system (Unlike some here, I read your posts and agree with many, but not all)...but again, I will take what we can achieve rather than go for broke, lose the majority, and achieve nothing as a minority party. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-19-2008 at 03:51 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-19-2008, 04:42 PM	#102 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	Host, I heard that Democrats are supporting the new Iraq war spending bill. They are authorizing another $165 in part on a war in Iraq that you think is illegal, a war they call Bush's war, a war they have no ownership of, a war that some were for and against at the same time. I guess they were forced into "compromise" again. They needed to pass unemployment compensation extensions, some added GI benefits and flood disaster relief. We can say one thing about the Democrats - they always have good reasons for supporting the war you think is illegal. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-20-2008, 03:07 AM	#104 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host...the only thing I can say is that I look at the totality of the Democratic "successes" over the last two years (as I painstakingly highlighted above) as opposed to the far smaller number of "failures".... ....that could very well be moved to the "successes" column if they win the WH and a larger majority in Congress. On the issue of how bills are crafted/combined....someone once said (I think it was Otto von Bismarck): "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made". And no, I am not comparing the Democrats to the German "Iron Chancellor". __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-20-2008 at 03:35 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-20-2008, 07:14 AM	#105 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I am sure someone said this: "Why eat sausage when you can eat steak?" __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."