Michale32086
"Truly, if things got as bad as you think they could, there WOULD be rioting in the streets..
The public simply would not allow it..
Ergo, the bigger threat comes from without, not from within...
Michale......"
But we also need to balance the potential harm from each threat. Even if it is 100 times more likely to have a terrorist threat from outside, if it only kills 10,000 people (more US citizens than have been killed by ALL terrorist actions since the 70s!) that is outweighed by the potential losses of 10,000,000 citizens being killed by the US govt. (I'm basing the 10 million figure, by the way, on the losses that Hitler inflicted on his own people, which would be a much larger percentage in WWII Germany than in 2008 America)
The Daschleization of Barack Obama -- or, How to Lose Your Balance By Centering Yourself
Barack Obama's candidacy is an ongoing series of calculations and adjustments with a single desired outcome: victory. And, controversial as this may sound, I have no problem with that - if (and this is a big "if") it doesn't over-calculate and bring harm to itself or the party.
Obama hasn't come near that point with the actions of the last week, but he is playing "chicken" with his own fate and that of his party. Obama appears to be a extremely centered person. But, as any meditator can tell you, the process of "centering" can paradoxically cause you to lose your balance. How? If you try too hard.
The real problem isn't that Obama indicated he'd vote for a so-called "compromise" FISA bill that gives the Right 90% of what it wants. The problem is that he'll gain absolutely no benefit from having done so. Here's why:
- The GOP will still hammer him as "soft on terror." They'll use his willingness to negotiate with hostile leaders, his Iraq withdrawal plan, and anything else they can get their hands on.
- With these changes, they'll also hit him as a "flip-flopper" who'll change his position for political expendiency. In fact, they've already started.
They're treating him the same way they treated former Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a fine public servant who bent over backward to work with the GOP on issues of war and terror. Daschle had genuine military and intelligence credentials as an Air Force intelligence officer, too - yet he lost to a businessman with no military experience. John Thune claimed Daschle was a virtual traitor who "emboldened the enemy" by questioning the Administration's execution of the war.
It's the same Republican Party now that it was then. That's why frequent Obama collaborator Sam Brownback is now falsely claiming Obama's never worked in a true "bipartisan" fashion, ignoring their extensive joint efforts.
The FISA vote's been delayed. That means Obama still has an opportunity to do several things differently:
- Make a new assertion - if we sacrifice our freedoms and our laws, the terrorists win. Obama's been eloquent on this point before, and he can say it again here even more strongly: We can protect ourselves and still be the America we love. In fact, to do anything less is a betrayal of our principles.
- Come up with an approach that's really new and bipartisan. If the Obama campaign has decided it's too risky to oppose telco immunity, than accept it - but with conditions. He can say that he's willing to consider immunity for the telco's if full details of their activities are revealed to a bipartisan working group, and the group then recommends it. That would address any suspicion that the Republicans are hiding some dirty dealings. (They probably won't take the deal, either, which means he can call them obstructionist - and then raise questions of corruption and cronyism.)
- Link this issue to McCain's integrity problem. Everybody wants to put those accusations of McCain infidelity behind them. It's a sleazy topic (and an icky thought.) But the real story of his association with Vicki Iseman is his ongoing use of lobbyists' airplanes and money. Surrogates should be discussing the unseemliness of seeking financial relief (which is what civil immunity really is) for companies that have been wining and dining Sen. McCain.
Which raises the (rhetorical) question: Has McCain been granted "retroactive immunity" from the press for his associations with lobbyists for telco's and other big businesses?
Here's the bottom line: Obama's in danger of making the same mistake Democrats have been making for the last eight years. He's running the risk of letting them define the narrative. That's exactly the criticism some of us levelled against the Clinton campaign's Kyl/Lieberman vote and hawkish rhetoric.
(Side note: If last week's actions are the fruit of the new collaboration unveiled in "Unity, New Hampshire," the end result will have some of us feeling it should've taken place in "Intercourse, Pennsylvania." But fair is fair: Hillary did a terrific job and is back in the running for VP.)
The biggest danger Obama exposed himself to this week isn't that he alienated his base, although diminishing his intensity of support is a genuine risk. It's that he's playing an uncharacteristically weak game of chess. He needs to look a couple moves ahead: This unusually proactive candidate could find himself painted into a corner, where he looks like a flip-flopper if he accommodates and is labelled "weak" if he doesn't.
Obama's got a lot to lose all of a sudden. That means he's going to have to fight the temptation to play it safe even when it may be unwise. The Republicans know that, and they're going to try to get inside his head with it. He'll need to remember in the coming weeks and months that sometimes the best defense is still a good offense.
(related post - Blue Alert: Obama and the Dems Need a Strategy for War and Terror)
A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
RJ Eskow at the Huffington Post
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree with you completely...
But, for me it's the opposite.. I have seen the threat from terrorism first hand.. I know from personal experience the devastation and destruction it causes..
And I just can't see how the inconvenience of having one's calls monitored stacks up to that..
I am sure you would see my point if you were in my shoes.. Just like I would probably be more inclined to see your point if I had never experienced things..
The US becoming a Nazi Police state is a very remote possibility. It simply would not be ALLOWED to progress even REMOTELY that far...
The US getting hit by another major terrorist attack that kills thousands or even HUNDREDS of thousands is a LOT more likely.
And, as much as it pains me to say, it's probably a lot more imminent as well....
Let's say that the Left does get their way.. Personal freedoms are expanded, all the mean old CT operations are shut down and life in America is a box of chocolates...
WHAAAAM.. Terrorists strike New York City & Los Angeles. Death toll in the MILLIONS..
Now, given how Americans are inclined to over-react, what do you think the result of such an attack, after such an age of enlightenment would be?
A MASSIVE exodus to the Right.. A Police state would be a LOT more likely under THAT scenario.
Better a little freedom lost now than much LARGER freedoms (even your life) lost later..
Michale.....
Part II
Then there's the fact that I joined the Navy in1998 because I was (and still am!) proud of my country. I have always found that what makes America to be great is the freedoms and civil liberties that we all enjoy.
One of my favorite movies is "The American President" with Michael Douglas and Anette Benning. During the end of the movie the President (played by Douglas) gives a speech which has the best line I've ever heard:
"For the record: yes, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? Now, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights,... America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."
Part I
Michale,
I guess that we just see things differently. The United States has always been a little bit too subject to the preacher type (I say preacher, but not in the religious sense) In the days around the revolution it was an actual preacher, but now it's anyone who can make us feel a bit safer about the big scary world out there. And the problem with that is that there is no safer. There's just less informed.
And I gotta say, I disagree with you. I think that at most we would be losing 10,000 people in an attack. I'm not being callous, I know that's a lot of people, but if we look at the USSR under Stalin, he killed 20,000,000 of his own people. That's out of a population (in 1950) of 102,702,000. If we were to extrapolate that to our 300,000,000 people, that would equate to 60,000,000 DEAD, not to mention probably another 100,000,000 scarred for life! I'm sorry, I'm just more worried when I see bush's PR teams, and the other politicians (mostly on the right, I must say!), and I'm more scared of them than I am of any terrorist!
"He's running the risk of letting them define the narrative."
Actually, it's the media that defines the narrative, and the media is writing the narrative for McCain: of course there's the war hero narrative, and the "maverick" narrative -- laughable, and based totally on media myth rather than fact (McCain has voted with Bush 85% of the time; some maverick) -- and now we have the "underdog" narrative. America, we loves us our war heroes and mavericks, and wee doggies, give us a underdog, and we have our man!
What the Dems need to do is focus on congressional elections, because the White House is lost again.
@bgregs
>And that's a valuable argument. However,
>the argument that I'm seeing from the right
>wing (and occasionally from you....) is that
>it's NEVER valid to show up with the diplomacy,
>just with the gun!
Not true... Iran, North Korea..
Two examples of diplomacy running it's course. In the case of NK, it ostensibly produced results. And not one single overt shot fired.
Iran?? Diplomacy is nearing it's end.
But it's simply not true to say that it hasn't been tried...
Michale.....
I will grant you that diplomacy is beginning to take place, and therefore work, in North Korea.
However, we have yet to actually sit down and talk with the Iranian's. We simply come out and say that they are making a bomb (just like we did with Iraq....) and then say that only by them acceding to all our demands would we ever talk to them.....
It's hard to talk to Iranian leaders when they are so illogical and irrational about things..
On the one hand they claim that all their intentions are peaceful, yet on the other, they go on and on about the destruction of Israel and brutal attacks on the US, etc etc...
As a military person, I know more than most that it's always better to AVOID a fight, rather than INSIST on one..
Achmedjihadist seems intent on insisting on one.
Michale.....
"Obama's in danger of making the same mistake Democrats have been making for the last eight years. He's running the risk of letting them define the narrative."
Exactamundo. He won the nomination by adopting a strategy that suited him ... it would be a shame to lose the general election by adopting the strategy of Dukakis and Gore.
Why is it conventional wisdom that a progressive that espouses a progressive agenda is unelectable?
Could it be progresivism is a loser? And if so, I wonder why given the moral high ground in just about everything important?
Mr. Obama, by his race to the right sure indicates its a loser. But then maybe he has NO core beliefs.
Progressives are to the left as neo-cons are to the right. Extremists. Most Americans fall somewhere in the middle.
I think it would be a HUGE mistake for Democrats to assume that most Americans are ready to embrace a progressive agenda.
No, Progressives are the centrist form of the left. The LIBERALS are the extreme wing of the party! Don't you remember, that's been the narrative from the right for the last 40 years.....
Leftists who have spent years distorting the story of Rickey Ray Rector are now silent as; incredibly,
Obama calls for BROADING Capital Punishment.
This was much more surprising, to me, than the FISA cave. What Obama said, that is, not the
weasal stuff from progressives.
That's not what he called for at all. You are lying. What he said was if the state's wanted to broaden it under narrowly defined terms, he would support that.
"But, as any meditator can tell you, the process of "centering" can paradoxically cause you to lose your balance. How? If you try too hard."
Really? I think the likelier explanation for what is at play here is that people who make their living writing about politics are collectively trying too hard to find something new to say. And it always sems the easiest option is just to tell one of the candidates what to do and what catastrophe will ensue if their advice isn't followed. A week or two off might do all of us some good.
How can Obama be a candidate of change while flip flopping on important issues like FISA? He is a constitutional lawyer who has given many speeches that made the media drool with unabashed love for him along with his backers, so where is his eloquent voice now and why doesn"t he use it to convince the middle that illegal wiretapping is an infringement on our rights as free Americans? Perhaps his message of change was intended to let the rest of us know that democrats have become the party of spineless rhetoric!
I don't view Obama as a fighter. There is nothing wrong with strong intellectualism, however, this must be coupled with the ability to play down and dirty in the gutter. If he shows any sign of weakness, he is a goner.
"Hillary did a terrific job and is back in the running for VP." ???
Say it isn't so. Obama would LOSE ME if he should choose Hillary. How could he be the candidate of CHANGE with her wrapped around his neck?
How can Obama be a candidate of change running as a Democrat???
Gimme a break!
How can Obama be a candidate of change while flip flopping on important issues like FISA? He is a constitutional lawyer who has given many speeches that made the media drool with unabashed love for him along with his backers, so where is his eloquent voice now and why doesn"t he use it to convince the middle that illegal wiretapping is an infringement on our rights as free Americans? Perhaps his message of change was intended to let the rest of us know that democrats have become the party of spineless rethoric!
rhetoric
That would be the WORST possible pick. Don't do it, Barack.
He's already acting like Hillary - what's so wrong about them teaming up? Come on, all of the Obamanics have to admit that he is now doing what she did up front in the primary (and was totally slammed for). He's finding the center in the long-time tradition of the best triangulators. I hope he can still win, but this proves that there is no such thing as his new politics. Now where's that damn Rachel Maddow and how is she blindly justifying this crap?
I could not POSSIBLY agree more with you.
I would REALLY have to reconsider my support for Obama if Hillary was his VP choice.
Michale.....
Oh , sure reneging on FISA 's ok , but picking a candidate that had 49% of the Dem support isn't? Now who's being a purist?
It isn't the primaries. Obama has already started going back on his "change" rhetoric. What got him to where he is today is by playing politics better than his opponents. Think he will change his strategy now? Not likely. He is distinguished because of his charisma and eloquence, not by his message. Good news for him is that old John has no charisma or eloquence. Bad news for him is that even with John's blunders Barack still can't pull ahead.
Exactly.
Obama's doing the best he can, but he should simply be himself, as he was earlier, when his tremendous charisma and clear-mindedness propelled his campaign to the top.
FELLOW OBAMA SUPPORTERS AND PROGRESSIVES, LET'S NOT GET CAUGHT IN THE EARLY WEEDS OF SUMMER AND DAILY GRIND FROM THE PUNDINTS AND RUNNING COMMENTARY ON EVERY REMARK MADE. LET'S KEEP OUR FOCUS ON THE PRIZE. OMAMA IS WELL AWARE OF THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED HERE. WE NEED TO KEEP ORANIZING GET OUT THE VOTE EFFORTS, HELP SPREAD THE GOOD NEWS, AS THE NEWS OUTLETS AND TALK RADIO/TV HOSTS ARE LOOKING TO A STORY AND NEED TO STIR UP WHATEVER THEY CAN TO FILL VOIDS UNTIL THE CONVENTIONS AND THE NOV. ELECTION. WE NEED TO BE TOUGHER ON THE TALK SHOWS AND MEDIA TO BE FAIR AND GET THE TRUTH OUT. I DO HOPE THAT SEN. OBAMA WILL STRIKE A STRONG OPTIMISTIC TONE IN FUTURE SPEECHES AND LISTEN TO WISE PEOPLE WHO HAVE WON IN THE PAST. IF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WOULD HAVE BEEN SCRAPPED YRS AGO AS IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, WE'D HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING GORE'S SUCCESSOR.
Yorkie, despite your emphatic use of CAPS, the good news that you talk about, is in fact, stale old news. Obama's has made his reactionary bed and now has to go lie in the lies of it. What will the Senator say, after fraudulently announcing that Iran is a threat to us? What will be his response if Seymour Hersh's article is correct, that the US goverment is covertly attempting to covertly overthrow the government of another sovereign country. What will he say? I have no problem with that? Getting the truth out would mean the fabrication of "change we can believe in" is in reality "help me to protect the status quo". And as far as good news is concerned, what is so bloody optimistic about extending the death penalty?
I am not suggesting at all that we invade, but to suggest that Iran is not a threat is being terribly naive.
Anyone who thinks that Iran is not a threat is completely ignorant of the circumstances..
Now don't get me wrong.
"There is no dishonor in not knowing everything"
-Subcommander T'al, STAR TREK
Ignorance, in and of itself, is not bad.
WILLFUL ignorance is..
Michale.....
"after fraudulently announcing that Iran is a threat to us?" ???
Did he?
Posted June 28, 2008 | 02:31 PM (EST)