Barbyrah
Recent comments by this user
Obama Campaign Manager Airs Cash Woes In Video
Dear Mr. Plouffe,
I gave in the past. And talked my 86 year old mother, who's on a fixed income of social security, into giving a couple of times as well.
Unfortunately, no more.
It wasn't just the FISA vote. Wasn't just the AIPAC speech. Wasn't just Jim Johnson and Bilderberg.
I haven't involved myself in the political process for nearly thirty years. But this time someone seemed to embody "a new kind of politics." Someone who said: "I will always tell you the truth." And who made his mantra: "No more politics as usual."
Since securing enough votes to become the presumptive nominee, all of that has gone pretty much by the wayside. And what I have witnessed is very much "politics as usual."
This, sir, is about integrity. And character.
That's what many voters are wanting.
You think it's issues. And you think, by now presenting Obama as someone different from who he was during the primaries, you'll garner the independent voter, the conservative voter, the evangelical voter, the Appalacian voter...by doing what every other politician has ever done.
Integrity. Character.
You might want to try it.
I wish Senator Obama, his family, and his staff well. posted 07/14/2008 at 11:42:43
I gave in the past. And talked my 86 year old mother, who's on a fixed income of social security, into giving a couple of times as well.
Unfortunately, no more.
It wasn't just the FISA vote. Wasn't just the AIPAC speech. Wasn't just Jim Johnson and Bilderberg.
I haven't involved myself in the political process for nearly thirty years. But this time someone seemed to embody "a new kind of politics." Someone who said: "I will always tell you the truth." And who made his mantra: "No more politics as usual."
Since securing enough votes to become the presumptive nominee, all of that has gone pretty much by the wayside. And what I have witnessed is very much "politics as usual."
This, sir, is about integrity. And character.
That's what many voters are wanting.
You think it's issues. And you think, by now presenting Obama as someone different from who he was during the primaries, you'll garner the independent voter, the conservative voter, the evangelical voter, the Appalacian voter...by doing what every other politician has ever done.
Integrity. Character.
You might want to try it.
I wish Senator Obama, his family, and his staff well. posted 07/14/2008 at 11:42:43
Benefits Of Vegetarianism: Vegetarians Live Longer
Anywhere close to a Whole Foods? I never did tofu until I tried their sesame tofu...then their pesto tofu...WFoods is fantastic with turning nonmeat stuff into gourmet offerings. P.S. You might also check into local food co-ops. Many times they've got ready-to-eat things that are mouth-watering.
Take care, and blessings.P.P.S. I didn't start out doing it for the health thing; I just love animals too much and didn't want to participate in their suffering. posted 07/14/2008 at 23:52:18
Take care, and blessings.P.P.S. I didn't start out doing it for the health thing; I just love animals too much and didn't want to participate in their suffering. posted 07/14/2008 at 23:52:18
jeffp26 and axt113...you got me giggling like crazy! Thanks!
P.S. Vegetarian for 35 years, vegan for ten...and I'm...hmm, how's this: warmly bronzed with a hint of blush and dynamically agreeable! posted 07/14/2008 at 23:45:28
P.S. Vegetarian for 35 years, vegan for ten...and I'm...hmm, how's this: warmly bronzed with a hint of blush and dynamically agreeable! posted 07/14/2008 at 23:45:28
With all due respect: Maybe some of us are entering a period when to "evolve" isn't related to "survival of the species" or "mating" or doing the breeding thing anymore. Just a heads up: There are people "waking up" on the planet and asking, "Can't we move beyond this?" (It's so old.)
For me, evolution isn't about biology. It's about spirituality. Not about "surviving"...but thriving. Growing stronger, healthier, younger, more beautiful...as my heart and Soul grow in their ability to be nonjudgmental, love unconditionally, and create with joy. Nonstop. Forever.
My definition of "an evolved human."
Thanks for reading. posted 07/14/2008 at 23:39:38
For me, evolution isn't about biology. It's about spirituality. Not about "surviving"...but thriving. Growing stronger, healthier, younger, more beautiful...as my heart and Soul grow in their ability to be nonjudgmental, love unconditionally, and create with joy. Nonstop. Forever.
My definition of "an evolved human."
Thanks for reading. posted 07/14/2008 at 23:39:38
Additionally, ingesting too much protein (which the avg. U.S. citizen does) can actually lead to "sucking out" calcium from bones. (Why you don't see traditional Japanese women with osteo...they don't drink milk or do the dairy thing, eat a lot less meat/no meat, but no humpback and way fewer bone fractures as they age. Researchers found out: Their protein intake isn't overboard, and that makes all the difference.)
P.S. As far as the animal fat thing: As one doctor who, after presenting evidence on the Oxford/Cornell eight year study on plant based diets said, "I've never yet heard a physician say, as an autopsy was performed on someone who died from heart disease: "Yep, the guy ate too much broccoli.") posted 07/14/2008 at 23:32:57
P.S. As far as the animal fat thing: As one doctor who, after presenting evidence on the Oxford/Cornell eight year study on plant based diets said, "I've never yet heard a physician say, as an autopsy was performed on someone who died from heart disease: "Yep, the guy ate too much broccoli.") posted 07/14/2008 at 23:32:57
Senate Passes FISA Bill, Gives Telecoms Immunity
"I will always tell you the truth."
"No more politics as usual."
Politics doesn't have to be an ugly business.
It's a choice. posted 07/10/2008 at 00:41:33
"No more politics as usual."
Politics doesn't have to be an ugly business.
It's a choice. posted 07/10/2008 at 00:41:33
Uhh...which day are we talking about? (His convictions seem to change...See also AIPAC speech.) posted 07/09/2008 at 22:25:10
Criminal prosecution = five year statute of limitations as per federal law. (Oops. So illegal wiretapping for 2001,2002,2003, and 2004 = no deal. And if no suit is filed next year, add 2005.) posted 07/09/2008 at 22:22:53
They're also about discovery. FInding out what really happened. The depth. The breadth. Which leads to headlines. News stories. Over and over. Like Enron. And which then ultimately leads to...accountability.
I don't care if the telecoms are able to wrangle out of the civil suits. But what's priceless is hearing a judge issue statements that will be widely publicized re: the scope of the illegal activities these telecoms were involved in.
Accountability. It makes a huge difference. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:56:57
I don't care if the telecoms are able to wrangle out of the civil suits. But what's priceless is hearing a judge issue statements that will be widely publicized re: the scope of the illegal activities these telecoms were involved in.
Accountability. It makes a huge difference. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:56:57
1. So you're saying no gov't entity can begin wiretapping, and proceed with wiretapping, without a warrant first in hand? That's news to me. And news to the ACLU as well. Me thinks you might be making a broad statement that may be correct in many situations. But not all of them.
2. Would you please document what this "oversight" entails? In other words, can the FISA Court make a determination re: who is being wiretapped in this large data-mining operations? Or For what reasons? Again, news to me and to others.
3. I'd appreciate a link to or a copy of that part of the bill that refutes these points. Thanks. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:46:52
2. Would you please document what this "oversight" entails? In other words, can the FISA Court make a determination re: who is being wiretapped in this large data-mining operations? Or For what reasons? Again, news to me and to others.
3. I'd appreciate a link to or a copy of that part of the bill that refutes these points. Thanks. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:46:52
1. If that's the case, then why the need for an immunity clause in this bill in the first place (if "They already HAD it for Christ's sake!")? In other words, is Congress THAT dense, THAT stupid that they'd put in a clause they didn't even need knowing it would create havoc in the blog community...as well as erode support for the Democratic presidential nominee? Why the debates about it? Why all the wrangling about it...if it ALREADY existed?
2. Cite sources, please. Not sarcastic. I'd like to know the exact source of the law or legal directive that gave them immunity. I'd be more than happy to read it and re-educate myself.
Thank you. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:38:35
2. Cite sources, please. Not sarcastic. I'd like to know the exact source of the law or legal directive that gave them immunity. I'd be more than happy to read it and re-educate myself.
Thank you. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:38:35
Uhh...excuse me, but it already WAS succeeding in court. The judge involved in the AT&T trial is on recording saying, to paraphrase, that there was NO WAY AT&T didn't know it was breaking the law. Slam dunk.
And your casual comment re: 4th Amendment protections...uhh, once again, misstatements. (Any time you can do warrantless wiretapping of emails, phone calls, and text messages between a U.S. national and a foreigner...under the guise of waiting for a warrant and then, if the warrant is denied, continuing such wiretapping through an appeals process and then, if the appeal is denied, being allowed to keep all information gathered for what could be up to 72 days...how is this 4th Amendment protection?)
P.S. In these situations, the FISA Court has no say re: upholding any guidelines re: who is wiretapped, and under what circumstances...their only function is to review general procedures. Oh, and this includes data-mining "sweeps" of whole groups of Americans.
If you've got SPECIFIC information, not a sweeping, broad statement, that contradicts what I've just written, I'm open to seeing. But please, I'd ask you to stay away from making non-specific generalizations with nothing to back them up with.
Thanks. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:31:38
And your casual comment re: 4th Amendment protections...uhh, once again, misstatements. (Any time you can do warrantless wiretapping of emails, phone calls, and text messages between a U.S. national and a foreigner...under the guise of waiting for a warrant and then, if the warrant is denied, continuing such wiretapping through an appeals process and then, if the appeal is denied, being allowed to keep all information gathered for what could be up to 72 days...how is this 4th Amendment protection?)
P.S. In these situations, the FISA Court has no say re: upholding any guidelines re: who is wiretapped, and under what circumstances...their only function is to review general procedures. Oh, and this includes data-mining "sweeps" of whole groups of Americans.
If you've got SPECIFIC information, not a sweeping, broad statement, that contradicts what I've just written, I'm open to seeing. But please, I'd ask you to stay away from making non-specific generalizations with nothing to back them up with.
Thanks. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:31:38
Networked Obama FISA Group Takes Fight Forward
Couple that with the five year statute of limitations on criminal suits as per federal law... posted 07/10/2008 at 15:52:17
Where did you get this information? That the Old, or original FISA - along with over fifty revisions since 1978 - puts wiretap authority in the hands of the AG?
That's simply untrue. To the nth degree. The FISA law created a FISA Court that was the exclusive determiner of warrants. Bush, unfortunately, decided to ignore the FISA law and FISA courts...HE was the one who put the authority in the A.G.'s hands.
Please, provide a link to the "old" FISA - the one on the books up unti yesterday - that gives authority to the A.G. Or provide a link from a constitutional expert/lawyer who makes such an analysis.
Thanks. posted 07/10/2008 at 15:51:14
That's simply untrue. To the nth degree. The FISA law created a FISA Court that was the exclusive determiner of warrants. Bush, unfortunately, decided to ignore the FISA law and FISA courts...HE was the one who put the authority in the A.G.'s hands.
Please, provide a link to the "old" FISA - the one on the books up unti yesterday - that gives authority to the A.G. Or provide a link from a constitutional expert/lawyer who makes such an analysis.
Thanks. posted 07/10/2008 at 15:51:14
Opponents of Retroactive Immunity Live To Fight Another Day
Uhh...just an FYI: HIllary ABSTAINED from voting on cloture for this bill last week, just like Obama and McCain. (And she wasn't even on the campaign trail, she was back in D.C.) Translate: She didn't take a stand. Ducked out. posted 07/08/2008 at 00:24:05
Oops...uh, didn't our candidate tell us..."I'll never lie to you" and "No more politics as usual"??
I'd say the scenario you just identified...reflects just the opposite.
P.S. If we assume "the other" is vile, nasty, corrupt and devious"...that gives all sorts of excuses for us (and Obama) to take the low road.
P.P.S. How many times have I heard..."We gotta elect him first. THEN he'll do such-and-such." Hmm...sounds slightly...old?
Take care. posted 07/08/2008 at 00:18:52
I'd say the scenario you just identified...reflects just the opposite.
P.S. If we assume "the other" is vile, nasty, corrupt and devious"...that gives all sorts of excuses for us (and Obama) to take the low road.
P.P.S. How many times have I heard..."We gotta elect him first. THEN he'll do such-and-such." Hmm...sounds slightly...old?
Take care. posted 07/08/2008 at 00:18:52
I am proud and so honored that you, Senator Dodd, are reflecting such incredible character...with appreciation, admiration, and support, Barbyrah posted 07/08/2008 at 00:13:20
Super... posted 07/08/2008 at 00:11:26
What Every American Needs to Know (and Do) About FISA Before Tuesday
I am requesting this column be put in a more prominent place on HuffPo. Superb - and helpful - info.
Thanks, Dan and Tim. P.S. Have already contacted both of my senators, as well as Obama's campaign. Will visit My.BarackObama.com and leave a message there as well. posted 07/07/2008 at 20:51:21
Thanks, Dan and Tim. P.S. Have already contacted both of my senators, as well as Obama's campaign. Will visit My.BarackObama.com and leave a message there as well. posted 07/07/2008 at 20:51:21
My Position On FISA
Dear Senator Obama,
After a long, restless night, I was reminded....how much these shifts and changes we are seeing in you are based on fear. No, not our fear.
Your fear.
Understandably so, I might add. You started out as someone who was going to do things differently. Not in superficial ways. But the real deal.
Staying on that road is challenging, no question. Because you've got hundreds of years of "collective wisdom" telling you...that it's impossible to achieve what you want to achieve without going back to doing things the way they've "always been done."
Please, sir, take heart. And listen to it...
The world is in a vastly different place. We are entering an incredibly new potentiality. There are people in this country who are aware, and awake to this fact.
This is the time...to make the leap, sir.
There are many of us "out there" who are already leaping. And in so doing, are creating a vastly new reality.
There is no need for you to make decisions based on fear anymore. No need.
Let go of the fear, Senator.
Let go of the fear.
I wish you the best. posted 07/04/2008 at 14:42:34
After a long, restless night, I was reminded....how much these shifts and changes we are seeing in you are based on fear. No, not our fear.
Your fear.
Understandably so, I might add. You started out as someone who was going to do things differently. Not in superficial ways. But the real deal.
Staying on that road is challenging, no question. Because you've got hundreds of years of "collective wisdom" telling you...that it's impossible to achieve what you want to achieve without going back to doing things the way they've "always been done."
Please, sir, take heart. And listen to it...
The world is in a vastly different place. We are entering an incredibly new potentiality. There are people in this country who are aware, and awake to this fact.
This is the time...to make the leap, sir.
There are many of us "out there" who are already leaping. And in so doing, are creating a vastly new reality.
There is no need for you to make decisions based on fear anymore. No need.
Let go of the fear, Senator.
Let go of the fear.
I wish you the best. posted 07/04/2008 at 14:42:34
Uhh...sorry, not true. FISA has been amended to include current modes of technology ("wire, oral, and electronic communications"). As for dealing with "terroristic threats that did not exist in 1978"...Can you tell me in what ways the current FISA law is inadequate for such? After all, Condi Rice got the info well ahead of time that an imminent attack from Bin Laden and company was going to be going down on U.S. soil right before 9/11... They HAD the info, they just didn't do anything with it.
(Seems like the problem isn't with collecting info; it's more like...what is done with it once it's collected. But I'm open to your take on it; how is current FISA law inadequate?) posted 07/04/2008 at 05:57:32
(Seems like the problem isn't with collecting info; it's more like...what is done with it once it's collected. But I'm open to your take on it; how is current FISA law inadequate?) posted 07/04/2008 at 05:57:32
However did you come up with that statistic? Seriously: What evidence is there that 95% of those who disagree with Barack on this issue "don't have a friggin" clue"?
I'd appreciate your insight. posted 07/04/2008 at 05:14:59
I'd appreciate your insight. posted 07/04/2008 at 05:14:59
PoliJunkie, it was in Barack's political interest to "address us" directly. Why? Because the sheer number of bloggers - esp. on his own website - who were upset and objecting to his stand were creating a news story - a story growing bigger by the day because it wasn't dying down. (My hunch: That's what they were hoping for, waiting for. Otherwise, why did it take him so long to reply to those objections?)
And how did he address us? Well, I read his post over several times, and I have mixed feelings at best. I don't want to dis him. Truly. But as someone else stated: To be perfectly honest, it felt like he was attempting to justify, not explain. And some of the phrases he used...much like the initial press release he put out when informing us he was going to support the bill...sounded like political mumbo-jumbo. (In fact, if I had just the words in front of me, I could have easily guessed they came from GW himself.)
People seem to be falling all over the place just because he finally wrote something up about it and sent it our way. But if he really wanted to clear the air, why didn't he set aside time to take quesitons from us directly? The staff people who were available for 30 minutes (on his site) to answer questions - well, take a look at which ones they actually answered, and what their replies were. It was theater. posted 07/04/2008 at 03:59:30
And how did he address us? Well, I read his post over several times, and I have mixed feelings at best. I don't want to dis him. Truly. But as someone else stated: To be perfectly honest, it felt like he was attempting to justify, not explain. And some of the phrases he used...much like the initial press release he put out when informing us he was going to support the bill...sounded like political mumbo-jumbo. (In fact, if I had just the words in front of me, I could have easily guessed they came from GW himself.)
People seem to be falling all over the place just because he finally wrote something up about it and sent it our way. But if he really wanted to clear the air, why didn't he set aside time to take quesitons from us directly? The staff people who were available for 30 minutes (on his site) to answer questions - well, take a look at which ones they actually answered, and what their replies were. It was theater. posted 07/04/2008 at 03:59:30
"After all, he's my Commander in Chief." Oops. Almost the exact same words Dan Rather spoke (on David Letterman) when commenting on the need to support Bush's decision to invade Iraq back in whatever the heck year it was that it all started. posted 07/04/2008 at 03:39:11
Candice, with all due respect: What I'm seeing here (and on other blogs) is people who are coming to Barack's defense in ways that remind me of family members who defend spouses or sons or daughters or siblings when they've been caught doing something illegal, or caught doing something less-than-honorable. I'm picking up a very real "Circle the wagons/we have to protect him" thing.
I'm also seeing...significant denial.
As a former pastoral counselor who worked with families in need, I feel as if I've entered this huge, extended "Barack" family...where, as he continues to go further and further down the "politics as usual" road, relatives deflect - sometimes with anger and hostility - anything posted that "names" the problem. "No, you're mistaken!" "No, give him another chance!" "No, he'd never do that!" "No, you're wrong!" (And trying to put the blame on those who are doing the "naming"...is classic.)
FYI: Until the "family" comes to a point of openness re: acknowledging the dysfunction, it's not going to get better. (And calling those who are identifying and actually talking about the problem..."dumb" and "uninformed"...once again classic, but not helpful.)
I wish you well. posted 07/04/2008 at 03:35:33
I'm also seeing...significant denial.
As a former pastoral counselor who worked with families in need, I feel as if I've entered this huge, extended "Barack" family...where, as he continues to go further and further down the "politics as usual" road, relatives deflect - sometimes with anger and hostility - anything posted that "names" the problem. "No, you're mistaken!" "No, give him another chance!" "No, he'd never do that!" "No, you're wrong!" (And trying to put the blame on those who are doing the "naming"...is classic.)
FYI: Until the "family" comes to a point of openness re: acknowledging the dysfunction, it's not going to get better. (And calling those who are identifying and actually talking about the problem..."dumb" and "uninformed"...once again classic, but not helpful.)
I wish you well. posted 07/04/2008 at 03:35:33
Where did you get this piece of info? Document/link, please. Thanks! posted 07/04/2008 at 03:04:27
Oops...THIRD time you've posted the exact same comments (uh, except the "...lazy F'n people make me sick" thing).
1. Please consider making this your last post on the subject; thanks!
2. Please consider realizing...what you are posting is incorrect and in so doing, are part of perpetrating falsehoods about the bill.
As I replied to you in your first post:
3. Wiretaps ARE ALLOWED WITHOUT FISA COURT OVERSIGHT/WARRANTS in the case of supposed "emergencies."
4. These wiretaps can go on for up to seven days until such request for a warrant is either granted or denied.
5. If the request is denied, the gov't has the legal right, with this bill, to CONTINUE WIRETAPPING THROUGHOUT AN APPEALS PROCESS, which could take up to 72 days. WITHOUT A WARRANT.
6. If the appeal for a warrant is still ultimately denied, the gov't GETS TO KEEP ALL DATA THAT WAS COLLECTED during the entire appeals process time. Doesn't have to reveal it, account for it, destroy it. Phone calls, emails, text messages. All of it. Period. posted 07/04/2008 at 02:52:13
1. Please consider making this your last post on the subject; thanks!
2. Please consider realizing...what you are posting is incorrect and in so doing, are part of perpetrating falsehoods about the bill.
As I replied to you in your first post:
3. Wiretaps ARE ALLOWED WITHOUT FISA COURT OVERSIGHT/WARRANTS in the case of supposed "emergencies."
4. These wiretaps can go on for up to seven days until such request for a warrant is either granted or denied.
5. If the request is denied, the gov't has the legal right, with this bill, to CONTINUE WIRETAPPING THROUGHOUT AN APPEALS PROCESS, which could take up to 72 days. WITHOUT A WARRANT.
6. If the appeal for a warrant is still ultimately denied, the gov't GETS TO KEEP ALL DATA THAT WAS COLLECTED during the entire appeals process time. Doesn't have to reveal it, account for it, destroy it. Phone calls, emails, text messages. All of it. Period. posted 07/04/2008 at 02:52:13
You just posted this earlier. And I responded: What you claim is untrue. (However, other readers, I won't repost the explanation - scroll up and take a look if interested.) posted 07/04/2008 at 02:36:58
Not true. In emergencies, warrantless wiretaps are allowed, for up to seven days, until such warrants are approved. Additionally, if the warrant is NOT approved, the gov't can continue wiretapping throughout the entire appeals process, which can take up to 72 days. Plus: If the warrant is still ultimately turned down, the gov't gets to keep all information collected during the time of appeals. In other words, they don't have to turn it over to anyone, or destroy it - they still get to keep it. (About two and a half month's worth of data, including emails and text messages. All done without a warrant.) posted 07/04/2008 at 02:18:38
FYI: this bill also allows warrantless wiretapping to continue throughout the time of an appeals process if the initial request for warrant is denied
FYI: this bill also allows the gov't to keep all information collected - up to 72 day's worth of wiretapping information -- even if the request is ultimately still denied in appeals courts posted 07/04/2008 at 02:12:29
FYI: this bill also allows the gov't to keep all information collected - up to 72 day's worth of wiretapping information -- even if the request is ultimately still denied in appeals courts posted 07/04/2008 at 02:12:29
Can another cloture vote be taken? (One already was, and it was overwhelmingly approved. Sometime last week, but it was a cloture vote on this FISA bill.) Obama, Clinton, and McCain all ABSTAINED on the vote. posted 07/03/2008 at 23:57:02
Understanding Obama's Recent Right Turn
Uhh..."No more politics as usual"???
P.S. Your analysis assumes voters don't care about the process of politics. And only care about policy "change." Hmm. My guess is, with someone who is intelligent, a superb communicator, well-versed on issues...AND...who speaks honestly, sincerely, no bull, no pandering...voters would run, not walk toward this kind of "change." posted 06/30/2008 at 03:37:52
P.S. Your analysis assumes voters don't care about the process of politics. And only care about policy "change." Hmm. My guess is, with someone who is intelligent, a superb communicator, well-versed on issues...AND...who speaks honestly, sincerely, no bull, no pandering...voters would run, not walk toward this kind of "change." posted 06/30/2008 at 03:37:52
With all due respect...your words are well written, and your logic sophisticated. What kinda gives it away...
Immunity cannot, by law, be "revoked." Once it's granted, it's a done deal. Period. And that fact has been all over blogdom for at least a week.
Flip flops besides the FISA thing:
1. Israle/Middle East: So now Jerusalem wil be undivided, entirely delivered to the Jewish state, eh?(AIPAC speech)
2. So now he'll have all sorts of preconditions that are required before speaking "with those we disagree with," yes?
3. Of course, so now he'll recruit all sorts of beltway insiders - J. Johnson/Bilderberg Group, for example, in addition to lots of former Clinton folk, lots of former politicians, etc. so he can demonstrate...uh, right...
4. And granted, small potatoes, but considering all the other stuff: flags everywhere. EVERYWHERE. And not just a few, mind you. AND...never explained. The flag pin, never explained. (It's not that he might not have his reasons. Just tell us. But otherwise...it looks so disingenuous. The pander factor - obvious.)
Reminder: This is the guy who said: No more politics as usual. That's what he RAN ON. That was HIS THEME. Not Hillary's. Not McCain's. HE OWNS IT. Or should I say owned it. Because all of this...is very much politics as usual. (And we're only in the first month after the primaries...)
Wow. posted 06/30/2008 at 03:13:44
Immunity cannot, by law, be "revoked." Once it's granted, it's a done deal. Period. And that fact has been all over blogdom for at least a week.
Flip flops besides the FISA thing:
1. Israle/Middle East: So now Jerusalem wil be undivided, entirely delivered to the Jewish state, eh?(AIPAC speech)
2. So now he'll have all sorts of preconditions that are required before speaking "with those we disagree with," yes?
3. Of course, so now he'll recruit all sorts of beltway insiders - J. Johnson/Bilderberg Group, for example, in addition to lots of former Clinton folk, lots of former politicians, etc. so he can demonstrate...uh, right...
4. And granted, small potatoes, but considering all the other stuff: flags everywhere. EVERYWHERE. And not just a few, mind you. AND...never explained. The flag pin, never explained. (It's not that he might not have his reasons. Just tell us. But otherwise...it looks so disingenuous. The pander factor - obvious.)
Reminder: This is the guy who said: No more politics as usual. That's what he RAN ON. That was HIS THEME. Not Hillary's. Not McCain's. HE OWNS IT. Or should I say owned it. Because all of this...is very much politics as usual. (And we're only in the first month after the primaries...)
Wow. posted 06/30/2008 at 03:13:44
Hmm...you must have an "interesting" way of defining integrity....! posted 06/30/2008 at 02:54:28
Many assumptions on this "He has to move to the center" meme that is running rampant throughout the blog world.
Assumption 1: The electorate never changes. People voting today are the exact same type of people who voted five years ago, twenty years ago, fifty years ago. And its view of the world today is exactly as it saw the world five years ago, twenty years ago, fifty years ago.
Assumption 2: The electorate always votes in the same way, for the same reasons. Always.
Assumption 3: The electorate is more concerned with a candidate's stands on specific issues than with her/his integrity, honesty, character.
Assumption 4: The electorate does not want to be further educated about what's really going on beyond a sound bite.
Assumption 5: You can pander to the electorate, even lie to the electorate and they won't mind or even notice as long as you promise to "take care of" them.
Assumption 6: "Left" "center" and "right" are clearly definable terms and positions.
Assumption 7: The electorate knows and is in agreement with those terms and positions.
Assumption 8: The electorate is, as a whole, "centerist." (Whatever that means...) Therefore...
Assumption 9: To win any election, you must be "centrist." (Whatever that means...)
For those espousing this "move to the center" thing...would you please give me ANY evidence of even one of these assumptions? Not hearsay, not punditry, not rumors, not "collective wisdom," not "common sense"...but evidence? Thanks... posted 06/30/2008 at 02:39:37
Assumption 1: The electorate never changes. People voting today are the exact same type of people who voted five years ago, twenty years ago, fifty years ago. And its view of the world today is exactly as it saw the world five years ago, twenty years ago, fifty years ago.
Assumption 2: The electorate always votes in the same way, for the same reasons. Always.
Assumption 3: The electorate is more concerned with a candidate's stands on specific issues than with her/his integrity, honesty, character.
Assumption 4: The electorate does not want to be further educated about what's really going on beyond a sound bite.
Assumption 5: You can pander to the electorate, even lie to the electorate and they won't mind or even notice as long as you promise to "take care of" them.
Assumption 6: "Left" "center" and "right" are clearly definable terms and positions.
Assumption 7: The electorate knows and is in agreement with those terms and positions.
Assumption 8: The electorate is, as a whole, "centerist." (Whatever that means...) Therefore...
Assumption 9: To win any election, you must be "centrist." (Whatever that means...)
For those espousing this "move to the center" thing...would you please give me ANY evidence of even one of these assumptions? Not hearsay, not punditry, not rumors, not "collective wisdom," not "common sense"...but evidence? Thanks... posted 06/30/2008 at 02:39:37
Then why didn't he say that? Why didn't he EXPLAIN his flip flop on FISA if these are indeed his reasons for doing so? Instead, his "explanation" was a short, terse Republican talking point (the terrorist thing). And that was it. Case closed.
And...ya know, he could have also taken the opportunity to EDUCATE people about exactly what had gone on with these telecoms, including what they did, the extent they did it, etc. Could have told the American people exactly how many "terrorist dens" had been discovered with this onslaught of illegal wiretapping. (Uhh...none?)
P.S. "Working with others" doesn't always mean capitulation. Sometimes it means sharing facts and informing others of those facts so that they get a broader picture, or better yet, can see how their values, or what they hold dear...is directly related to a stand they may have been opposing but find, on getting further informed, that they really don't oppose it at all.
P.P.S. This isn't just about FISA, btw. How about that speech in front of AIPAC?? What a geat opportunity for him to have demonstrated real leadership and take the higher road. (For example, the Feb. 8, 2008 poll that reported 64% of Israelis want their government to TALK/NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS. Totally ignored by him, and by all other American politicians. And we don't have to even guess why... Which is, of course, the reason nothing ever changes there, either.) posted 06/30/2008 at 02:10:45
And...ya know, he could have also taken the opportunity to EDUCATE people about exactly what had gone on with these telecoms, including what they did, the extent they did it, etc. Could have told the American people exactly how many "terrorist dens" had been discovered with this onslaught of illegal wiretapping. (Uhh...none?)
P.S. "Working with others" doesn't always mean capitulation. Sometimes it means sharing facts and informing others of those facts so that they get a broader picture, or better yet, can see how their values, or what they hold dear...is directly related to a stand they may have been opposing but find, on getting further informed, that they really don't oppose it at all.
P.P.S. This isn't just about FISA, btw. How about that speech in front of AIPAC?? What a geat opportunity for him to have demonstrated real leadership and take the higher road. (For example, the Feb. 8, 2008 poll that reported 64% of Israelis want their government to TALK/NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS. Totally ignored by him, and by all other American politicians. And we don't have to even guess why... Which is, of course, the reason nothing ever changes there, either.) posted 06/30/2008 at 02:10:45
Fearmongering? posted 06/30/2008 at 01:51:21
Bless your heart, but...wow. Old stuff. I mean really old stuff. "Think about the alternative" is the same line as "So, you want McCain to win, huh? Then go ahead and ruin our country," etc.
It's time to turn the page on that one. At least, for me. I cannot, will not vote out of FEAR. It never works. Period.
(I will also not vote out of "settling." Settling for less. Choosing the lesser of two evils. Holding my nose. That one's old, too. The definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - yep. I'm pulling myself out of the loop. In fact, I already did.)
Take care. posted 06/30/2008 at 01:51:00
It's time to turn the page on that one. At least, for me. I cannot, will not vote out of FEAR. It never works. Period.
(I will also not vote out of "settling." Settling for less. Choosing the lesser of two evils. Holding my nose. That one's old, too. The definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results - yep. I'm pulling myself out of the loop. In fact, I already did.)
Take care. posted 06/30/2008 at 01:51:00
Thanks for the insightful article. "Light bulb" time...
I really thought the sudden (and unexpected) "shift"...was due to arrogance (we know what we're doing; don't get in the way), and cold-hearted calculation. (A NY TImes article described, for example, David. P's "Persuasion Army" stuff, complete with a state-by-state tactical "war board" of sorts. Ugh.)
But ya know what: I think you're right. Down deep, they're lacking confidence in taking this "No more politics as usual" commitment all the way to November and instead started running scared. Letting McCain and the Repubs frame everything, and as a result, responding the same way Kerry did, Gore did, etc. (I don't care if you've got volunteers going door to door or not - if you don't change the frame, it doesn't matter...)
And how do you change that frame? Well, he already did it once: The Race Speech. And how did he do it? By talking honestly. No zig-zagging. No backtracking. No covering. No pandering. None. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
People not only "got it." They approved of it (as his poll numbers soon after showed).
Bottom line: At its very core, this election ain't about gas prices. Truly. What's running underneath everything...is a yearning to finally, FINALLY be able to trust our president. Be able to admire our president.
And that's about character. And principles.
You can't fake it. And you can't slogan your way to it. Yet when it's there...
...wow.
There's your landslide. posted 06/30/2008 at 01:41:36
I really thought the sudden (and unexpected) "shift"...was due to arrogance (we know what we're doing; don't get in the way), and cold-hearted calculation. (A NY TImes article described, for example, David. P's "Persuasion Army" stuff, complete with a state-by-state tactical "war board" of sorts. Ugh.)
But ya know what: I think you're right. Down deep, they're lacking confidence in taking this "No more politics as usual" commitment all the way to November and instead started running scared. Letting McCain and the Repubs frame everything, and as a result, responding the same way Kerry did, Gore did, etc. (I don't care if you've got volunteers going door to door or not - if you don't change the frame, it doesn't matter...)
And how do you change that frame? Well, he already did it once: The Race Speech. And how did he do it? By talking honestly. No zig-zagging. No backtracking. No covering. No pandering. None. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
People not only "got it." They approved of it (as his poll numbers soon after showed).
Bottom line: At its very core, this election ain't about gas prices. Truly. What's running underneath everything...is a yearning to finally, FINALLY be able to trust our president. Be able to admire our president.
And that's about character. And principles.
You can't fake it. And you can't slogan your way to it. Yet when it's there...
...wow.
There's your landslide. posted 06/30/2008 at 01:41:36
The Obama Problem
"...the game has just begun..."
Sorry, gadfly. I gave up doing the political game thing. And stopped voting for people who do the political game thing. Just that simple. (Am not into drama, trauma, adrenalin rushes.) And others may be in a similar place at this point, though I will not/cannot speak for them. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:56:29
Sorry, gadfly. I gave up doing the political game thing. And stopped voting for people who do the political game thing. Just that simple. (Am not into drama, trauma, adrenalin rushes.) And others may be in a similar place at this point, though I will not/cannot speak for them. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:56:29
Yes, and he was SOOO helpful to the party that Dems lost a whole bunch - a WHOLE BUNCH - of congressional seats to Repubs after he was in office...(which brought the good ol' Gingrich years and the "Contract with America" upon us). Did ya know that when the Dems held their caucuses from that point on, they could all fit in a phone booth?
(BTW: I kindly ask you to refrain from calling people names, or attacking...disagreement is fine, but could you do so in a way that shows respect toward others? Thanks). posted 06/28/2008 at 03:45:46
(BTW: I kindly ask you to refrain from calling people names, or attacking...disagreement is fine, but could you do so in a way that shows respect toward others? Thanks). posted 06/28/2008 at 03:45:46
He can't change anything? Uhh...he's now the leader of the Democratic Party! Do you think, if he let it be known that he wants the bill to fail, or be postponed until after the election...do you honestly think his Dem colleagues would challenge? posted 06/28/2008 at 03:29:51
I see this as a theme emerging from this blog...and I'm grateful it's finally surfacing. This whole idea that "progressives" are such a small minority and that "progressives" can't win without "moving to the center" and that "progressives" are out of touch with Americans...
Paul Wellstone beat an incumbent who was very well-known, well-respected, well financed. Good grief, he went around in the state in this old, beat up campaign bus, not at all what you'd expect from a newcomer.
Yet he also spoke from his heart. There was never any doubt where he stood, and why he stood. Was he more "progressive" than the majority of people in my home state? I'd say yes. And...he still won. He used humor, and sincerity, and intelligence. And he absolutely...stood firm. That didn't mean he refused to talk with those he disagreed with. Didn't mean he didn't compromise on some things. But the major stuff...he was clear.
Right before he died, he made it known...he was going to vote AGAINST authorizing the war. And he knew it could knock him out of office. (He was up for reelection.) But his poll numbers DIDN'T go down. He would have won.
Thanks, RJCrane. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:26:12
Paul Wellstone beat an incumbent who was very well-known, well-respected, well financed. Good grief, he went around in the state in this old, beat up campaign bus, not at all what you'd expect from a newcomer.
Yet he also spoke from his heart. There was never any doubt where he stood, and why he stood. Was he more "progressive" than the majority of people in my home state? I'd say yes. And...he still won. He used humor, and sincerity, and intelligence. And he absolutely...stood firm. That didn't mean he refused to talk with those he disagreed with. Didn't mean he didn't compromise on some things. But the major stuff...he was clear.
Right before he died, he made it known...he was going to vote AGAINST authorizing the war. And he knew it could knock him out of office. (He was up for reelection.) But his poll numbers DIDN'T go down. He would have won.
Thanks, RJCrane. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:26:12
Oops...would you define "far left"? And no, I'm not being sarcastic; I'm really interested in how you define. (I honestly get confused by all these labels.) What does one believe as a far leftist? How does one act as a far leftist? And how is that different from a progressive? Thanks. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:13:20
BTJ, I would respectfully ask that you focus on rebutting content, or ideas...not people. (When you write in ways that put others down, no matter how subtle, my guess is, it doesn't help.) Thanks. Be well. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:10:23
Question: Why didn't he start out there? And isn't "packaging" himself to get my vote as a progressive in order to secure the nomination...then shifting gears suddenly, radically (and without warning)...disingenuous at best?
An earlier blogger made an incredibly important point: It's possible Dem candidates for pres keep losing, not because they're "too far to the left," but because they cave in so much on major issues - and yikes, especially the national security issue - that people see them as weak, unprincipled panderers. (Dukakis in that helmet? Kerry and that awful hunting photo as a way to "prove"...hey, I'm a man, I shoot guns! Etc.)
Look at the country's response to Obama's "Race Speech." It was a tough crowd, no question. Yet the public...OVERWHELMINGLY...gave him a big thumbs up. (And his poll numbers went up as well.) Why? Because he was HONEST with us. Because he didn't try and say what he thought WE WANTED TO HEAR. Because he even dared EDUCATE us a little, and wisely gave the issue CONTEXT and NUANCE. And because he didn't BACK DOWN from it, didn't BACK AWAY from it, and STOOD HIS GROUND.
It was a major success. Yet what does he do now? Follow the playbook of those who lose elections.
"Moving to the center" in order to win...where's the proof?
P.S. Clinton's win: He sure didn't back down...from anything, or anybody. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:00:40
An earlier blogger made an incredibly important point: It's possible Dem candidates for pres keep losing, not because they're "too far to the left," but because they cave in so much on major issues - and yikes, especially the national security issue - that people see them as weak, unprincipled panderers. (Dukakis in that helmet? Kerry and that awful hunting photo as a way to "prove"...hey, I'm a man, I shoot guns! Etc.)
Look at the country's response to Obama's "Race Speech." It was a tough crowd, no question. Yet the public...OVERWHELMINGLY...gave him a big thumbs up. (And his poll numbers went up as well.) Why? Because he was HONEST with us. Because he didn't try and say what he thought WE WANTED TO HEAR. Because he even dared EDUCATE us a little, and wisely gave the issue CONTEXT and NUANCE. And because he didn't BACK DOWN from it, didn't BACK AWAY from it, and STOOD HIS GROUND.
It was a major success. Yet what does he do now? Follow the playbook of those who lose elections.
"Moving to the center" in order to win...where's the proof?
P.S. Clinton's win: He sure didn't back down...from anything, or anybody. posted 06/28/2008 at 03:00:40
BINGO. He's the leader of the party now...you'd better believe, if he said this bill dies, or gets postponed until after the election, it would happen. posted 06/28/2008 at 02:44:55
Yes, notnuffsaid. Yes yes yes yes yes...so insightful. posted 06/28/2008 at 02:40:05
You nailed it. Honestly, couldn't have said it better. posted 06/28/2008 at 02:19:51
So...you're suggesting I vote out of fear?? (Fear of what a McCain presidency will do?)
How is that different from the Repubs? posted 06/28/2008 at 02:16:17
How is that different from the Repubs? posted 06/28/2008 at 02:16:17
"...being pragmatic often becomes a rhetorical joke (meaning shut up and loose your ideals and your ethics)."
AWESOME line, KaAp! Thanks for such a great post... posted 06/28/2008 at 02:15:07
AWESOME line, KaAp! Thanks for such a great post... posted 06/28/2008 at 02:15:07
I wasn't supporting John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Jacqmac. I was supporting a candidate who courted me and my type specifically - those who had opted out of the political process long ago because we just couldn't support the way it had been and continued to be "done" - and said: I am different. I will "do" it different. "NO MORE POLITICS AS USUAL." How in the world can anyone claim this ain't politics as usual???
P.S. Why do we have to wait to hold him accountable AFTER the election? (And why should things have gotten so bad this early into the GE stuff that there'd even be anything we have to hold him accountable to? Whew...I'm already tired, and it's been less than a month since the last primary!!)
P.P.S. Some of us did try to hold him accountable now. And guess what? All of my emails - which were heartfelt and very polite - totally ignored. Others = same story. In fact, as a result I think he has actually "trenched himself in" deeper, and has become even more resistent to feedback. Which says a lot about how interested he really is in being "held accountable." posted 06/28/2008 at 02:11:17
P.S. Why do we have to wait to hold him accountable AFTER the election? (And why should things have gotten so bad this early into the GE stuff that there'd even be anything we have to hold him accountable to? Whew...I'm already tired, and it's been less than a month since the last primary!!)
P.P.S. Some of us did try to hold him accountable now. And guess what? All of my emails - which were heartfelt and very polite - totally ignored. Others = same story. In fact, as a result I think he has actually "trenched himself in" deeper, and has become even more resistent to feedback. Which says a lot about how interested he really is in being "held accountable." posted 06/28/2008 at 02:11:17
Wow. "...call of your tribe"??
How about this take on your "interesting" characterization of me and others who, for ethical and other reasons, are choosing to switch gears here...
Tribalism comes from the part of the brain that's involved with the need to "protect" kin. Very much of the "we need to keep the family safe and together" stuff.
Let me suggest...that anyone who feels a need to stick with Obama because...well, he'll be better than McCain, and look at how much more horrible things will be for us with McCain, and look how much less safe we'll be with McCain (even though I'm really not so crazy about what Obama stands for anymore but)... That kind of response is actually a much stronger "tribal" thing than those who feel the freedom to "leave the family" (Democratic Party) and take a different route.
(Tribalism...from the mid-brain area...is less evolved than the cortex, which is the seat of creative problem solving/decision-making. And no, I'm not making this stuff up; I used to teach it.)
P.S. May your cortex...live long and prosper! posted 06/28/2008 at 01:57:38
How about this take on your "interesting" characterization of me and others who, for ethical and other reasons, are choosing to switch gears here...
Tribalism comes from the part of the brain that's involved with the need to "protect" kin. Very much of the "we need to keep the family safe and together" stuff.
Let me suggest...that anyone who feels a need to stick with Obama because...well, he'll be better than McCain, and look at how much more horrible things will be for us with McCain, and look how much less safe we'll be with McCain (even though I'm really not so crazy about what Obama stands for anymore but)... That kind of response is actually a much stronger "tribal" thing than those who feel the freedom to "leave the family" (Democratic Party) and take a different route.
(Tribalism...from the mid-brain area...is less evolved than the cortex, which is the seat of creative problem solving/decision-making. And no, I'm not making this stuff up; I used to teach it.)
P.S. May your cortex...live long and prosper! posted 06/28/2008 at 01:57:38
I really "get" what you're saying. Very clearly stated. And incredibly articulate. Thanks, StepheDedalus.
I pretty much agree. Please know: I won't be blaming Hillary Clinton. This is all in Obama's lap. (And in the laps of his "inside the beltway" advisors.) posted 06/28/2008 at 01:35:56
I pretty much agree. Please know: I won't be blaming Hillary Clinton. This is all in Obama's lap. (And in the laps of his "inside the beltway" advisors.) posted 06/28/2008 at 01:35:56
He told us he wasn't the "every candidate" type. That's the issue. If his theme would have been "Pragmatism to Get Things Done," or "Slow, Centrist Step at a Time," then, no problem-o. Very clear. Easy to make a decision re: whether to support him or not.
However, he traveled across the country saying "No more politics as usual." This fact is getting absolutely ignored.
Bottom line: If he's doin' things the way "every candidate works," I'm sorry, Cedman, but that sure ain't "No more politics as usual."
That's why I feel duped. He "packaged" himself to me, to get my support, my dollars during the primary. Now that he thinks he doesn't need it to win the GE...
BTW: I'm not a victim. Not in the least. And truly, I'm not even angry at him. I've always got the power...to make a different choice, different decision. And that's what I'm doing. I've posted this before, but...I do sincerely wish him well.
I just won't support him anymore. posted 06/28/2008 at 01:26:37
However, he traveled across the country saying "No more politics as usual." This fact is getting absolutely ignored.
Bottom line: If he's doin' things the way "every candidate works," I'm sorry, Cedman, but that sure ain't "No more politics as usual."
That's why I feel duped. He "packaged" himself to me, to get my support, my dollars during the primary. Now that he thinks he doesn't need it to win the GE...
BTW: I'm not a victim. Not in the least. And truly, I'm not even angry at him. I've always got the power...to make a different choice, different decision. And that's what I'm doing. I've posted this before, but...I do sincerely wish him well.
I just won't support him anymore. posted 06/28/2008 at 01:26:37
Hmm. My take on it: There"s a difference between trying "to make EVERYONE happy" (which, as a former therapist, I can truthfully say was an issue that had to be addressed in many treatment plans)...and being someone who may not make EVERYONE happy, but who has the integrity, wisdom, character, and demeanor to solve problems via a foundation of genuine good will (and...accepting the fact they'll probably still end up with a few folk who, while able to live with a decision won't necessarily be "happy" about it).
(I don't think conflict resolution is about watering down a position just to make EVERYONE happy; it's about keeping focused on commonalities, then working with others to settle disagreements realizing...not everyone is going to leave the table with a smile on his/her face, but...they'll at least leave the table trusting that the best process possible was followed, that they were "heard," respected, and valued.)
Thanks for reading. posted 06/28/2008 at 01:09:59
(I don't think conflict resolution is about watering down a position just to make EVERYONE happy; it's about keeping focused on commonalities, then working with others to settle disagreements realizing...not everyone is going to leave the table with a smile on his/her face, but...they'll at least leave the table trusting that the best process possible was followed, that they were "heard," respected, and valued.)
Thanks for reading. posted 06/28/2008 at 01:09:59
He's got to move to the center, move to the center...wow. If I had a dollar for every time I read this...
Observation: Before he "moved to the center," Obama was ahead of McCain in the polls. His lead is larger now, but how can that be attributed solely to his "move to the center," since most experienced analysts said to expect a bump after the primary was essentially done? Isn't it possible...people were actually interested in supporting a candidate...they could TRUST? And who promised...to do it a different way?
THAT was the power behind his primary wins. THAT is what got people like me involved again after decades, got youth involved after feeling as if no one was going to be straight with them, got independents and even some Repubs on board with him.
It wasn't nearly so much about his policy positions. Rather...for once, there was someone who wouldn't allow himself to get co-opted by "The System." And viewed keeping his word as essential.
Too bad it didn't last. Because at this point...he's smack dab in the middle of "The System." And began to co-opt...about 24 hours after the final primary. posted 06/28/2008 at 00:41:05
Observation: Before he "moved to the center," Obama was ahead of McCain in the polls. His lead is larger now, but how can that be attributed solely to his "move to the center," since most experienced analysts said to expect a bump after the primary was essentially done? Isn't it possible...people were actually interested in supporting a candidate...they could TRUST? And who promised...to do it a different way?
THAT was the power behind his primary wins. THAT is what got people like me involved again after decades, got youth involved after feeling as if no one was going to be straight with them, got independents and even some Repubs on board with him.
It wasn't nearly so much about his policy positions. Rather...for once, there was someone who wouldn't allow himself to get co-opted by "The System." And viewed keeping his word as essential.
Too bad it didn't last. Because at this point...he's smack dab in the middle of "The System." And began to co-opt...about 24 hours after the final primary. posted 06/28/2008 at 00:41:05
Oops...your priority may very well be to elect Obama.
Mine is to vote for someone I can trust BEFORE he takes the oath of office. posted 06/28/2008 at 00:26:52
Mine is to vote for someone I can trust BEFORE he takes the oath of office. posted 06/28/2008 at 00:26:52
I disagree. Again, an old meme. Which keeps "progressives" stuck in an unending loop of the same...the same..the same. Reminds me of the movie Groundhog Day.
My experience: Urban political folk tend to be more liberal than rural folk. Whether Dem or Repub.
My other experience: When you treat rural folk with respect, and speak WITH them, not TO them...they are just as capable of compromise as anyone. (Maybe it's time to let go of some of the stereotypes of "The Other" that keep the loop playing.)
Cheers! posted 06/28/2008 at 00:13:23
My experience: Urban political folk tend to be more liberal than rural folk. Whether Dem or Repub.
My other experience: When you treat rural folk with respect, and speak WITH them, not TO them...they are just as capable of compromise as anyone. (Maybe it's time to let go of some of the stereotypes of "The Other" that keep the loop playing.)
Cheers! posted 06/28/2008 at 00:13:23
My take on it: Obama IS the status quo! (Though he even had me fooled.) I do wish him well. posted 06/28/2008 at 00:06:20
I wish to say this respectfully: Old meme. Very old meme. (And untrue.) But if enough "progressives" continue to buy into it...
Remember the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Be well, and peace. posted 06/28/2008 at 00:04:11
Remember the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Be well, and peace. posted 06/28/2008 at 00:04:11
Honesty and integrity. Now THERE"S a thought.
Let"s see...Obama"s theme: "No more politics as usual." Hmm. Yet due to this man"s behavior of late, it seems like everything on this blog is focused on themes that are VERY much politics as usual.
And it feels so old. Rusty. Worn out. The figuring out, the analyzing, the strategizing...
I am in this...for REAL change. And REAL change...for me...starts with integrity. And honesty. Because without those, nothing that comes out of Obama"s (or McCain"s, or Clinton"s) mouths can be trusted. By me. You. The president of France. Or the prime minister of Iraq.
"Pragmatism" in politics...How much more "system entrenched" can you get? How much more status quo can you get? Is that why all those people showed up for him at rallies? Because they were hungry for...pragmatism?
P.S. I will not cast a vote out of fear. And voting for Obama just because I"m afraid of what would happen if McCain wins... A different kind of fear-mongering, but fear-mongering nevertheless.
P.P.S. What I"ve learned over the years: If you"re honest with people, if you"re sincere with people, if you truly like people, and if you treat them with respect by listening to them in a genuine, heartfelt way...even when they disagree with something you might say or do, they"ll still support you. Hands down. (Now wouldn"t that be "No more politics as usual"?) posted 06/28/2008 at 00:00:54
Let"s see...Obama"s theme: "No more politics as usual." Hmm. Yet due to this man"s behavior of late, it seems like everything on this blog is focused on themes that are VERY much politics as usual.
And it feels so old. Rusty. Worn out. The figuring out, the analyzing, the strategizing...
I am in this...for REAL change. And REAL change...for me...starts with integrity. And honesty. Because without those, nothing that comes out of Obama"s (or McCain"s, or Clinton"s) mouths can be trusted. By me. You. The president of France. Or the prime minister of Iraq.
"Pragmatism" in politics...How much more "system entrenched" can you get? How much more status quo can you get? Is that why all those people showed up for him at rallies? Because they were hungry for...pragmatism?
P.S. I will not cast a vote out of fear. And voting for Obama just because I"m afraid of what would happen if McCain wins... A different kind of fear-mongering, but fear-mongering nevertheless.
P.P.S. What I"ve learned over the years: If you"re honest with people, if you"re sincere with people, if you truly like people, and if you treat them with respect by listening to them in a genuine, heartfelt way...even when they disagree with something you might say or do, they"ll still support you. Hands down. (Now wouldn"t that be "No more politics as usual"?) posted 06/28/2008 at 00:00:54
Oh I Get It, The Left Just Doesn't Want to Win This Year
On the same page. This is a CORE issue. And remember as well, he was the one who ran on the 'No more politics as usual" theme. IT WAS (deservedly past tense) HIS MAIN, OVERRIDING MANTRA. Yet posts that are now trying to justify his current practice of doing complete turn arounds...are pretty much based on exusing him for doin' it the same old way: he needs to strategize, be pragmatic, triangulate, do whatever it takes to get this demographic group to vote for him, or that demographic group to vote for him, etc. even if it means he caves on something like this.
"No more politics as usual?" Huh?
P.S. That mantra is the thing that got me up and involved in politics this time around after an absence of over twenty years, so to say...oops, it no longer matters... posted 06/26/2008 at 23:54:30
"No more politics as usual?" Huh?
P.S. That mantra is the thing that got me up and involved in politics this time around after an absence of over twenty years, so to say...oops, it no longer matters... posted 06/26/2008 at 23:54:30
"The repuglicans seem to have that down......whatever it takes, just win baby."
Classic disagreement between those who say...the ends justify the means, and those who say...nope, how we get there is as important as getting there itself.
Question: If we get there...through dishonesty, or manipulation, or crossing a line....then who are we when we arrive? posted 06/26/2008 at 23:36:39
Classic disagreement between those who say...the ends justify the means, and those who say...nope, how we get there is as important as getting there itself.
Question: If we get there...through dishonesty, or manipulation, or crossing a line....then who are we when we arrive? posted 06/26/2008 at 23:36:39
John Yoo, David Addington Testify On Torture, Detention Policies (VIDEO)
The following sent to the UCBerkeley student newspaper as Letter to the Editor:
Rep. John Conyers, D- Mich, to Yoo: "Is there anything the president cannot order to be done to a suspect in the name of national defense?"
Yoo: "I just want to make sure I'm not saying..."
Conyers: "Just answer the question ...you're wasting my time."
Conyers: "Could the president order a suspect buried alive?"
Yoo: "I don't think I've ever given the advice that the president could order someone buried alive."
Conyers: "I didn't ask you if you ever gave him advice. I asked you thought the President could order a suspect buried alive."
Yoo: "Well Chairman, my view right now is that I don't think a President . . . no American President would ever have to order that or feel it necessary to order that."
Conyers: "I think we understand the games that are being played."
June 26, 2008 Congressional Hearing
Enough said.
Then...I signed my name.
P.S. Also sent a letter to UCBerkeley's chancellor with a quote from Yoo's 2003 memo. The fact that Berkeley actually put this guy in their law school as a professor...words cannot express. Maybe some of you reading this will feel so inclined to follow up in similar fashion. Thanks. posted 06/27/2008 at 10:30:41
Rep. John Conyers, D- Mich, to Yoo: "Is there anything the president cannot order to be done to a suspect in the name of national defense?"
Yoo: "I just want to make sure I'm not saying..."
Conyers: "Just answer the question ...you're wasting my time."
Conyers: "Could the president order a suspect buried alive?"
Yoo: "I don't think I've ever given the advice that the president could order someone buried alive."
Conyers: "I didn't ask you if you ever gave him advice. I asked you thought the President could order a suspect buried alive."
Yoo: "Well Chairman, my view right now is that I don't think a President . . . no American President would ever have to order that or feel it necessary to order that."
Conyers: "I think we understand the games that are being played."
June 26, 2008 Congressional Hearing
Enough said.
Then...I signed my name.
P.S. Also sent a letter to UCBerkeley's chancellor with a quote from Yoo's 2003 memo. The fact that Berkeley actually put this guy in their law school as a professor...words cannot express. Maybe some of you reading this will feel so inclined to follow up in similar fashion. Thanks. posted 06/27/2008 at 10:30:41
Republicans Taunt Obama As Spineless Over FISA Reversal
I think you missed the point of this article, PAposter.
This is not simply about changing "your position." Heck, I let the IAPAC speech go (an undivided Jerusalem - uh, where did that come from?), the flag pin pander thing go, the choice of Jim Johnson of Bilderberg Group fame thing go, the surrounding himself with advisers from the old school thing go, the surrounding himself with more flags than I ever thought could fit on a stage thing go...oh, and even that seemingly arrogant(!) blue pre-presidential seal thing go, too!
But this is now going beyond. It's about the kind of character you bring to the White House. He started out emphasizing that, and demonstrating that, and that's why I came back into the process.
I know most people focus on issues almost exclusively, so this might be difficult for you to understand. But for me, issues come second. Character, and principle comes first. In that way - right now he's no better than McCain. Or Clinton for that matter.
Take care. posted 06/26/2008 at 20:22:14
This is not simply about changing "your position." Heck, I let the IAPAC speech go (an undivided Jerusalem - uh, where did that come from?), the flag pin pander thing go, the choice of Jim Johnson of Bilderberg Group fame thing go, the surrounding himself with advisers from the old school thing go, the surrounding himself with more flags than I ever thought could fit on a stage thing go...oh, and even that seemingly arrogant(!) blue pre-presidential seal thing go, too!
But this is now going beyond. It's about the kind of character you bring to the White House. He started out emphasizing that, and demonstrating that, and that's why I came back into the process.
I know most people focus on issues almost exclusively, so this might be difficult for you to understand. But for me, issues come second. Character, and principle comes first. In that way - right now he's no better than McCain. Or Clinton for that matter.
Take care. posted 06/26/2008 at 20:22:14
Game playing. I thought he was done with "politics as usual"? Seriously.
Personally, I don't want to have to go through the process of trying to guess why he's doing what he's doing. That's not being straight up with me. Or with others. If you like the drama, and if you like the chess game stuff, or the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" script, then this is probably your thing, and you're obviously enjoying the intrigue.
Me, I've been done with that a long time ago, especially with political folk. I respect someone a lot more if that person is direct, and honest with me.
Reminder: One of his stump speech lines: "I'll always be honest with you."
Ooops. Not any more. posted 06/26/2008 at 20:10:52
Personally, I don't want to have to go through the process of trying to guess why he's doing what he's doing. That's not being straight up with me. Or with others. If you like the drama, and if you like the chess game stuff, or the "Good Cop/Bad Cop" script, then this is probably your thing, and you're obviously enjoying the intrigue.
Me, I've been done with that a long time ago, especially with political folk. I respect someone a lot more if that person is direct, and honest with me.
Reminder: One of his stump speech lines: "I'll always be honest with you."
Ooops. Not any more. posted 06/26/2008 at 20:10:52
Wow. Another poster who claims the immunity thing can be stripped next year.
I kid you not: It can't. Once it's done it's done. Period. Exclamation point. Case closed. It's a point of law.
P.S. You say we were living without the 4th amendment until this FISA bill "just restored it"?
1. The bill in its new form hasn't even been voted on yet in the senate; hence, this FIAS bill has not "just restored" anything;
2. Please explain how this bill restores the 4th amendment - you absolutely lost me on that one;
3. So you're suggesting, in order to protect himself from attacks from Repubs....Barack should continue to agree with Republican positions on controversial issues?
I won't argue that point with you if indeed, that's what you're saying. All I'll end with is: I'm left speechless.
The best to you. posted 06/26/2008 at 20:01:11
I kid you not: It can't. Once it's done it's done. Period. Exclamation point. Case closed. It's a point of law.
P.S. You say we were living without the 4th amendment until this FISA bill "just restored it"?
1. The bill in its new form hasn't even been voted on yet in the senate; hence, this FIAS bill has not "just restored" anything;
2. Please explain how this bill restores the 4th amendment - you absolutely lost me on that one;
3. So you're suggesting, in order to protect himself from attacks from Repubs....Barack should continue to agree with Republican positions on controversial issues?
I won't argue that point with you if indeed, that's what you're saying. All I'll end with is: I'm left speechless.
The best to you. posted 06/26/2008 at 20:01:11
Hi Doofus,
If you want to see a "stronger argument"...please watch and listen to Sen. Dodd's speech of yesterday.
P.S. I believe there have been times in the not-so-distant past...where strong majorities in Congress...were wrong. Case in point: The Iraq vote. Case in point: The Kyle-Lieberman vote. Others too numerous to mention. Translate: Just because 80 (five abstained, including Clinton, McCain, and Obama - says something about political courage, doesn't it?) voted in favor of cloture doesn't mean they're automatically "correct" Nor does it mean being one of the 15 who voted against cloture equates to "being" weak.
Thanks for the response. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:54:32
If you want to see a "stronger argument"...please watch and listen to Sen. Dodd's speech of yesterday.
P.S. I believe there have been times in the not-so-distant past...where strong majorities in Congress...were wrong. Case in point: The Iraq vote. Case in point: The Kyle-Lieberman vote. Others too numerous to mention. Translate: Just because 80 (five abstained, including Clinton, McCain, and Obama - says something about political courage, doesn't it?) voted in favor of cloture doesn't mean they're automatically "correct" Nor does it mean being one of the 15 who voted against cloture equates to "being" weak.
Thanks for the response. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:54:32
Why on his behalf?? And how do you know? Not meant as a rude challenge; please don't take it that way. But I'm honestly interested: How do you know? posted 06/26/2008 at 19:40:13
The "uproar" is about character, about principle. My support for Barack was unequivocally based on the belief that unless I have a president who demonstrates character, I don't care how many issues we agree on, s/he will still be part of the same old same old. And unless I have a president who's sense of principle - honesty, integrity, trustworthiness - is front and center, the other stuff is window dressing.
The Iraq war - yes, horrible. But tell me: Knowing now how much he shifts positions depending on what is in his political interest to do, how do you know he'll follow through with what he said he'd do? Not a Repub talking point; this is the real deal here. And I sense...it's entirely in the realm of possibility...that he really could backtrack if he learns through some poll that Americans now don't want to withdraw troops because they think the "surge" (misnomer if there ever was one) is "working."
Hey, I'm one of those folk who has stayed away from politics for years because I couldn't stand the dishonesty, the game-playing. Those are character issues. And he came on strong at first, no question.
But he's abandoned them at this point. For what? Perceived political gain.
This FISA bill is no small thing. No small thing. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:38:19
The Iraq war - yes, horrible. But tell me: Knowing now how much he shifts positions depending on what is in his political interest to do, how do you know he'll follow through with what he said he'd do? Not a Repub talking point; this is the real deal here. And I sense...it's entirely in the realm of possibility...that he really could backtrack if he learns through some poll that Americans now don't want to withdraw troops because they think the "surge" (misnomer if there ever was one) is "working."
Hey, I'm one of those folk who has stayed away from politics for years because I couldn't stand the dishonesty, the game-playing. Those are character issues. And he came on strong at first, no question.
But he's abandoned them at this point. For what? Perceived political gain.
This FISA bill is no small thing. No small thing. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:38:19
With all due respect, Judy, but...the immunity clause CANNOT BE REMOVED ONCE IT'S APPROVED. PERIOD. THAT'S THE LAW. Which means this vote IS IT. He can't wait until he's elected, then suddenly reverse this immunity. It's legally impossible. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:24:01
I listened...to myself, Gladys. Didn't need this latest column to realize how Barack has shifted in character (I emailed his staff early last week about it). And from the numerous posts I've been reading over the past three days or so...no one else was waiting to "listen" to the Repubs, either. No one had to. It was so...obvious.
And no, I did not elect Bush.
Wish you well. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:21:25
And no, I did not elect Bush.
Wish you well. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:21:25
Mine too. One of the most intelligent, articulate, reasoned, heartfelt speeches I have ever heard. What an incredible Soul. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:16:40
Parody, right?? Has to be. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:13:51
Principle. And government sanctioned covert activity. That is illegal. posted 06/26/2008 at 19:11:57
Uhh...how about...we don't wanna rock the boat? Or maybe......uhh...we don't wanna look "weak" on terrorism, otherwise we might get voted out of office? Or uhh, no, maybe this one: we don't wanna appear "radical" to our constituents, 'cause then they'll send someone else to Congress??
Not meant to be sarcastic, hopefully a little "light." (But no question, sincerely posited.)
P.S. You might take a look at Dodd's speech (on his website); like Feingold's, it's long, but after seeing/listening I'd be surprised if you didn't come back and write: "How could anyone with a conscience and any sense of honoring the law ever vote FOR this bill?" posted 06/26/2008 at 18:58:10
Not meant to be sarcastic, hopefully a little "light." (But no question, sincerely posited.)
P.S. You might take a look at Dodd's speech (on his website); like Feingold's, it's long, but after seeing/listening I'd be surprised if you didn't come back and write: "How could anyone with a conscience and any sense of honoring the law ever vote FOR this bill?" posted 06/26/2008 at 18:58:10
What Obama and his handlers are doing is allowing McCain to define the security issue his way, then bending over backwards to beat him to the finish line in a race Barack doesn't even have to be running. I can't tell you how many times I've read that same "But what if" stuff you posted: "But what if there's another attack?" "But what if something bad happens?" Etc.
Old. Soooooooo old. And all based on fear.
Reality is, no one has been able to document any evidence that shows how the warrantless wiretaps (FISA immunity issue) actually prevented some major terrorist catastrophe. (You'd better believe we would have heard about it by now. The only one I can remotely remember is some bogus thing in London? that turned out to be nothing in the end, but was touted initially as some big deal breakthrough on terrorism. PR stunt.)
Barack could have talked about all of this. Could have named the fear meme, and could have defined the debate on HIS terms as a result. Just like when the race issue needed addressing. (Which turned out very successfully: Polls showed nearly three-fourths of Americans approved of what he did by giving that magnificent speech, as well as what he said, and it gave him that needed "bump" out of the Wright mess as a result. He talked to us, with us, in an honest way. People respond to that.)
Unfortunately.... posted 06/26/2008 at 18:47:29
Old. Soooooooo old. And all based on fear.
Reality is, no one has been able to document any evidence that shows how the warrantless wiretaps (FISA immunity issue) actually prevented some major terrorist catastrophe. (You'd better believe we would have heard about it by now. The only one I can remotely remember is some bogus thing in London? that turned out to be nothing in the end, but was touted initially as some big deal breakthrough on terrorism. PR stunt.)
Barack could have talked about all of this. Could have named the fear meme, and could have defined the debate on HIS terms as a result. Just like when the race issue needed addressing. (Which turned out very successfully: Polls showed nearly three-fourths of Americans approved of what he did by giving that magnificent speech, as well as what he said, and it gave him that needed "bump" out of the Wright mess as a result. He talked to us, with us, in an honest way. People respond to that.)
Unfortunately.... posted 06/26/2008 at 18:47:29
The 15 Dems Who Tried To Block Telecom Immunity
Just an opinion here, but: Decisions made from a place of fear...usually don't turn out so hot. Decisions made from a place of quiet, authentic confidence, and a commitment to authenticity/desire to take the higher ground...different story. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:37:38
These labels right wing, left wing, activist left, evangelical right, moving toward the center..keep the old story going. And totally feed into the idea now...that by taking a stand on upholding the validity of illegal search and seizure, someohow this means I'm...a "lefty."
I'm not "lefty." Really. I'm not.
I'm blogging out of principle here. Not out of fear. Or anger. Or indignation.
This is about a greater principle. About character. And yes, for me, character is a big piece of it.
You may not agree. Of course you don't have to. I would, however, appreciate it if you would consider holding the inflammatory rhetoric down and take a deep breath before berating others.
Thanks for considering. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:33:47
I'm not "lefty." Really. I'm not.
I'm blogging out of principle here. Not out of fear. Or anger. Or indignation.
This is about a greater principle. About character. And yes, for me, character is a big piece of it.
You may not agree. Of course you don't have to. I would, however, appreciate it if you would consider holding the inflammatory rhetoric down and take a deep breath before berating others.
Thanks for considering. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:33:47
Oops,and one other question/comment:
"Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week." Isn't this evesdropping allowed to continue for up to 72 days if the FISA court initially denies the request and an appeals process begins? And if, at the end of that appeals process, the warrant is still ultimately denied, doesn't the info gleaned from that evesdropping still remain "in the loop," so to speak? (In other words, whatever they got for those 72 days - even after an appeal is denied - they get to keep?) posted 06/26/2008 at 13:23:06
"Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week." Isn't this evesdropping allowed to continue for up to 72 days if the FISA court initially denies the request and an appeals process begins? And if, at the end of that appeals process, the warrant is still ultimately denied, doesn't the info gleaned from that evesdropping still remain "in the loop," so to speak? (In other words, whatever they got for those 72 days - even after an appeal is denied - they get to keep?) posted 06/26/2008 at 13:23:06
"In exchange for telecom immunity, the inspectors general of the Pentagon, Justice Department and intelligence agencies will investigate the administration's warrantless wiretapping program."
Where is this written in the bill? That they "will" investigate? Never heard of it. And why, if that's the case, would Dodd and friends not mention? And why are Dodd and friends so upset about not being able to access this kind of info?
I'm not challenging you, btw, I really want to see where the bill gives this order of investigation. Would you be so kind as to cut and paste? Thanks. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:16:15
Where is this written in the bill? That they "will" investigate? Never heard of it. And why, if that's the case, would Dodd and friends not mention? And why are Dodd and friends so upset about not being able to access this kind of info?
I'm not challenging you, btw, I really want to see where the bill gives this order of investigation. Would you be so kind as to cut and paste? Thanks. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:16:15
Appreciate the reply. Didn't know senate oversight committees could prosecute. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:09:59
1. No, telecoms didn't "have" to give private info to the govenment. It was their choice. (Qwest, for example, refused.)
2. We don't know. That's what these pending lawsuits would help us find out. (And with immunity, this isn't going to happen, because all lawsuits will be dismissed.)
3. This I don't know, but...again, saying someone had no choice but to comply...this story came out because someone who was part of the data mining operation finally spoke up. My guess is, if "underling" types were found to be intimidated, or were threatened with loss of job, could be considered. However, I'm not a legal scholar on this; someone else might chime in here. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:07:03
2. We don't know. That's what these pending lawsuits would help us find out. (And with immunity, this isn't going to happen, because all lawsuits will be dismissed.)
3. This I don't know, but...again, saying someone had no choice but to comply...this story came out because someone who was part of the data mining operation finally spoke up. My guess is, if "underling" types were found to be intimidated, or were threatened with loss of job, could be considered. However, I'm not a legal scholar on this; someone else might chime in here. posted 06/26/2008 at 13:07:03
I hope you send her an email. Then call her Washington office. I did. It may or may not make a difference, but until she knows there are people in her state who really are informed... posted 06/26/2008 at 12:58:49
Thanks for the reminder. Who could prosecute? posted 06/26/2008 at 12:56:08
"...lackies..." "...nimrods." "...destroy a corporation.." Oops, and of course the ever popular line: "...WAR on TERRRROOORRRR"
Is this a parody of some kind? Has to be...!
The best to you. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:53:54
Is this a parody of some kind? Has to be...!
The best to you. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:53:54
Ditto. No need; this bill already hands 'em a "pardon." posted 06/26/2008 at 12:49:27
Chiding people as in "throwing a tantrum"...hmm... Accusing me and others as people who "don't want to think"...hmm...
I wish you well. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:49:14
I wish you well. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:49:14
I beg to differ...I do not consider myself hysterical. Nor do I sense hysterics in many of the very thoughtful posts that you read here.
FYI: I am someone, however, who does not do the "Well, it's better with him than with the other guy" thing.
Old story. Old script. Old reality. (Old fear tactic.)
Oh, and truly, I will NOT be casting a vote "against" Obama. Or "against" anyone.
I'm going to write in a candidate who I am casting a vote "for."
Big difference.
Take care. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:45:36
FYI: I am someone, however, who does not do the "Well, it's better with him than with the other guy" thing.
Old story. Old script. Old reality. (Old fear tactic.)
Oh, and truly, I will NOT be casting a vote "against" Obama. Or "against" anyone.
I'm going to write in a candidate who I am casting a vote "for."
Big difference.
Take care. posted 06/26/2008 at 12:45:36
This was his opportunity to take leadership - his "new kind of leadership" - and transform the issue, from one of fear and manipulation of the public, to one of clarity, focus, principle.
Unfortunately, he allowed the incessant chatter of the Repubs and others...to define the issue for him. Which leaves him ducking for cover. (And backtracking. And pandering. Have you ever tried to count the number of flags he now positions behind himself as a way to look "patriotic," or more "presidential" whenever he formally meets with a group?)
Making him into a Michael Dukakis? Only if he allows the other guys (and gals) to put him in that role. However, I do see a great similarity between him...and the Michael Douglas character in the movie "The American President." Basically, Douglas's character sells out big time in order to achieve a "safer" political gain/base.
Let's hope Annette Bening shows up soon. posted 06/26/2008 at 11:08:39
Unfortunately, he allowed the incessant chatter of the Repubs and others...to define the issue for him. Which leaves him ducking for cover. (And backtracking. And pandering. Have you ever tried to count the number of flags he now positions behind himself as a way to look "patriotic," or more "presidential" whenever he formally meets with a group?)
Making him into a Michael Dukakis? Only if he allows the other guys (and gals) to put him in that role. However, I do see a great similarity between him...and the Michael Douglas character in the movie "The American President." Basically, Douglas's character sells out big time in order to achieve a "safer" political gain/base.
Let's hope Annette Bening shows up soon. posted 06/26/2008 at 11:08:39
I understand your frustration; I felt the same when I was emailing Obama and look what I got in response. Ditto my senators. But at least I know I did my part. And will look for other ways to make a positive impact. (Like talking to my friends and relatives and getting the word out; I think if we don't let this thing die...it won't go away. And eventually... our elected officials will have no other choice but to hold themselves accountable.)
(Yes, I really do believe this will happen. I lived through Watergate. It took a while, but eventually...) posted 06/26/2008 at 11:00:14
(Yes, I really do believe this will happen. I lived through Watergate. It took a while, but eventually...) posted 06/26/2008 at 11:00:14
Whose permission? The president's? Or permission via our laws? FYI: The president does NOT have the right to make his own laws. That's just not the way it's done. And those telecom execs knew that clearly, as did their cadre of lawyers.
I would ask you to refer to an earlier post of mine re: telecom responsibility to find out for themselves if what Bush was telling them was actually legal or not. Again, they've got the lawyers on staff to do it. Feigning "Aw, shucks, we didn't know nothin', He MADE us do it"...disingenuous at best when it comes to carrying out an activity that has been illegal since...well, a very long time.
P.S. How did Qwest manage to get it right and realize that the "permission" you referred to...does not, cannot come from the president? And if they could, why couldn't the others?
Thanks for your response. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:52:06
I would ask you to refer to an earlier post of mine re: telecom responsibility to find out for themselves if what Bush was telling them was actually legal or not. Again, they've got the lawyers on staff to do it. Feigning "Aw, shucks, we didn't know nothin', He MADE us do it"...disingenuous at best when it comes to carrying out an activity that has been illegal since...well, a very long time.
P.S. How did Qwest manage to get it right and realize that the "permission" you referred to...does not, cannot come from the president? And if they could, why couldn't the others?
Thanks for your response. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:52:06
Until consequences happen???
With all due respect: How does it help to wait until the s**t hits the fan? Reactive. Not proactive. Reactive. You might want to consider the consequences. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:42:24
With all due respect: How does it help to wait until the s**t hits the fan? Reactive. Not proactive. Reactive. You might want to consider the consequences. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:42:24
Ditto. Love that woman. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:36:04
Nice positive thinking. Let's see. (You might want to send an email or two to your senators, btw) posted 06/26/2008 at 10:35:02
Disagree all you want. That won't change the fact that if immunity is included, the telecoms will never be held accountable (immunity CANNOT be reversed) nor will they have to testify in court re: what actually happened, the scope of the data sweep, who ordered it, who oversaw it, what happened to all that information collected on millions of Americans, etc. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:34:23
Unfortunately, not true. Just because the president tells you to do something...does that automatically make it legal?? Such "reasoning" wouid never hold up in a court of law. (And didn't in the Watergate mess.)
Besides, that's why corporations have literally dozens of lawyers on staff - to deal with this kind of stuff. No question, they WERE responsible for finding out if this was legal - or not. Get this: A piece of paper from the president comes your way telling you something that has been illegal to do for who knows how long... is now all of a sudden "legal" based on the attorney general's advice? And this is the only criteria you use for decision-making on something like this?
How careless is that? Or more accurately, how unbelievable is that?
Additionally, how is it that Qwest's lawyers could pretty easily figure out that there was a question of legality here? So they asked for further documentation - as any lawyer would in this instance.
They never got it. And as a result, advised the execs at Qwest...that this was an illegal activity that should not be carried out.
P.S. Bravo to this company. My internet provider: Qwest. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:28:23
Besides, that's why corporations have literally dozens of lawyers on staff - to deal with this kind of stuff. No question, they WERE responsible for finding out if this was legal - or not. Get this: A piece of paper from the president comes your way telling you something that has been illegal to do for who knows how long... is now all of a sudden "legal" based on the attorney general's advice? And this is the only criteria you use for decision-making on something like this?
How careless is that? Or more accurately, how unbelievable is that?
Additionally, how is it that Qwest's lawyers could pretty easily figure out that there was a question of legality here? So they asked for further documentation - as any lawyer would in this instance.
They never got it. And as a result, advised the execs at Qwest...that this was an illegal activity that should not be carried out.
P.S. Bravo to this company. My internet provider: Qwest. posted 06/26/2008 at 10:28:23
Uhh, point of information: This went on for OVER FIVE YEARS, and would still be going on had someone involved in the data sweeping not finally come forward.
As Senator Dodd said - to paraphrase - He could understand if this had taken place in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 event. In other words, he absolutely understood the mood of the country then, and the emotions connected at that time. However, five plus years...??? And allowing us to know about the millions of Americans they were (domestically, not internationally) data sweeping for all that time...only after being caught??
Where's the accountability?? posted 06/26/2008 at 10:15:01
As Senator Dodd said - to paraphrase - He could understand if this had taken place in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 event. In other words, he absolutely understood the mood of the country then, and the emotions connected at that time. However, five plus years...??? And allowing us to know about the millions of Americans they were (domestically, not internationally) data sweeping for all that time...only after being caught??
Where's the accountability?? posted 06/26/2008 at 10:15:01
Popular Stories on HuffPost
An ABC-TV outlet in Houston, and now the Houston Chronicle,...
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
***UPDATED BELOW*** During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made...
John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
When Katie Couric told Haaretz that "The glory days of TV news...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
If you're wondering about the recent articles claiming that a study found...
HOUSTON — A "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico off...
WASHINGTON — Rescue legislation sailed through the House on Wednesday aimed at...
Yes, there have been individuals on these blogs who've made some pretty perposterous claims about what this new FISA was and wasn't. But for Senator Webb to go the route of "Ohhh, you pppooorrr sstttuuuuppppiiiidddd folk, you just don't understand it"...
As a woman, I used to hear that a lot when a man wanted to "put me in my place," trying to make me feel inferior while he assumed the status of the superior one. But that was over twenty years ago. A very old tactic...
And for him to make such a statement disses all the bright, intelligent, well-read lawyers and Congresspersons who DID read the entire bill, and DID inform the public of what it really meant.
Frankly, when so many came out so vociferously, it got my attention. So I read. And read some more. Listened to Feingold. Listened to Dodd.
Contrary to what Webb is trying to project, these people aren't stupid.
And neither are many of the bloggers who were crisp, insightful, and fact-laden in their comments. posted 07/14/2008 at 16:25:05