Some of Nothing

In Which I'm Glad to Be Wrong
Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Yesterday, I said that the left has zero influence outside of left blogistan:

I actually don't mind so much that Obama is distancing himself from the left for political gain. What I do mind is the fact that doing so only buys him distance from the left and not so much political gain. In case no one's noticed lately, the left has pretty much zero influence in the media and elsewhere. Most of the time, we can be safely assured that what happens in the progressive blogosphere stays in the progressive blogosphere. Not only that, but in the case of FISA, Obama distanced himself from both the left and the right--liberals and libertarians. That's like gaining zero-squared political ground since no one listens to libertarians either.

Today, in the New York Times, I read that left blogistan is being represented in the New York Times:

In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
[...]
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.

“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.”

Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.

“The opposition to Obama’s position among his supporters is very widespread,” said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. “His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.”

So, thanks to Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, and the folks who set up the FISA group at mybarackobama.com, I am proven wrong. Not only did I read about the dissent from the left in the NYT, I heard about it on the radio. And just reading and hearing out in the world beyond the blogosphere that there is actual opposition to the Democrats' FISA capitulation appeases me on the issue to some extent (NYT appeasers!). Why? Because even if FISA passes (which it better not), I feel like there will be some political gain from our loss. As weird as that sounds, it annoys me that John McCain gets to run around pretending to be all mavericky just because he sometimes lets people believe that the giant amorphous mass of right wing wackos doesn't completely own him. And because the giant amorphous mass of wackos on the left doesn't often have a voice in the world, Obama gets labeled "the most liberal senator" and every move to the right goes almost unrecognized. In other words, I'm happy when Obama gets to publicly diss the left rather privately diss the left.

I was listening to David Bender talk about the idea that, when lefties take issue with our candidate, we should keep it quiet. We should present a united front against John McCain and suffer the slings and arrows of Obama's bad decisions silently and privately amongst ourselves. While I see the value in pumping up the unity angle, I think it's more important for everyone to see that people on the left actually do hold views that contradict some of Obama's decisions. Sometimes a lot of people. That way, Obama can hold us out as the wackos that he can rebel against (did I just say that?) and be all mavericky in his own right. Not that I would advocate this strategy as a regular course of action, mind you. It's just ok to do every now and again--in situations that aren't important and don't involve the 4th Amendment, obviously.

UPDATE: If you decide to join the mybarackobama FISA group here (as I did yesterday), I strongly recommend signing up for the digest version--not individual emails. Unless your inbox is incredibly lonely, that is.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 6:36 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Yo Mama Got a Discount on Her Home Loan

The WaPo engages in some pretty well-unsubstantiated "symbolic issues" mongering by implying that corruption may have played a part in the Obamas' home loan:

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.

Nate, at 538, offers a pretty good take-down of WaPo's fact-deprived innuendo:

So Obama's rate was 30 basis points better than the average. However, the amount of the loan and the nature of the property are not the only factors that determine a mortgage rate. Another major consideration is the creditworthiness of the borrower. According to current rate quotes from myFICO.com, a borrower with very good credit can expect a mortgage rate about 30 basis points better than someone with pretty good credit, and a borrower with excellent credit can expect about a 50 basis point discount.

Unless the Washington Post has access to Obama's FICO score -- and unless it has rented an apartment to him, it probably doesn't -- it is missing a pretty important piece of information on what Obama's mortgage rate ought to have been. What was Obama's FICO score? I don't know, but considering that...

* Obama had just gotten a $2.27 million book deal from Random House -- about $1 million more than the value of the mortgage.
* The Obamas each had exceptionally secure jobs that paid them a combined annual salary of about $500,000 per year.
* The Obamas had just sold their condo, on which they had realized a $137,500 profit.
* The Obamas were prominent public figures whose political futures depended in part on maintaining a reputation for responsibility and trustworthiness.
* The Obamas are known to be relatively thrifty and have no credit card debt but substantial savings....

But what are petty details to a "journalist" these days? And in case there was any doubt as to the true purpose of this WaPo article, the name "Tony Rezko" is tossed in right at the end there...no relation.

To be fair, maybe the WaPo is trying to up their flagging subscription rates by becoming yet another neocon tabloid journal. Of course, one could argue that they might increase their readership more quickly by becoming better at their jobs--not worse. And if they want to criticize Obama for something, let it be for something substantial. I'm keeping a list in case they're interested.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 10:02 AM 3 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Things I Get Excited About: Obama Moves to "The Center" Edition
Tuesday, July 1, 2008

* Obama fails to take lead on FISA and campaigns for FISA-loving bluedog in the process. How many times can I talk about this stupid, jerky move? How many will it take?

* Obama fails to tear down Bush's "bridge" between church and state and instead expands his faith-based initiatives program. This only bothers me if my church of pugilism is excluded from public funding. Well, that, and if this is the only bridge that survives the Bush regime.

* Obama fails to stand behind Wesley Clark, a Four-Star General whose service gets attacked by the McCain camp after he doesn't really attack McCain's service. How many times can I talk about this incident of Obama failing to stand up against lies being told about one of his own? It depends. How many presidential elections can the Democrats lose in an 8-year period?

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 10:34 PM 4 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Things I Can't Get Excited About: Obama Moves to "The Center" Edition

I know it's been a while since I've done a Things I Can't Get Excited About, but there's a reason. The reason is that I don't like blogging about things I can't get excited about. Nonetheless, for the record, it must be done. Let the ennui about Obama moving to "the center" begin!

*Obama disses public campaign financing. Apparently, all those Republican 527s he said would be coming after him don't exist. Oh wait. Yeah they do.

* Obama disses child rapists and kinda, sorta [hearts] guns. Ditto, man. I could get outraged if it were the other way around, though.

* Obama disses MoveOn. They're big boys and girls. They can take it.

* Obama disses the flag-burning hippies. They're big boys and girls. They can take it.

Personally, I don't see any of these issues as signs of significant movement to "the center". But some people do. I fail to understand why.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 9:59 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Karmic Justice on Behalf of Wes Clark

I'm with Brandon Freidman:

The bottom line is this: If Democrats tuck tail and run from Republicans in this instance, we run the risk of ceding authority on military issues to John McCain for the rest of the campaign. Whether you like Clark or not, everyone has an interest in defending him vigorously in this case. We cannot allow the Right and the media to get away with trashing the first guy to come out in prime time to slam McCain’s military "expertise." If our organizations don’t defend Clark as being right in this case, we give in to the idea that Republicans are the parents in terms of national defense, and Democrats are the children--something those on the Right will be more than happy to reinforce.

This idea that we can’t question someone’s expertise on military matters simply because they served could very easily become the next "whoever is against the war is unpatriotic" mantra. And that’s not something I’m prepared to accept.

So, after signing the VoteVets petition, I sent this email to MSNBC:

Every time I hear on your programs that General Clark is "attacking" McCain's military service, I have to laugh. Your characterization is absurd. Simply pointing out the fact that serving in a war doesn't necessarily make a person Commander-in-Chief material is clearly not attacking the war service. My father served in Vietnam and earned the Purple Heart and a lifetime of disability. And while he's a decent man who served his country honorably, I wouldn't trust him within a thousand feet of the presidency. Do you see the distinction?

I generally don't like to personalize this stuff, but sometimes, I'm too lazy to do otherwise. Also, a belated congrats to Vote Vets for getting the new GI Bill passed! In spite of a lack of vote (!) from Senator John McCain. But don't worry, John, no one's attacking your military service. Just your public service. Do you see the distinction?

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 11:47 AM 4 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

A Battle of Wills

MFP and I keep getting donation request emails from the Obama campaign. For the last couple of weeks, we have been either ignoring them or sending replies indicating a certain level of dissatisfaction. From where we stand, reward comes after good behavior. Of course, we both desperately want Obama to win, so to some extent, every donation request email received is a test of wills. Can we hold out until Obama actually earns our monetary support again? It's a challenge, but I'm pretty sure we'll be able to bring ourselves to spend those minor ducats elsewhere on something fancy--like a socially responsible Roth IRA or something.

Glad to see Markos agrees:

It looks like Obama is gun-shy after sticking by Jeremiah Wright. Now, he can't move quickly enough to denounce his own allies. So he's cross at Wes Clark, and he's mighty cross at MoveOn as well! Who else will he be cross with as he kicks off "Operation Piss Off the People Supporting and Bankrolling His Campaign In Order To Prove He Hates the Dirty Fucking Hippies". Now that the primary is over, he can turn his back on the people that brought him.

I was going to max out to him today, given I haven't given Obama a dime yet (focusing on congressional candidates). But I changed my mind. He wants to send the message that he doesn't need us, all the power to him. Message received. I'll spend that $2,300 somewhere else.

I actually don't mind so much that Obama is distancing himself from the left for political gain. What I do mind is the fact that doing so only buys him distance from the left and not so much political gain. In case no one's noticed lately, the left has pretty much zero influence in the media and elsewhere. Most of the time, we can be safely assured that what happens in the progressive blogosphere stays in the progressive blogosphere. Not only that, but in the case of FISA, Obama distanced himself from both the left and the right--liberals and libertarians. That's like gaining zero-squared political ground since no one listens to libertarians either. But what he has earned himself is a monetary penalty. That, and whatever moral superiority he feels by proving to himself that he doesn't need grassroots efforts after all. Maybe that will help.

UPDATE: What Booman said.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 10:07 AM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

General Wes Clark is Fired Up and Ready to Go!
Monday, June 30, 2008

Since Obama's busy waffling like an old-skool Democrat (patriotism speech, notwithstanding), we can all now get behind Wes Clark and, as atrios puts it, form a "mancrush" on him when he says stuff like this:

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

Hey-A Democrat that doesn't back down at the first sign of controversy! Is it even scientifically possible?

Needless to say, Wes Clark is getting hit pretty hard for making what should be a blatantly obvious and innocuous comment. Consequently, the folks at VoteVets.org put up a petition to stand behind him.

Help get Clark's back: http://ga3.org/campaign/petitionclark!

And don't make him angry:

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 9:42 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Republicans Play Up Sexism in Obama's Campaign Staff Pay

CNS News attacks Obama for having more men than women on its payroll and putting the men in higher paying positions.  As expected, rightwingers are out in force calling this hypocrisy-squared on Obama's part.  And while I confess that I always want to see more women in high-paid positions in all fields, I can't help but marvel at the obvious problem with this characterization.  If you actually go to CNS' data breakdown, you see how McCain hires a ton of interns (making just under $6,500/year!), and on average, McCain's female interns are paid less than their male interns.  The upshot: 

By one measure, however, women did do better in Obama’s office than in McCain’s. When the average salary was calculated for all people on the office payroll, including interns, Clinton paid women an average of $51,948, Obama paid women an average of $48,729, and McCain paid women an average of $47,898. (Clinton’s and Obama’s average salaries are relatively unaffected by adding the interns because Obama employed only one intern, while Clinton employed none. McCain, by contrast, employed 23 interns during the period, including 15 men and 8 women.)

So, that "one measure" in which women did better in Obama's office than in McCain's?  They got paid more, on average.  I'm sure the women in Obama's office are really pissed off about that.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 5:42 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Barack Obama says: "The Center...Myyyy 'The Center'!"

There's been a lot of talk about Obama's move to "the center" recently. Much of it has revolved around the political necessity of doing so. Like many people with actual principles, I think that's crap. We liberals put the Quotes of Irony around "the center" because, in spite of our elitist over-education, we have never been able to locate this place called "The Center" on a map. "The Center" is actually "The City" in the satirically-minded The Tick comic/cartoon. It's no place that's supposed to represent all places. Which means that even trying to just get there is pointless, because you'll never be able to find it. You'll just keep going and going and going until you realize that you're completely lost. And in spite of what the media claims, nobody actually lives there. Because there is no there there.

In other words, "the center" is all about framing. The establishment media love talking about "the center" because it means less work for them. They can just trace an imaginary line between the one extremist Republican standpoint and one of the many less extremist Democratic standpoints, then casually point news consumers to an imaginary point in the center of that line, and call it a day. Republicans love talking about "the center" because they can all just hang out together on the far, far right, let the media do its center-loving job and know that, no matter where the imaginary center is found, it will be a lot closer to them than it is to people like me. If the Democrats hung together on the far, far left, this would naturally negate the Republicans' center advantage, but they don't. In the name of diversity, Democrats don't hang anywhere together but, instead, let their members go wherever the mood strikes them--preferably toward "the center" after the media tells them where that is. Then, they let the people who are supposedly living in "the center" call them unprincipled and weak. This is called politics.

Using this strategy, Democrats fight Republicans like The Tick fights crime--often succeeding in spite of themselves. They simultaneously decry the incompetence of the Republicans in power while bending over backwards trying to prove that they themselves are no liberal Democrats. They talk about how Republicans are no fans of the worker and then extol the virtues of reaching across the aisle to work with them. The inconsistencies of this position are easily discerned on a gut level, if not easily intellectualized. So, whenever Democrats do happen to get something done to advance a worker's agenda, the average person still isn't quite sure whether they did so out of principle or out of expediency. To continue with The Tick analogy, did they use their keen insight and sense of purpose to sniff out the Idea Men's plans and prevent them from blowing up The City's dam, or did they just hear about it on the news and happen to show up barely in time? These are the kinds of questions rational voters--even liberal ones--ask themselves about Democrats.

The latest attack on Obama's bi-partisan bona fides exemplifies this problem for Democrats. Obama has worked with Republicans on securing loose nuclear weapons and helping to make government more transparent. But apparently, that's not deemed "politically courageous" enough. So, what does Obama do? Move to "the center" by giving Republicans what they want on FISA. Well, that'll show 'em. Maybe if Obama does more to help Republicans destroy the economy, lie us into war, hate on teh gayz and teh womynz, and torture some more people, he'll be "politically courageous" enough to be president. Of course, we already have a president who's that "politically courageous", so maybe we should re-think our strategery a little. Maybe when asked whether or not we've been brave enough to go out on a limb by defying the evil Democratic Party, we should actually ask which positions held by the evil Democratic Party are in need of defiance. One time Obama defied the evil Democratic Party was before we invaded Iraq. Of course, at the time, he was defying Republicans too, but apparently, defying both parties isn't "politically courageous" enough.

In summary, every time Obama is asked when he's gone out on a limb to work with Republicans, he should remind people that he's done what he thought was right but that Republicans, by and large, suck. That the notion of "the center" is a creation of Republicans and the media--both of whom, by and large, suck. That, sometimes, just because something is labeled "liberal" that doesn't mean it is, or if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. And that, periodically, Democrats do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because they were too politically incompetent to do anything else. And it would also be cool if he would sometimes remind us to "honk if you love justice!" Just cuz that would be funny:

For more about the insipidity of "The Center", here's Greenwald and Digby to start.
And for more The Tick, here's the beginning:


UPDATE: Obama camp disses Gen Wes Clarke for pointing out the obvious fact that getting shot at doesn't necessarily mean you're qualified to be President:

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Run, chicken, run! Run to nowhere and see where you find yourself. Or as Josh Marshall says:

But if it really is a fear of getting things focused on McCain's war record or experience it really is the kind of mistake Democrats habitually make. Take a look. McCain's entire campaign is about his time as a POW and the claim that his war service makes him uniquely qualified to be the country's commander-in-chief. They're pushing the fact that he's been on the national stage for four decades, whereas Obama's only been there for four years. That is almost the entirety of his campaign. So it's out there. It's already a key focus of this campaign.

John McCain's claim to experience, based in large part on his military service, is a key issue in this campaign. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

"The Center" sure looks like weak knees from here.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 8:08 AM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

FISA: The Left's Symbolic Issue
Friday, June 27, 2008

A couple of months ago, I mercilessly mocked David Brooks for referring to Obama's mildly controversial acquaintances as "symbolic issues". Why do I find Brooks' description so hilarious? Because anyone who picks up a book from time to time knows that symbolic meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Example: David Brooks wears eyeglasses; I see his glasses as a symbol of his shortsightedness. What does my interpretation of David Brooks' glasses actually indicate? Well, it indicates at least two things: 1. I probably don't wear glasses; otherwise, I most likely wouldn't think of them as being symbolic of anything (other than sheer genius, of course). 2. Due to my ideological differences with David Brooks, I am pre-disposed to consider him shortsighted; the wearing of glasses can have a variety of symbolic meanings, so my own pre-disposition toward him is likely to be a major determining factor.

Unfortunately, however, the symbolism of David Brooks' glasses doesn't say much, if anything, about David Brooks. Just like Obama's mildly controversial acquaintances don't say much, if anything, about Obama. To people who aren't big fans of Obama, his acquaintances are either symbols of his hidden Marxo-Fascist agenda or symbols of his political cravenness (depending on their mood, I guess). To people who do like Obama, his acquaintances are symbols of his openness to diversity of opinion (or whatever; honestly, we don't really care). Notice how quiet the right wing is about the symbolism of an avowed Communist announcing his support for John McCain (Symbolism? What's that?). But in spite of the inherent subjectivity of symbols, our human tendency to seek and recognize patterns reinforces our desire to seek and interpret abstractions to reinforce said patterns. Meaning we [heart] symbols. A lot.

Like Glenn Greenwald and many others, I am inclined to see Obama's support for the Democrats' FISA capitulation as a symbol of the failures I see in the Democratic Party, en masse. Obama claims he wants to "change the mindset" that got us into the Iraq War. Well, we on the left see this FISA capitulation as a symbol of the mindset that got us into the Iraq War (or, as Greenwald calls this mindset, "The New Republic Syndrome"):

The number one problem facing the Democratic Party is that, as events of the last week demonstrate, it continues to be plagued by The New Republic Syndrome, one of the most fatal political afflictions that exist. In 2002 and 2003, The New Republic was one of the leading crusaders for an attack on Iraq, railing against what it called "the intellectual incoherence of the liberal war critics." In a February 2003 Editorial, they decreed that "the United States must disarm Iraq by force" and declared war opponents guilty of "abject pacifism."
[...]
Also in 2004, The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for President, using its endorsement to attack Howard Dean and his liberal supporters as suffering from "an old Democratic affliction: an excessive faith in multilateralism and an insufficient faith in the moral potential of U.S. power" and said that Dean supporters were "dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld."
[...]
Despite those forced mea culpas and reversals, TNR never actually learns. Today -- in a post bearing the very sensible and Serious title: "Keeping FISA in Perspective" -- TNR is here, via Josh Patashnik, to tell you that there's nothing truly disturbing about the FISA bill that is about to pass...

To make matters worse, Obama's newly found FISA stance is now being discussed as a symbol of strength rather than weakness because it means he's got the audacity to stand up to the all-powerful dirty hippie civil libertarian lobby:

All of the decades-old, conventional Beltway mythologies are trotted out here to praise Obama. Democrats move to the "center" by embracing hard-core right-wing policies. Democrats will look "weak" unless they turn themselves into Republican clones on national security. A President becomes "strong" when he tramples on the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of keeping us safe. Democrats must embrace the Right and repudiate the base of their own party, and they must support Dick Cheney's policies while "standing up to the ACLU."

Nothing says "change of mindset" like disregarding the people who you've always disregarded, right? We, on the (what I might call "moderate") left, have seen a pattern here. And it's one that we don't like very much.

Nonetheless, because sometimes a FISA bill is just a FISA bill, and symbolism is inherently subjective in nature, I am inclined to look to other--more concrete--sources of outrage about this issue. Luckily, there are plenty of negative consequences to be found:

There were, however, a few sour notes during the proceedings. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) complained that the bill "actually permits the government to perform mass, untargeted surveillance of any and all conversations believed to be coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized finding, and without a requirement that wrongdoing is believed to be involved at all." Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "these blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) invoked the specter of past intelligence abuses, such as the wiretapping of Martin Luther King and the FBI's controversial COINTELPRO operation—an argument Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed by conceding the political abuse of surveillance powers in the past but asserting that "those days are behind us." (The latter development coinciding, as chance would have it, with the passage of legislation prohibiting warrantless wiretaps.) Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) warned that the compromise legislation would "redefine the Fourth Amendment, and thus the fundamental relationship between the government and its people" by licensing "a fishing expedition approach to intelligence collection."

"Untargeted surveillance", "blanket wiretaps", "fishing expedition"...none of that really works for leftists, in general. Even if we were willing to concede that a blanket wiretap is sometimes just a blanket wiretap, it still doesn't sound good. And in our darker moments, we are pre-disposed to interpret these things as symbols of a police state. As symbols of a possible hidden "Marxo-Fascist" (minus the "Marxo") agenda, if you will. Maybe even as symbols of political cravenness (depending on our mood, I guess). If only we had people like David Brooks around to ask more questions about these "symbolic issues". I guess he's too busy digging through Obama's garbage looking for his "I [heart] Chairman Mao" pin to bother.


NOTE: The entire time the "liberal" media were beating up on Obama for his reversal on campaign finance, left blogistan was beating up on Obama for his reversal on FISA. What does that symbolize?


Also, thanks to xkcd for using the Creative Commons (non-commercial) copy left license, thereby allowing me to bastardize xkcd's Stand Back (Science) design.

UPDATE: FISA delayed and FISA's worse than you think. This means more action needed.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 4:35 AM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Ralph Nader: The Archie Bunker of American Politics
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Ralph Nader recently criticized Barack Obama for not running for his version of Black President of the United States:

"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American," Nader said. "Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards."
[...]
"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."

Apparently, Ralph is qualified to tell Americans how to run for Black President. In that spirit, I've made my own list of issues that every old white male American politician aspiring to the presidency needs to take on:

1. Early Bird Specials: The next old white male president needs to address the fact that early bird specials are not offered at every single diner across the country. Honestly, there oughta be a law.
2. Those Pesky Freeways: Why are the lanes so narrow? Why do the young people drive so fast in them? The next old white male president really should tend to these concerns. Also, it would be nice if vehicle turn signals made a loud beeping sound after they've been on for about two minutes or so.
3. Kids: The next old white male president needs to make the kids call more often.
4. Grandkids: The next old white male president needs to make the grandkids talk louder and enunciate more slowly.
5. Neighbors' Kids: The next old white male president needs to make "Get off my lawn!" signs freely available. And also put SWAT teams in every neighborhood whose only purpose is to make the neighbors' kids turn their music down--immediately.
   
6. Medications, Aches and Pains, Gland Problems: The next old white male president needs to set up a phone bank staffed with people who are eager to spend hours listening to callers' complaints about medications, aches and pains, and glandular concerns.
7. Viagra: We need more of this.
   

What's keeping Ralph from addressing these old white male issues? Is it because he doesn't want to talk old white male? He doesn't want to appear like Archie Bunker? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 7:04 PM 6 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

The Moment Marc Ambinder Officially Became a Joke
Tuesday, June 24, 2008

So, I was just now listening to Rachel Maddow laugh uproariously at the fact that Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review equated Obama's lead in the polls with Dukakis-level failure. Then, I clicked over to Marc Ambinder's blog only to see, "We're getting into Dukakis-Bush'-88 territory here...". When did Scaife purchase the Atlantic? Of course, there's this little detail: "(Reader CH notes: "The major difference between '88 and '08 is that the outgoing Republican president in '88 was nowhere near a 23% approval rating.")." Silly facts...they just get in the way of a good story.

And the joke only gets funnier with this ridiculous poll that Ambinder posted:
I wonder if the questions in this poll are representative of those Marc would have asked before we invaded Iraq:

Are you in favor of invading Iraq, or are you opposed to invading because you're a terrorist-loving hippie?

Just curious.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 6:50 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Karl Rove and Glass Country Clubs
Monday, June 23, 2008

Via Steve Benen:

ABC News’ Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as “coolly arrogant.”

“Even if you never met him, you know this guy,” Rove said, per Christianne Klein. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

Ummm...Mr. Rove...Many of us liberal elitists have never been to a country club. Consequently, we do not, in fact, "know this guy". Since you seem to be a country club expert, what other Obama characteristics should we look out for that indicate that he belongs in your club? Also, when did your club finally start allowing African-Americans? Just curious.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 7:26 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

FISA: The Mullet of Compromises

An hour out of my weekend was spent in finally getting the long-overdue summer haircut. I generally dislike taking the time to get my haircut for a variety of reasons, one of which being the fact that I hate smelling the products they put in my hair for the rest of the day. Nonetheless, whenever I do get my hair cut, I generally try to get a little more out of the time by chatting up the haircut person and learning more about his/her business. In this case, the lady was telling me about how a big part of her job is trying to mediate between competing priorities of an individual client. She said that people often come in wanting her to give them hair that's dark-but-light or short-but-long, and as a professional, she uses her skills to try to achieve a reasonable compromise. And apparently, not all compromises are created equal.

A compromise that haircutters employ to get people like me into their chairs more often is to use less smelly hair products. The way they deal with the dark-but-light issue has traditionally been by adding highlights. And generally, these compromises are seen as being successful. However, I think we're all familiar with the traditional short-but-long compromise of the mullet. And as any mullet Google search will prove, the mullet is generally seen as being...um...less successful. So, what does this all go to show? Compromise can sometimes make us all look really, really stupid.

Just ask the Democrats in the US House of Representatives whose recent "compromise" on the FISA bill continues to, as Glenn Greenwald points out, make them look weak, corrupt, and stupid:

The very idea that Democrats would lose elections if they didn't support this bill is false on numerous levels. They could have easily removed the issue simply by voting to extend the PAA orders for 6-9 months. More importantly, Karl Rove's central strategy in the 2006 midterm election was to use FISA and torture to depict the Democrats as being Weak on Terrorism, and the Democrats crushed the Republicans and took over both houses of Congress. Pelosi's claim that they support extremist Bush policies in order to avoid election losses in "swing districts" is dubious in the extreme -- an excuse to feed to Democratic voters to justify their complicity in these matters.

But whether true or false, this "justification" is precisely why I believe so fervently that the only option we have to battle against continuous assaults on core constitutional and civil liberties is to target the very seats that the Democratic leadership constantly points to in order to justify their behavior. What the Democratic leadership is saying is quite clear: we will continue to trample on the Constitution and support endless expansions of the surveillance state because that is how we'll win in swing districts and expand our Congressional majority (Hunter at Daily Kos -- "one leftist blogger" who spews rage "on the Internet" -- has one of the clearest statements on why this bill is so abominable). The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration's lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That's what they are saying all but explicitly here.

In other words, the FISA amendment truly is the mullet of compromises.

For entertainment purposes only:

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 11:02 AM 5 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Other People's Genius: Rebuttals Edition
Friday, June 20, 2008

The last couple of days have seen a lot of political trash-talking over campaign finance, Osama Bin Forgotten-(Except-During-An-Election-Year), Michelle Obama's "reintroduction", FISA capitulation. Rather than take the time and effort to put forth cohesive/intelligent arguments about these issues myself, this Other People's Genius is dedicated to the arguments put forth by others (some more cohesive/intelligent than others).

* First, the Anonymous Liberal takes on the whole freak-out over the thought of Osama Bin Laden being treated like any other mass-murderer by our justice system:

First, of course Bin Laden would get habeas rights if he were held at Guantanamo. Since when do rights vary based on your name? But more importantly, why should anyone find it troubling that Osama would have such a right? If he sought to petition a court, it would result in the easiest and most predictable judicial decision ever. Habeas corpus just means that you have the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of your detention. The evidence against Bin Laden is overwhelming. He would have the right to challenge his detention, but he would lose, quickly and decisively...

Personally, I take comfort in the fact that the United States tries to be governed by the rule of law. I used to think that Republicans liked laws too. Apparently, not so.


* Cindy McCain has been out and about trashing Michelle Obama. In what may be considered a tangential rebuttal, here's what one of my favoritest people ever, Ross Perot, has to say about John and Cindy McCain:

After he [John McCain] came home, he walked with a limp, she [Carol McCain, John's first wife] walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona [Cindy McCain, his current wife] and the rest is history...

While I don't generally go in for attacking/making assumptions about people's personal lives, any time Ross Perot talks, I listen. On a personal note, I still count the time I persuaded my mother to vote for Ross Perot instead of George HW Bush as my greatest political accomplishment. Even though I was too young to vote at the time, I knew that Perot was my kind of crazy (in many ways).


* Liz Sodoti at the AP (who I still won't link to) says that Obama "chose winning over his word" when he decided to opt out of public campaign finance after all. Mark Halperin calls Liz Sodoti and the AP "objective". JedReport reminds us of this video of "Objective" Liz presenting McCain with his favorite treat:

Of course, this was at the same event in which the head of the AP called Obama "Osama". Apparently, the word "objective" is a bit subjective. (also, Digby has some harsh words about Liz's claim that this election is an "authenticity contest", which are worth checking out.)



* Finally, I would be remiss in this post if I failed to take the opportunity to rebut a couple of my own statements. First, in yesterday's post, I used Obama's support for pro-wiretap blue dog Georgia Representative John Barrow to claim that "Obama hasn't learned his Lieberman lesson". Digby's a little more generous than I am:

Obama wants to redraw the electoral map and thinks there might be a chance in Georgia. I'm sure that's why he's doing this, even though it's the longest of long shots. I think it's our year, but you can't take anything for granted, so I understand they are single mindedly focused on getting to 270 and have decided they need to make a right turn to do it. It's the predictable (and probably smart) move. I just don't think playing this particular incumbent protection game is worth it unless there's a really good chance of winning in that state. Guys like Barrow are toxic and will pay you back by voting against you when you need them most. It's how they do business.

That's kind of a rebuttal, right? Plus, there's the fact that Obama and McCain are essentially tied in Georgia to help explain the campaign's single-minded focus.

Second, also in yesterday's post, I said that the Democrats' capitulation on FISA "only really proves that there is no cohesive left wing of the Democratic Party". Of course, there are Democrats in both the House (Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler) and Senate (Patrick Leahy and Russ Feingold) who oppose the FISA agreement. Plus, there's the whole left blogophere all crowded together around this one issue:
If only any of that actually meant something to the powers in the mainstream teevee news bureaus.


Happy Other People's Genius Friday!

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 7:36 AM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

By Request 2: Feminists for Obama
Thursday, June 19, 2008

Again from the Shameless Commerce division: After multiple fails (have I mentioned that I hate copyright?), we finally have a Feminists for Obama design. This one's currently available on stickers, mugs, shirts, etc. To purchase, click on the design. Or if you have questions/suggestions, let me know!

Added bonus: Fabulous feminist Eleanor Roosevelt chats with JFK about the creation of the Peace Corps

(thanks to wng for the video inspiration! and thanks to af for the design inspiration!)

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 9:55 AM 8 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

The Obama I Love
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Obama gave two significant speeches in Michigan recently. One was essentially a "get to know me" speech after Al Gore's endorsement. The other was a speech on "Renewing American Competitiveness" in the global economy. And it was the latter that reminded me of what I love about Obama. I must not measure "rhetorical flair" as well as Matthew Yglesias because I found the speech captivating. Sensational. Drool-worthy.
What do you think?

Energy, education, technology....yum!

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 4:37 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

No Penalty for Lying to and Terrorizing People?
Monday, June 16, 2008

Bush now says he's going to actually put some effort into finding Bin Laden:

President George W Bush has enlisted British special forces in a final attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden before he leaves the White House.

Defence and intelligence sources in Washington and London confirmed that a renewed hunt was on for the leader of the September 11 attacks. “If he [Bush] can say he has killed Saddam Hussein and captured Bin Laden, he can claim to have left the world a safer place,” said a US intelligence source.

If this report is true and Bush has, as many have surmised, been allowing Osama bin Laden to roam free all this time in order to use him as a political tool, he could not possibly be a more loathsome creature. And while, personally, I have always found Bush thoroughly detestable, I can't help but wonder when this cynical use of fear for political purposes will finally backfire on Republicans.

The reason I'm pondering this now is that I spoke to the wife of my Republican father on Father's Day and reticently broached the topic of presidential politics. During the conversation, she said that all they hear about Barack Obama is that he was a scary Muslim. Being a relatively sane person, she made this statement in a somewhat dismissive tone. Of course, I told her that was absurd, and she acknowledged that the rumor was a little far-fetched. But because her personal investment in politics is minimal, she's probably not going to bother discussing the reality of the situation with my father (who's less relatively sane).

That said, because I know my father hasn't gone completely senile, I know that he doesn't really, truly believe the rumor either. He doesn't need to. All he needs is a minimal excuse to vote for the old-white-military-guy who's-ok-even-if-he-doesn't-hate-the-Mexicans-nearly-enough*, and that excuse might as well be fear of the black dude. Which made me wonder: How long can people accept being lied to and terrorized before they start to resent it? I mean, my father--someone who fancies himself a big, tough man--is willingly going along with a lie that, on some level, he knows is actually intended to make him afraid. And the person he's voting for is the one who's enabling the lie and fear. If nothing else, why doesn't that just piss him off?

I don't get it.

*=Yes, my father has said some things that have been so offensive to me that I probably should have shunned him for eternity just like Obama should have shunned Jeremiah Wright. But here in the real world, things are complicated.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 11:21 AM 1 dispenses karmic justice! (or just comments here)  

It's Go Time!: Why Does Cindy McCain Stay with her America-Hating Husband?

Via JedReport, John McCain says "it's tough" to be proud of his country in some respects:

Now, we know that John McCain hates America. But what we don't know is why Cindy McCain did not reject/denounce her anti-American husband after he made a statement that was clearly so incredibly offensive to her:

I mean, why didn't she just get up and walk out of that marriage? When will Cindy McCain finally denounce/reject John McCain? Inquiring minds want to know!

See more "It's Go Time!"s.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 10:37 AM 3 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

It's Beat Up On Obama Time!
Friday, June 13, 2008