Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Every day it seems the Obama administration is more and more clearly identifiable as a third Bush term when it comes to the most important constitutional issues of the day (and if you don't believe me, just ask the 2007/2008 version of Obama; he'll tell you). Now the DOJ is refusing to release a legal memo that attempts to justify the FBI's obtaining of telephone records without a warrant.
The Justice Department should publicly release its legal opinion that allows the FBI to obtain telephone records of international calls made from the U.S. without any formal legal process, a watchdog group asserts.The nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation alleges in a lawsuit filed Thursday that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel violated federal open-records laws by refusing to release the memo.
More details:
The decision not to release the memo is noteworthy because the Obama administration -- in particular the Office of Legal Counsel -- has sought to portray itself as more open than the Bush administration was. By turning down the foundation's request for a copy, the department is ensuring that its legal arguments in support of the FBI's controversial and discredited efforts to obtain telephone records will be kept secret."The public has a right to know the government's reasons for engaging in a questionable, invasive practice," said David Sobel, senior counsel for the foundation.
The Justice Department has said it can't release the document for national security reasons, but it hasn't elaborated on that assertion. At the same time, the department and the FBI have refused to comment on the legal position itself.
What little is known about the stance has prompted experts to worry that it could lead to a repeat of FBI abuses that were supposed to have been stopped in 2006.
For years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the FBI sought and obtained thousands of telephone records for international calls in an attempt to thwart potential terrorists.
The bureau devised an informal system of requesting the records from three telecommunications firms to create what one agent called a "phone database on steroids" that included names, addresses, length of service and billing information.
The department's inspector general later concluded that the FBI and employees of the telecom companies treated Americans' telephone records in such an informal and cavalier way that in some cases the bureau abused its authority.
Glenn Greenwald responds to this:
What's extraordinary about the Obama DOJ's refusal to release this document is that it does not reveal the eavesdropping activities of the Government but only its legal rationale for why it is ostensibly permitted to engage in those activities. The Bush DOJ's refusal to release its legal memos authorizing its surveillance and torture policies was unquestionably one of the acts that provoked the greatest outrage among Democratic lawyers and transparency advocates (see, for instance, Dawn Johnsen's scathing condemnation of the Bush administration for its refusal to release OLC legal reasoning: "reliance on 'secret law' threatens the effective functioning of American democracy" and "the withholding from Congress and the public of legal interpretations by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) upsets the system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government."The way a republic is supposed to function is that there is transparency for those who wield public power and privacy for private citizens. The National Security State has reversed that dynamic completely, so that the Government (comprised of the consortium of public agencies and their private-sector "partners") knows virtually everything about what citizens do, but citizens know virtually nothing about what they do (which is why WikiLeaks specifically and whistleblowers generally, as one of the very few remaining instruments for subverting that wall of secrecy, are so threatening to them). Fortified by always-growing secrecy weapons, everything they do is secret -- including even the "laws" they secretly invent to authorize their actions -- while everything you do is open to inspection, surveillance and monitoring.
This dynamic threatens to entrench irreversible, absolute power for reasons that aren't difficult to understand. Knowledge is power, as the cliché teaches. When powerful factions can gather unlimited information about citizens, they can threaten, punish, and ultimately deter any meaningful form of dissent: J. Edgar Hoover infamously sought to drive Martin Luther King, Jr. to suicide by threatening to reveal King's alleged adultery discovered by illicit surveillance; as I described earlier today in my post on New York's new Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer was destroyed in the middle of challenging Wall Street as the result of a massive federal surveillance scheme that uncovered his prostitution activities. It is the rare person indeed with nothing to hide, and allowing the National Security State faction unfettered, unregulated intrusive power into the private affairs of citizens -- as we have been inexorably doing -- is to vest them with truly awesome, unlimited power.
Conversely, allowing government officials to shield their own conduct from transparency and (with the radical Bush/Obama version of the "State Secrets privilege") even judicial review ensures that National Security State officials (public and private) can do whatever they want without any detection and (therefore) without limit or accountability. That is what the Surveillance State, at its core, is designed to achieve: the destruction of privacy for individual citizens and an impenetrable wall of secrecy for those with unlimited surveillance power. And as these three events just from the last 24 hours demonstrate, this system -- with fully bipartisan support --- is expanding more rapidly than ever.
It has now become inexorably clear that the reason the White House did not fight in the Senate for the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the OLC after nominating her is because, had she actually been in the position she was nominated to, she would have objected strongly to their continuation of Bush policies of this sort.
Politics
Comments
IF IF IF Pres O found out (upon taking office) that there are serious terror risks that we've only discovered do to the Bush policies regarding, what should he have done?
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 12:54 PM
They know that "'Cause we said so, now shut the fuck up and bend over" isn't going to go over well.
@rmp--Piss off. I want my Constitution back, terrorists or no terrorists.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 24, 2011 1:09 PM
Ed,
The Obama regime also supports Customs which searches bags and seizes contraband at border points of entry WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT!
Like you've said in earlier posts, protecting the border is unconstitutional.
Obama probably got this idea from Victoria Jackson.
Posted by: Layeto | May 24, 2011 1:11 PM
As long as there are sizable and growing practicing Muslim populations, there will always be some level of terror in the West as well as de facto inhibitions on freedom of speech due to threats of violence.
Oh yea, and cowering accomodationist liberals willing to due the mental asanas required to actually believe hijab provides women with 'freedom'.
Posted by: Marco Rolo | May 24, 2011 1:14 PM
@James, thanks for the civility. I was simply asking a question.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 1:16 PM
rmp:
Held a press conference and told us all about them. And after that, nothing. Threats of terrorism, no matter how credible, are not a good reason for increased security or restrictions of civil liberties: at best such intrusions on our liberty will force terrorists to change their targets; but with a wealth of available targets, it's not even theoretically possible that they could "make us safer."
Posted by: Miko | May 24, 2011 1:17 PM
So. What are the liberals (you know who you are) going to do? Create a third party and run a Kucinich-Sharpton ticket? Get with the program, people : The American Empire is more important than nitpicks in the Constitution.
Posted by: asdf | May 24, 2011 1:20 PM
@1:
Charged at them on his unicorn, run them through on the Lance of Longinus and Gungnir (he dual-wields, naturally), and cast them into the Phantom Zone.
A purely fictional response to a purely fictional problem.
What the hell possible "serious risk" could only be discovered by doing what you're legally able to do, but without bothering to get retroactive approval for it from the courts, just to show you're above the law? Just to cite the Bush policy that most stands out in my memory for egregiousness.
Posted by: Morgan | May 24, 2011 1:22 PM
@Miko, Thanks for the civil response. It was appreciated.
Obviously my starting position is to support a 100% constitutional process. I just think that for most people (myself included) you can come up with a scenario where they'd decide it'd be 'ok' to have aggressive electronic data monitoring if there reasons to believe it has already exposed/prevented mass killings.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 1:27 PM
@rmp, Are you new here? This kind of question is usually a pseudo-question asked by trolls, and so many of us here (or at least me) have little patience with those folks.
If in fact that doesn't describe you, I apologize for saying piss off. If it does describe you, I don't apologize.
Longer answer: We don't need to ask "if" there are serious terrorist risks, we know in fact that there are, both internally and externally. And what Obama should do is have our intelligence and police agencies pursue those threats vigorously within the bounds of the Constitution.
In the context of this particular blog post, your question seems to ask, "If there are serious terrorist risks, shouldn't the President feel free to take actions that appear to violate the Constitution without bothering to explain where he gets the legal authority for those actions?" And the answer is very simply "no." The President works for us and is bound by our governing document. If he thinks his actions are constitutionally allowable, he has a duty to explain why. That doesn't involve giving out any classified information, so there's no security justification for not doing so.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 24, 2011 1:29 PM
@Morgan, the only problem I see with retroactive approval issue is that it (as I understand it) still requires a targeted individual(s). I don't believe it would allow for blanket monitoring of all internet traffic.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 1:30 PM
And yet Bush did in fact not bother to get the retroactive approval available to him for things it did cover, just because. What kind of threats is behaviour like that supposed to uncover? Why on earth would you want to bend over backwards to justify the actions of people so uninterested in justifying themselves to those to whom they're supposed to be accountable?
Posted by: Morgan | May 24, 2011 1:33 PM
@Morgan, I can not come up with any justification of not getting the approval if it's was 'doable'.
I don't think pondering the possible ramifications necessarily means I'm bending over backwards. Just trying to think it through.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 1:38 PM
@Miko,
I am a harsh critic of the new TSA search policies, but even so, this is a ridiculous statement. Look at where the logic leads: An undercover intelligence agent who has infiltrated a terrorist organization learns that the group plans to release Sarin gas in the New York City subway system during evening rush hour on the following day, but does learn the identity of those who will commit the act. But no action is taken in response to this information, not even a couple of extra policemen, because it is "not a good reason for increased security."
I don't think you thought that one through very well.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 24, 2011 1:42 PM
@James, my question is sincere. I realize it makes me look like a troll but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 1:45 PM
rmp, Then I do apologize, unreservedly.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 24, 2011 1:53 PM
Thanks James. I also realize that I'm considering 'picking and choosing' what part of the constitution I'm ok with. Doesn't make me proud.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 1:58 PM
The constitution isn't some sacred text handed down from on high. It's OK to disagree with parts of it.
Posted by: MartinM | May 24, 2011 2:15 PM
rmp @9: I just think that for most people (myself included) you can come up with a scenario where they'd decide it'd be 'ok' to have aggressive electronic data monitoring if there reasons to believe it has already exposed/prevented mass killings.
That's fine and dandy - let the government tell us what scenario they're worried about, that they want to bug our communications. I don't even need the details, just the general strokes. Enough to know why tapping communications is an obvious prevention method for it.
The government's current position is that they don't have to tell us that. Their position: we don't have to tell you what scenario we're thinking about, or even if we have a scenario in mind. We don't have to tell you anything about why we're doing it.
Do you really, honestly agree with them that they need not give their legal reasoning for performing this action?
Posted by: eric | May 24, 2011 2:47 PM
Eric, I can fully support your position. Even when I'm in full blown Obot apologist mode, I can't figure out how they can even pretend to justify some of what they do. The only thing I can think of is they 1) are convinced it's necessary and 2) they know they can't win a constitutional argument. Hence a catch 22.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 2:53 PM
It's OK to disagree with parts of it, but it's not OK to then ignore those parts you disagree with, just because you don't like them. It's still the supreme law of the land. Even if you're the President.
Posted by: Nemo | May 24, 2011 2:53 PM
I can't figure out how they can even pretend to justify some of what they do. The only thing I can think of is they 1) are convinced it's necessary and 2) they know they can't win a constitutional argument. Hence a catch 22.
Its not a catch-22, as SCOTUS provides specific and narrow exceptions to constitutional rights all the time. Any time the government shows a compelling reason for needing the exception, in fact. That's why we have no guns in schools or courts. No shouting fire in a theater.
Saying (you think) they can't win a constitutional argument is tantamount to saying (you think) their reason for doing it isn't good enough to warrant an exception. In which case, they shouldn't do it.
Posted by: eric | May 24, 2011 3:13 PM
@eric, could blanket electronic surveillance ever get an exception?
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 3:26 PM
When in the last 10 years has the Supreme Court not given the President what he wanted? Honest question.
Posted by: Paul | May 24, 2011 4:08 PM
Oh, the freedoms we sacrafice at the altar of the illusion of safety.
Posted by: Android B | May 24, 2011 4:33 PM
There's no need for blanket electronic surveillance.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | May 24, 2011 4:38 PM
@android, I'm not so naive that I think we will ever be safe.
@Chris, any data to back up that assertion?
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 4:48 PM
I still don't understand how we protect our freedom from foreign powers by surrendering it to domestic ones.
Posted by: Skepticat | May 24, 2011 4:52 PM
It seems that presidents just ride the rapids when they get into office. It doesn't seem like they can really go against the current. They say that they'll tame the river, but the river just takes them wherever it wants.
Posted by: Juice | May 24, 2011 4:55 PM
rmp @23: @eric, could blanket electronic surveillance ever get an exception?
Let the government make its case as to why it needs it, and we shall see.
But right now they refuse to make any case. They won't say why they need it. And so I do not think we should grant it to them until they make their case. I am not willing - as you seem to be - to take it on faith that they have a good reason, if they refuse to say what that reason is.
Posted by: eric | May 24, 2011 5:04 PM
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact"
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
OK, I think that hits both ends of the spectrum.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 5:05 PM
@eric, I'm not willing to take it on faith. I'm very comfortable with your statement to let the government make the case.
It only seems like I'm willing to take it on faith because I'm asking the question(s).
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 5:08 PM
@27 rmp: I rather think that a lack of need for blanket surveillance should be the default assumption, and the government should be given the burden of proof that blanket surveillance is necessary. Given examples such as Greenwald made in his quoted post, we can see that government can't always be trusted with private information. With this precedent, privacy for citizens should be the default position, and anyone who thinks otherwise should have to present a sound case for it before any privacy is surrendered to the government.
Back in comment 23, you asked if blanket electronic surveillance could ever get an exception. I'll answer by saying that I currently see no need for it, but I won't take it off the table. If you believe it is necessary, then why is that? Keep in mind that if you wish to argue this, you'll have to show that the benefits of blanket surveillance over less invasive methods outweigh the added harms.
Posted by: Infophile | May 24, 2011 5:25 PM
The base rate fallacy and some very basic statistics very easily show that blanket electronic surveillance is counterproductive, and no useful system can be made using such.
For starters.
Personally, I am not willing to let them make the case (not that I have any say), since the courts have proved a rubber stamp for the Executive on anything touching on State Secrets or terrorism. As far as I can tell, if they assert the need for blanket surveillance, all it would take is a reference to state secrets that justify it which are too sensitive to be heard even in a closed hearing in the courts to get the surveillance approved. Which is what makes it so damning when the Executive doesn't even seek that much. They don't care about even appearing to follow rule of law anymore.
Posted by: Paul | May 24, 2011 5:28 PM
@Infophile. I agree with your basic premise that the default position should be for maximum liberty. That being said, I'd be willing to here the administrations argument for blanket electronic surveillance.
@Paul, I'm in over my head when it comes to knowing whether or not it's counter-productive. You may be right. I don't know. You do lead into another question though, if we don't trust the ability of the Supreme Court to deal with this (.ie they are a rubber stamp), then we are pretty much fucked.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 5:41 PM
@35 rmp: Here's the problem though: They won't let you even hear their argument now. You just have to trust them on it. Personally, I believe if they have so little faith in their arguments that they won't let them see the light of day, they should be dismissed out of hand.
Posted by: Infophile | May 24, 2011 5:46 PM
@infophile, the only question I then have is 'can the administration make a behind the doors argument to the SCOTUS'?
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 6:15 PM
Late to this but I think I can address rmp's issue of blanket surveillance.
First, you have to decide what you mean by that. If you mean having every communication you make like a "postcard" for the government, that's fine. But then you have to ask how that would help catch anybody. For example, if I were trying to listen to phone calls to catch one of John Gotti's associates, it's actually easier for me to zero out some of the traffic than to listen to every phone call in the tri-state area. That means having something to look for, and knowing what I want to find. That's part of the reason they have the courts ask for this stuff. Leaving aside the civil rights considerations, it's a good way to make sure the information you get isn't messed up.
Which gets us to the next thing. There is a basic assumption you are making -- and a lot of well-meaning people share it -- that somehow civil rights make it easier on the criminals, that the whole deal is one-way. That's not so at all.
One of the great functions of things like habeas corpus and trials and all that jazz is that it's a way of figuring out if you are correct or not. The same applies to investigations. When we say that certain kinds of information are not admissible, it's a way of making sure the information isn't tainted by our biases. To give a real-world example, if I arrest someone and beat the crap out of him, convinced that he is leading a terrorist cell, he might well tell me not what is true, but what he thinks I want to hear. If you want to see how wrong that can be, I give the example of the witch trials: the Puritan leaders thought they were in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, involving witches and evil magic. The problem is they were wrong. But they tortured enough people and depended on eavesdropped conversations. People got executed. I don't think that solved the witch problem.
In surveillance, the problem is that if I listen to enough phone calls I will find something I can accuse someone of. But the odds of it being a terrorist are about nil, since terrorists aren't exactly a big hunk of the population.
I might also point out that the "24" scenarios (or any action movie type stuff) is fiction. Most terrorism is quite prosaic. We often point to 9/11 as an example of a worst case, but the thing is that 9/11 was atypical. Very atypical. And even then, the plan wasn't all that complicated. The hijackers succeeded not because someone couldn't go snooping in phone calls, but because they weren't doing anything illegal, really. You could have listened to their phone calls all day long and it isn't clear you'd have found anything. They also "hacked" a security system that operated according to certain "rules" about hijackings (the foremost being that the hijackers want to live).
In any case, while surveillance is useful as a law-enforcement tool, you need to know what it is you are looking for if you are interested in stopping criminals as opposed to scaring the bejeezus out of the populace. That alone means that just being able to listen in whenever you like is just counterproductive.
On another note: the saddest thing to me about Obama and Bush is that they both chose to continue trends started well before their presidencies. (I'd argue that our first [non-military] coup in this country was really Ford). But either way, Obama had the brains to not go along. He didn't have to surround himself with people to please the Clinton wing of the party.
But as he is a corporatist Democrat, a product of the Daly machine, really, the hope that his intellect and better instincts would make him able to buck, ever so slightly, the national security state apparatus was probably foolish.
It's sad.
Posted by: Jesse | May 24, 2011 7:53 PM
C'mon, Obama could not possibly be a liar who made lying promises during his campaign... BECAUSE HE'S BLACK! Only white politicians are opportunists.
(Liberals are the true racists, because that's what they believe.)
Posted by: Sam | May 24, 2011 7:56 PM
Fuck off, liar.
Posted by: MartinM | May 24, 2011 7:58 PM
@Jesse,
Excellent post. Thank you. I'm still left with a basic question. Why does Pres O think it necessary? I'd really like to know his rationale.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 8:01 PM
@36 rmp: I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that in certain circumstances they can. I've heard "in camera" hearings referenced here before, but I believe they only apply to presenting evidence, not making legal arguments. I could be wrong though, so I'll leave it to someone else to (hopefully) answer that question.
Posted by: Infophile | May 24, 2011 8:15 PM
In defense of rmp's questions. A fundamental problem that promotes such questions is some combination of the following:
1) A press incapable or unwilling to press the President in a manner that forces him to respond in detail.
2) A president who doesn't volunteer a rationale in spite of an impotent press.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 24, 2011 8:57 PM
Yes, Jesse's post is excellent. And thank you, Paul, for reminding me about Bruce Schneier's blog.
But I second James Hanley, rmp: Piss off. Blanket surveillance is simply incompatible with the idea of a constitutional republic with basic rights and liberty for all. And as explained to you by people with a lot of patience it's not even sensible.
I guess that's simply politics, not policy. He tried (maybe just for show) and failed to oppose the national security folks in Congress and government institutions. And he doesn't want to give anything to people like Liz Cheney.
If some kind of attack happens, and you can't ensure that nothing happens, he has an excuse. Real security experts, not the typical "security" snakeoil salesman (stealth lobbyists), should be on TV and shred him for his national security crap in such a situation.
People like Greenwald also point out that there can be no argument that even Federal judges aren't trustable enough. The only explanation is that they don't trust their cases.
Read this article about the prosecution (or persecution?) of Republicans that dared to be actual patriots (in contrast to their President).
Posted by: Chris From Europe | May 24, 2011 9:05 PM
It's the people who control the puppet presidents that want the law. Obama has a family to protect. If he doesn't go along with the plan, they could be in danger.
Posted by: M P | May 24, 2011 9:05 PM
@chris from Europe (and I mean this sincerely) go fuck yourself.
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 9:15 PM
What do you expect, Cheney-ite snake? Do you want an award for championing the methods of the Stasi or the Gestapo?
Posted by: Chris From Europe | May 24, 2011 10:41 PM
I really shouldn't bother responding to you but I can't help myself. You are merely a cyber bully who is incapable of having a discussion. Your arguments are truly amazing ( as in pathetic).
Posted by: rmp | May 24, 2011 10:45 PM
Oh, I am capable of having a discussion, but I don't see why I should discuss with a troll.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | May 25, 2011 6:57 AM
rmp:
Chris from Europe is not a troll.
Chris from Europe;
rmp is prolly not a troll.
How do I know these things? I find stuff out using techniques that you spineless bloggers would never approve of. I do it for your safety and for your freedom to criticize me for doing it. So there, shut up!
On the subject of blanket electronic surveillance and whether it's necessary: I guess none of you have ever had your Sunbeam Model 666 Hades-O-Matic burst into flames while you were sleeping.
Posted by: democommie | May 25, 2011 7:37 AM
M.P.'s post is full of crap, but I do agree with one small part of it; this is probably not Obama per se pushing this. Its more likely that the FBI or DNI told the White House they need it, and the White Hous went along with their request.
Which brings us back to the point that, if the FBI or DNI have a compelling argument for how this capability directly helps us fight terror, they should make it. "I can't tell you how important it is" is not a compelling argument.
Personally, I'm in agreement with Jesse and Paul that for technical/statistical reasons, no such argument even can exist. But I don't know that for sure, so I'm willing to hear from the LE side.
This is all proabbly moot, however, as I doubt the executive branch has any intention of ever providing a justification.
Posted by: eric | May 25, 2011 9:29 AM
Okay, I apologize, rmp.
I just don't understand why we have to talk about that as if people like Bruce Schneier or those Republicans in my link didn't exist.
@eric
I assume that they want to be able to dig around without any oversight.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | May 25, 2011 10:11 AM
@democommie: Thank you! I needed a good laugh. I promise I'll be good and simply ignore Chris's ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: rmp | May 25, 2011 10:15 AM
@Chris, Thank you. While I may literally look like a troll, I really am just trying to think this issue through.
Posted by: rmp | May 25, 2011 10:22 AM
rmp, I think you are over-analyzing it. The bottom line is that its not our responsibility to think up hypothetical reasons why the government might be justified in taking away our rights to privacy. It's the government's responsibility to provide the actual reason they have to take the right away. End of story.
If the government grabs you and throws you in jail, do you want everyone else saying "well, they probably had a good reason to do so. Before we register a complaint, let's think of all the possible reasons rmp could've deserved that, and if there's some good hypothetical reasons on the list, we'll let the government keep him?" No! You want the citizenry to demand the government describe their actual reasons for doing so. Same goes here. Forget the hypotheticals. if the government can't describe its actual reason for needing to read our emails, they shouldn't get to read them.
Posted by: eric | May 25, 2011 10:44 AM
@eric, Actually I do agree with you for the most part but over-analyzing is a weakness of mine. Without a doubt the government should be the ones justifying their actions in response to being held accountable by the press. None of us expect that to happen.
Doesn't keep me from wondering about all the back story though.
Posted by: rmp | May 25, 2011 11:09 AM
"Doesn't keep me from wondering about all the back story though."
And since they're not willing to tell anyone what the backstory is, why the hell not?
And none of this "Oh, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt", REALLY dig in. Make up some plausible but HORRENDOUS reasons for it.
Apparently the only thing Obama will listen to and change his ways for is if you're going to do an OReilley or go all Glenn Beck on his ass.
So, progressives, GO GLENN BECK ON HIM.
If all he'll listen to are horrendous explanations that throw him deep in the cesspool, then YOU didn't decide to treat him that way, he's made it the only damn way you can talk to him.
Even if some rightwingnut gets in because Obama was "the best of a bad lot", STUFF IT. While Obama can count on votes from centrists (in a genuine world-view rather than the shifter US window centrists) because there's no other bugger out there to vote for, THEY WILL NEVER CHANGE.
Why?
Nothing to lose.
So they'll only chase the middling Republican voters who may be persuaded.
They pander to them because they don't have to care about the progressives and liberals, since they've nowhere to go.
So all you'll do is turn BOTH options into rightwingnuts in the future if you keep playing "well, he's better than the nut on the other side".
DON'T GO THERE.
DO NOT let "oh, but Palin might get in" scare you into voting for a spineless accomodationist like Obama. Fight to get a candidate you want, not avoid one you'd hate.
And let him know you're doing it so he can decide whether to stand up, be change and stop sucking up to the less-nuts republicans at the expense of his real voter base.
Let him know you're not going to take that crap any more. And do it now, while he still has a chance of seeing the hammer coming.
Posted by: Wow | May 25, 2011 11:26 AM
@wow, while I do 'wonder' if I'd make the same decision he's made if given the same info, I have absolutely no problem with him being pressed hard on this.
I'm disappointed with the media but I expect that. I'm MORE disappointed with the progressive blogs looking the other way on this. With the exception of Ed and Glen, I see little mention of this issue. The FDL crowd want's to hang him by his balls half the time because of his domestic policy not being progressive enough for them but they (my apologies if I've missed it) don't seem to give much consideration to these issues.
Posted by: rmp | May 25, 2011 12:25 PM
"With the exception of Ed and Glen, I see little mention of this issue."
The Young Turks also give Obama a grilling for his behaviour.
Some stuff they do I don't agree with on there too (they're occasionally a little too Republican on some fairness issues for my taste), but the only person you ever agree 100% with is yourself.
But on Obama's spinelessness, they've been on the ball from well early on.
They get stick from other progressives about how "You'll let Palin in!".
Sod that.
But refusing to vote isn't enough, since he's stuck deep inside the bubble, surrounded by lobbyists and DINOs telling him that he HAS to remove the public option BEFORE EVEN PUTTING IT ON THE TABLE TO BARGAIN. "Or you'll look like you're a bully....".
BAH.
Thatcher in the UK got a bit nuts after a while (Blair did almost immediately and the same problem: bought into their own mythology. "I've been right before, so I'm right now!"). But one thing she DID do (and Tebbit was my local MP, not a nice man, but he DID fight for his side, no matter how wrong he might have been) was take a stance and let people vote on that, not pander to a vote.
But that was probably the last time in the UK that MPs were actually people from other walks of life. Nowadays, they've never had a job (in the main) except for one of politics.
Gordon Brown's education was in "The History of the Labour Party"! Yeah, that's going to give you a grounding in real life. I bet you had plenty of relevant jobs and NEVER thought you'd be a PM after that...
Obama is the same. He's pandering.
When he's in front of a crowd and, to be frank, a little pissed off with the media and the Republicans, he has a stance and states it well.
But as soon as he gets out of the voters and into the Office, he's surrounded by the bubble again and caves before he's even started.
And "Don't criticise him, you might get a rightwingnut in power!" is how he can get away with it.
But let him know now that you DO NOT CARE if a greater evil gets in, you're NOT going to vote for a lesser one.
Posted by: Wow | May 25, 2011 12:47 PM
@wow, you had me to the last line.
I'm all for pressing hard, being critical, even challenging him in a primary. But when November comes, I will vote for the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: rmp | May 25, 2011 1:04 PM
Then there's no need for the lesser evil not to move *just beside* the greater one.
All that tosh about "the tree of liberty must be watered with blood" is talking about THE BLOOD OF THOSE WHO WANT LIBERTY.
And it doesn't have to be real blood any more than there's a real tree of liberty (if you can point it out to me, that'd be fine).
How little difference does there need to be between the two evils for you to count them the same?
And if the greater evil keeps moving more to the black, will you stop when the lesser evil is as black as yesterday's evil you wouldn't vote for?
Seeing your country ruled by the greater evil is MERELY A RISK.
Cowardice to take that risk is the "blood" that you water the "tree of liberty" with.
It's your willingness to put up with pain, suffering and even just a bit of trouble to see that your descendents will have a better life.
Posted by: Wow | May 26, 2011 6:05 AM
@wow, my first instinct is to still say that I'll vote for the lesser evil.
That being said, I think there is no doubt that there has been some benefits by letting the tea party candidates take control of the republican party. The overreach has certainly started the pendulum back in the other direction.
Posted by: rmp | May 26, 2011 10:49 AM
"The overreach has certainly started the pendulum back in the other direction."
only in that Republican Lite (oddly enough, headed by a darkie...) is gaining votes from republicans, yet there is no democratic party any more.
Just Republican, Republican Xtreme (you couldn't use "Republican Export") and Republican Lite.
And you know what? You'll not get back to a two-party system because of the RepXtreme party.
FORGET THEM.
Posted by: Wow | May 26, 2011 12:44 PM