Wesley Clark is Right; Obama Camp Wrong

The Obama campaign is wrong to reject Wesley Clark’s comments made on Face the Nation yesterday morning, for several reasons: 1) Clark’s comments are accurate on their face; 2) they get to a larger narrative about McCain (his military service qualifies him to be president) that Obama must challenge and change; 3) Criticizing your own supporters for making accurate statements about the enemy lowers the bar in terms of acceptable campaign behavior.  Clark was not even close to swiftboating McCain; Obama’s criticism of Clark allows McCain to assume a self referenced “high road” response to Clark and respond indignantly to Clark’s comments (as he did this morning).  In other words, Obama just fell into a Rovian McCain trap. 

After watching Clark’s comments, here’s what I see Clark did and all he did.  He challenged the media narrative that says riding in a fighter plane and getting shot own qualifies John McCain to be president and commander in chief.  To which Bob Schieffer asks incredulously, “Really?”

Clark says McCain’s military has not prepared him with relevant executive experience, and he is correct. To which Schieffer says defensively “neither does your mother Obama.” Schieffer’s defensive retort misses the larger point that McCain is running on his military experience, and Obama is not. Obama, as Clark suggested, is running on his character, judgment and communication skills, his ability to persuade, which Clark suggests, according to historian Richard Neustadt is the most important tool for a successful president.

Quite frankly, Clark got it right; the Media and Obama camp got it wrong. And McCain shouldn’t still be running.

I wonder how many meals Bob Schieffer has eaten at McCain’s La Jolla (tax delinquent) condo.

 

 

SCOTUS Term Means One Thing: We need Obama

Here’s why an Obama victory is so important. And here also is why Obama thinks he can tack right for the general election and still win an enthusiastic progressive vote.

It’s the Supreme Court, baby!

The Supreme Court term just ended with 17 5-4 decisions.  Keep this in mind: Just one conservative appointment (likely replacing libs. Stevens or Ginsberg) cancels out the part of Justice Anthony Kennedy that sometimes drifts left.

The number of 5-4 cases is less than last year by 1/2 which shows that Chief Justice Roberts is consolidating right wing control over the Court.  Roberts’ cohesion brand of administering the Court keeps the Court from drifting farther to the right only because of the four steady moderate/liberal votes, and the  sometimes 5th Kennedy vote.  With one more conservative justice, Roberts could ignore the moderates– Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens– and cohere his mark into a long lasting right majority.  Everyone loses here (voter exclusion, national ID and star chambers anyone?) as a result.

The only 5-4 decisions that went the way of the moderates (some say liberal) have to do with the:

1) death penalty (unconstitutional for rape of a child);  and 2) Gitmo detainees having habeas corpus rights.

On the other hand, 5-4 decisions going the way of the right (no moderates here):

3) gun rights; 4) campaign finance law (millionaires xception)

and consider

6-3 decisions including:

5) voter IDs; 5) international law based rehearing for death row inmate

Here’s the gist.

Without a President Obama appointing 2 pro-constitution/ civil liberties justices, basic liberties that have wavered on the brink in recent years will be lost.

A McCain presidency would do away with habeas; strip important safeguards from potentially innocent inmates; prevent minorities from voting, and skewer elections away from poor ad minority voters and towards the very rich.  

Reason enuf. 

It’s the Racism, Stupid

As Barack Obama mounts an impressive lead over John McCain in several states McCain needs in order to win the election, Republican gurus Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have been reduced to making not so subtle subliminally racist comments about Barack Obama. 

As Norquist refers to Obama as “Kerry with a tan,” Rove paints a silly portrait of Obama smoking cigs in a country club with a (presumably white) gal on his arm. 

for these two dunderheads, the issue this fall is simple:

its the racism, stupid!

 

More Guns in D.C.. Brilliant!

In striking down DC gun laws, the Supreme Court today has taken a big step towards privatizing justice on the streets of DC and such other violent cities as Baltimore, Detroit…

For background, the Supreme Court has finally gotten around to a constitutional question that was relevant in the days of citizen militias but has been an anachronism since the early days of industrialization. And in saying, for the first time, that individuals have the right to bear arms, the Court’s 5-4 conservative majority adds yet another notch to the Bush legacy.  

The Bush legacy diminishes the value of human life.  It also has to do with the neoliberal privatization.  Here’s how. It diminishes the claim that governments has a monopoly on the use of coercive force in society; Now gun holders– in private groups, gangs, and militias may compete against the state on its own turf.  a winning day for Blackwater and other private militias..

Now, analogize America’s cities to Baghdad, and picture them being patrolled by Blackwater and KBR.  Also, picture the dim reality in which families are still sending their sons and daughters, souses and siblings basic protective gear, including bullets.   Given the government’s privatization of war and law enforcement and its meager support for our own troops,  the court’s decision to enhance the power and legitimacy of nongovernmental militias is cause for alarm. 

The Court’s second amendment logic– stretched just a bit– presumes individual troops are responsible for bringing their own tevlar vests, guns, bullets and other resources needed to secure the peace.  This is the logic of the Court’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment: the individual has the right to bring arms to the militia (public or private).  The market shall decide the kind ad amount of bullets and the protective layers in vest, tanks and other patrol vehicles. 

On the other hand, if the “enemy” has funds it can now purchase and possess the best and highest quality arms; notice how the court just switched the competitive advantage to the other side. Analogize back to the streets of baltimore, DC and Detroit, and you see the practical effects of the Court’s decision. Go Crips. Go Bloods,  go MS-13! go BLACKWATER!

Yep, securing the right of potential evil doers to do evil is the Bush way.

FISA Vote is Obama’s ‘Sister Souljah Moment’

Barack Obama just had his ’sister souljah moment.’ It is not about race or religion; It is about national security.  By insisting he shall cast his vote in favor of the pending FISA legislation, and against the netroots,Chris Dodd, and Russ Feingold (who likely will lead a filibuster), Obama has signaled to independent (and blue dog dem) voters in the general electorate that he does not want to be seen as beholden to traditional, sometimes unpopular interests associated with the Democratic Party.

This, according to Wikipedia, is a “sister souljah moment,” a term that originates with the Bill Clinton primary campaign of 1992 when he denounced comments made by Sister Souljah (that he took out of context) in a rap video saying, “if there are any good whte people, I haven’t met them yet.” wiki

Back in ‘92, Clinton was seeking an opportunity to distance himself from Jesse Jackson, still unpopular with certain groups of white voters for comments he had made back in 1984.  Clinton wanted to appeal to white working class and jewish voters, and used the Sister Souljah moment to distance himself from Jackson, a moment, quite frankly that he replayed to less success this spring.

As for Obama, the FISA vote provides an opportunity to appease centrist and independent voters who might not trust the netroots tide that helped push him to the nomination.  In addition, by standing up for constitutional rights here (by reinvigorating FISA courts), he appeals to the indo national security minded voter who might vote for McCain unless Obama assertively showed some muscle on national security.  Once again this is the white, working class voter in Pa, Indiana, Missouri and Ohio.

It is no coincidence that Obama also appears in the current Rolling Stone saying he “does not do cowering well.” The key here is that Obama is apparently now playing a “strength card.” Only time will tell if this political tactic works.

In the meantime, I believe Obama isn’t fully appreciating the amount of control that voters believe the telecoms have over their lives.  The problem for Obama here is that the same voters who do not want a “jimmy carter” for a president, also do not want to see the telecom industry getting a pass of violating their 4th amendment privacy rights.   

Obama may be taking a principled position in terms of bringing FISA courts back into relevance. During the last several years, they have been all but ignored and the Bush Administrations practice of ordering spying on domestic phone conversations without a warrant is unconstitutional. Obama’s position rectifies this abuse of justice.

But by giving the telecoms a pass, Obama also helps cover up years of government/corporate spying. Without holding the telecoms accountable for their role here, and given a White House that has “disappeared” an untold amount of email correspondences, it is likely the american people will never be made aware of the the full extent of this grotesque abuse of power.  

Regrettably, Obama’s sister souljah moment–his play for national security moms– may win him some votes (or not), but potentially at a high cost.

 

 

 

It’s all Bullsh*t

George Carlin

 

 

Supreme Court Stops Review of Executive Powers over Border Fence

When the Supreme Court refused to stop Secretary of Homeland Security today from ignoring more than 30 mostly environmental laws pertaining to the construction of the border fence with Mexico, the Court, in effect, gave Michael Chertoff’s plenary powers to Chertoff’s ‘waiver authority’ over the border.  By refusing to hear the case on the merits, the Court is also contributing to the Bush Administration’s growing legacy of eviscerating constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law.  In these waning days of the worst presidency ever, this case is yet another example of John Yoo’s failed unitary executive thesis in action

But alas, because the fence deals only with immigration law, long the unwanted stepchild of administrative law; with immigrants the demonized other in american politics since 9/11; and since it deals with only a border fence in a desolate part of Arizona/Senora (San Pedro Riparian National Conservation near Naco), few people will spend much ink condemning this nondecision, but condemnation is what this act today deserves.

But according to Oliver Bernstein, Sierra Club spokesperson,

“This decisions leaves one man—the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security—with the extraordinary power to ignore any and all of the laws designed to protect the American people, our lands, and our natural resources.” (NYT David Stout)

When any one human power has such power, that person is a sovereign– a monarchical tyrant who stand outside the rule of law. Such exceptions to constitutional norms should not be countenanced by the Court, and certainly not by the American people.  This is some, horrible legacy being left to the Bush successor and to the american people who will be forced to endure exceptions to constitutional norms tucked away in increasing numbers of of laws, regulations and policy.  

Obama’s Mistake on Telecom Immunity

Barack Obama made a mistake backing the FISA compromise. He is now on record supporting 1) additional powers to the president; 2) weakening the 4th amendment; 3) I can’t tell if his support of the compromise giving additional powers to telecom corporations which themselves have powers scarily like that of governments but with nearly no democratic accountability, is political expediency or principle. I hope it is not the latter, and am disappointed if the former. 

Now it is one thing to deal with the customer services folks at Verizon and ATT making you wait in line for 2 hours before telling you they are not going to fix your cell phone. It is quite another to think these same folks (or folks just a little higher on the food chain) have the power to listen in on your private phone conversations because the president ostensibly told their boss we are in the midst of a perpetual war and the phone companies have a role to play in fighting the enemy.  They can help the government spy on us with no warrants, to rhymes, no reason. 

The founding fathers feared the tyrrannical power of King George III;   they would have been even more fearful of unaccountable corporate powers, Verizon and ATT, which brings the discussion back to Barack Obama.

Now, I support Obama but believe that Obama, like nearly any president would be hard pressed to relinquish additional powers that a previous congress had allotted to the office of the presidency. As the next likely president this is where Obama sits, as the likely beneficiary of this FISA compromise.

here is my second concern. 

Obama is showing, by his statements and by the persons he has recruited to be part of his economic policy team (disappointingly Chicago school) , that he has not yet cued into the dangers of privatization and outsourcing. The Bush Administration has outsourced war and other crucial/ fundamental components of the state, giving private firms nearly all the powers of government– which has a monopoly on the use of coercive force– and almost no responsibility and accountability. As a result, the likes of Boeing, McDonnell Douglass, Accenture, Unisyss, GE, ATT, Verizon and so forth are making decisions that affect fundamental rights and liberties affecting all citizens, and we know almost nothing about it.

This is scary, and threatens to undermine the “yes we can” power to the people, that the Obama campaign ostensibly stands for.

 

Going to War with Iran: Anyone Listening?

one reason that McCain, right wing 527 startups. the Bush machine and so forth seem so nonplussed at Obama’s 15 point lead in the latest Newsweek poll is that they have something really big up their sleeve– a missile. Please read link.  With Cheney controlling the flow of info to the president, and with the Air Force and Navy prepared the lead the way, it seems the US with Israel are planning offensive military measures against Iran before Bush leaves office.  As Matt Rothschild from the Progressive suggests, impeachment is the only way to stop this.  such an october surprise would hand election to McCain and lots worse. Read link below by Ray McGovern, and see my posts June 6 and April 11:

US to Bomb Iran B4 Bush Leaves office

Obama Convinces Me That $=Speech

Only one narrow reading of the Supreme Court’s Buckley v Valeo (1976) case exists that comes close to validating the Court’s claim that giving money to a political campaign equals free speech under the First Amendment.  This narrow interpretation follows: if everyone gave small amounts of money to political candidates as an extension of their political support, then the act of giving money becomes more a political than a commercial act and thus worthy of political speech protections under the first amendment.

Never before had any presidential nominee made a credible claim on giving campaign contributions as a political act, until 2007 and the Obama campaign. Obama followed the Joe Trippi/ Howard Dean path of using the internet to raise campaign contributions, but while Dean/Trippi showed the world that it was possible to use the internet as a vehicle for raising widespread campaign contribution, Obama added steroids to the internet monster that Dr Dean created.  With more than 2 million donors giving money often in small and modest increments, from $5, $10, $50, Obama became the big money candidate with few big money donors.

Here is the key to fitting the Obama model within a democratic public sphere: Nobody owns Obama, or has a claim of undue influence, or even claim on having access into an Obama oval office.

As long as money and wealth are not seen as distorting the political process, then money can lay claim to a democratic political process– in a normative sense. Thus, small campaign contributions can coincide within a Buckley v Valeo definition of campaign contributions and free speech. 

Quite frankly, small donors and expressive giving comprise the spirit behind public financing and campaign finance reform; and unlike the current system, which is a failure, the Obama model thus far is simpler, more steamlined, effective, efficient and successful than the existing federal system.  In terms of efectiveness just think of how easily Obama was able to steamroll Clinton during the primaries.

It is also important to note that McCain is now using the issue of federal financial reform as a cynical campaign ploy.  Given McCain’s inability to tap big or small donors, he is forced into the federal system and thus is trying to avoid saying the obvious: as his primary shenanigans suggest, he would use the private system if he could win with it; he would rely upon private big donors if he had them.  Also important to take stock of the 527’s that are cranking up to swiftboat Obama on McCain’s behalf, and you see again how McCain sides with expediency over principle.

In the meantime, Obama’s reliance on small givers has the potential to de-gin a broken system, as the candidate suggests.  Not only is his campaign not taking money from PACS and special interests, but now neither is the DNC.  Further, not only has Obama eschewed 527s in support of his own campaign, but progressive activist orgs, like MoveOn,org have closed down their own 527 as a nod to Obama.  This is important stuff.  

Contrary to what McCain suggests, Obama’s commitment to public financing stands; his commitment to democratic giving remains.