Yes We Can Say That

Public Finance, FISA and the Death Penalty:
The DLC and the Erosion of a Dream Candidate

"...the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken,"

Barack Obama in a video statement about opting out of public finance
for his presidential campaign.

Having a plausible explanation for a complete reversal of a principal policy does not mean it is ok. If you have to explain a change in policy position by saying, "We can say that because..." you are rationalizing your faulted integrity. The irony is that this election is not so much about the desperate necessity for changes in policy for which there is considerable consensus; it is really an election about integrity, something that has been missing from politics for generations. And if the statements coming out of the Obama campaign recently are any test, political integrity will remain an oxymoron for generations to come.

I was curious as to what may have changed in Senator Obama's campaign that would cause them to legitimize these controversial reversals. Was it just a typical "move to the center" that is characteristic of all post primary presumptives? Or was it something else, like maybe part of the deal with Hillary was to move to a more centrist, DLC approach in exchange for that wing of the party not making a fuss at the convention?

I decided to examine whether there were parallels in the DLC's way of thinking and the changes in the Obama stance. While some of the connections are arguably spurious, I did find enough that it is worth questioning if this is the source code for the new Obama campaign.

The DLC

"House members shouldn't be intimidated by pressure groups who view the FISA bill's immunity clause as a litmus test on respect for civil liberties. It's not. Rather, it is an over-emphasized aspect of a broad bill that could constructively define the rules of signals intelligence collection in the 21st century. This bill represents an excellent opportunity for House members to strengthen their civil-liberties credentials by supporting a law that improves and clarifies the standards for intelligence collection."
- Jim Arkedis, director of PPI's National Security Project, in a Feb. 2008 article about the FISA debate on the DLC website

"...given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
- Obama statement about his support for the FISA compromise that passed the House last week (from Talking Points Memo.com)

One does not have to look far on the DLC's website to find support in its mission. An op-ed piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 2003 gives legitimacy to its raison d'etre:

"In 1996, a survey by the Washington Post compared the views of delegates to the Democratic convention with those of ordinary registered Democratic voters. They might as well have come from different parties. On every single social and economic issue, the views of the registered Democrats were closer to those of all registered voters than to those of Democratic delegates.

Almost two-thirds of Democratic delegates wanted to cut defense spending; most registered Democrats did not. A majority of Democratic delegates opposed a five-year time limit for welfare benefits; two-thirds of registered Democrats supported it. Democratic delegates were split on the death penalty; registered Democrats favored it by a margin of more than 2 to 1."

from a 2003 article in the LA Times by Al From and Bruce Reed (now president of the Democratic Leadership Council)

This is as good a time as any to say that I really am not against the DLC. They are an essential part of our party. If the Democrats were a ship, the DLC might be the rudder that keeps us upright while we in the liberal wing are the wind in her sails. The challenge for us is who is at the tiller.

Yet they do represent the establishment, and that is whom we all thought Barack was running against the last four months. At least I thought so. I'm certainly old enough not to be naive about politicians, but I thought he would take firmer stands, and not "cave" as some bloggers have put it.

One of my important issues is my opposition to the death penalty. But like those on the right who oppose a woman's right to choose, I know that I cannot make the death penalty a pillar of my decision making when it comes to my vote. Yet when our candidate came out against the recent SCOTUS decision against the death penalty for anyone but killers, I still felt as if there was one less thing to like about Obama.

As reported in yesterday's online version of the Wall Street Journal, Obama said:

“ 'I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,' Obama told reporters at a press conference in Chicago.

"The expected Democratic nominee said he believed the rape of a child 'is a heinous crime' that fits the circumstance..."

And the DLC's take on the death penalty? They are reactionarily (?) entrenched after the punishment they took in the 1988 Dukakis campaign:

"[A]fter 12 years in the presidential wilderness, Democrats rallied to Gov. Clinton, who positioned himself in the 1992 campaign as both hard-headed and warm-hearted. He proved that he would defend the social order by not only supporting the death penalty but actually taking a break from the campaign trail to return to Arkansas to preside over an execution."
-Marshal Wittman, from a May, 2005 article in Blueprint Magazine, from the DLC's website.

In another February, 2006 DLC article from Blueprint Magazine, Virginia's newly elected Democratic governor Tim Kaine said he won in part because he was able to sidestep making his "personal faith-based opposition to capital punishment" a campaign issue by saying that he would follow the law because, " I was...telling voters that I took the oath of office as seriously as my wedding vows."

And because, as stated in the LA Times piece cited above, "Democratic delegates were split on the death penalty; registered Democrats favored it by a margin of more than 2 to 1," it seems the DLC encourages an ambiguous stand on the death penalty for those who are morally opposed to it.

To be sure this is speculation on my part. It is impossible to prove that the DLC specifically is an influence in these apparent reversals, and despite it all, obviously none of these things will keep me from voting for Obama in November, but for sure some of the glimmer is gone. The shine, as they say, is coming off the rose. I just hope there is still some left after Denver.

I wonder if Bobby would have compromised this much.

-PBG

The Wiretapper in the Mirror: Congress Wimps Out

In today's debate over the warrantless wiretapping bill - aka changes to FISA -Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) who spoke against passage, expressed the concerns of both sides when she called it "lipstick on a pig" .

In speaking for the bill's passage, California Republican Dan Lungren said that "it's not the Mona Lisa, but it is a pretty good paint job." More like a snow-job. The only thing that's getting painted over here is the Fourth Amendment. The fact that Congress sees capitulating to the Executive as the proper way to do the country's business flies in the face of checks and balances and doesn't serve "We the People" at all.

In contrast to Lungren's calling this "a great day," at least Speaker Pelosi had the sense to say that it was not, and yet she voted for it.

What really peeves me about this is that it is so obvious to the rest of us why the Congress' approval ratings are abysmal. They are not doing the people's business. They are doing business people. They were voted into office to make waves, and yet you could skip Dennis Kucinich across the water and still not make the White House lawn wet.

There is an outrage growing in the electorate. If Senator Obama really wants to be an agent of change, he must step up and vote against this bill when it gets to the Senate. Getting the country's business done is not an excuse for doing bad business.

Please let your senators know that they must not pass this bill.

-PBG

Breaking News: FISA Wiretapping Deal Reached

Breaking News from the ACLU


Congress Said To Have Reached FISA Deal

Congress Reaches Deal on FISA Bill - ReWrites Surveillance & Wiretapping Rules

FISA Deal Reached, Aides Say

By Tim Starks, CQ Staff

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
June 19, 2008 – 10:40 a.m.

A final deal has been reached on a rewrite of electronic surveillance rules and will be announced Thursday, two congressional aides said.

The aides said the House is likely to take up the legislation Friday.

The bill would rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, PL 95-511).

On Wednesday, Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D‑Md., had said negotiators were working on a bill that would be “significantly better” than a White House-backed, Senate-passed bill (HR 3773) that has support from some House Democrats.

As of Wednesday, sources said the new bill would allow a federal district court to decide whether to provide retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for their role in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program.

Under the prospective deal, the secret court created by the original law would get to review, in advance, the process by which the administration chooses foreign surveillance targets who may be communicating with people in the United States.

One source said the federal district court deciding on retroactive immunity would review whether there was “substantial evidence” the companies had received assurances from the government that the administration’s program was legal.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report on an earlier version of the legislation detailed how the companies had received such assurances from the Justice Department and the White House.

So Much to Talk About

Holding On to My Voice

It has been a long time since I last posted, and I have a lot on my mind. Part of the time I was sick with that flu thing that's been going around. Now, my wife has it. I used a lot of my free time to edit a tribute video for a friend's 50th birthday, and I have actually had sporadic employment.

The NY Times McCain Story
I'm going to start with a brief response to the NY Times story last week about McCain's 2000 campaign: I don't care. As far as it being fodder for the fall presidential race, it would be like the canon is firing oatmeal: it's a little sticky but easily washes off. Neither the close ties to lobbyists nor the implied ties to one lobbyist in particular matter to me. Except for the assertion that he has, in the past, had lapses of judgment, it's not news. Special Interests glom onto politicians like remoras on a shark, like hookers on conventioneers. It's the nature of the business. Besides, what's the relevance to this year's race?

I'm less interested at what someone running for president did eight years ago than I am with the unconstitutional, criminal behavior over the last eight years that the Bush administration is apparently going to get away with.

Bad Pelosi
Nothing about the present Congress disappoints me more than Nancy Pelosi's stubbornly keeping impeachment "off the table." It's like that old parlor trick. She's pulled off the tablecloth but the grounds for impeachment remain in place. I understand not wanting to create a quid pro quo impeachment scenario between the Legislative and Executive branches when they are run by opposite parties, but a violation is a violation, and perjury over infidelity is not the same thing as violations of the Constitution and our civil liberties.

Good Pelosi
On the other hand, I applaud the House for refusing to rubber stamp the domestic surveillance bill, albeit by hanging their hat on the immunity clause for the telecoms involved in warrantless wiretapping. I am sorely disappointed in the Senate for passing it, though.

How many times have the senators in the presidential race had to defend their awkward voting record? You'd think that after the Iraq War vote and the vote authorizing torture and the continued funding of the war, the majority would get tired of the backpedaling and move forward with resolve toward stopping an insane administration bent on the disintegration of the country's dignity and respect. By continually agreeing to an incompetent president's self serving requests, the Senate enables the continued degradation of America's standing in the world, even as they try to blame it all on Bush.

The B-Movie Nightmare Ticket
Speaking of senators running for president, I want to make it clear - and I hope that the majority of Democrats are with me on this - that despite Wolf Blitzer wanting to make it so, Obama and Clinton are not a "dream ticket," no matter (you should pardon the expression) who is on top. The only way that it could resemble a dream is if they were both president, that is, a hybrid - Clibama, if you will, or Obinton. That's something, though, that could only happen in a Hollywood movie, which may be why the LA debate crowd were so enthusiastic about it.

Don't Make Me Ralph
Finally, I hope I am right in believing that only a modicum of seething is appropriate over the news that Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race as a third party candidate. I trust that it is too late for even him to have an impact. As he said this morning on Meet the Press:

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans
this year, they ought to just wrap up,
close down, emerge in a different form."

Ya think?

-PBG

Behind the Curtain

Pay No Attention to the Politician Behind the Curtain

There is a shadow play going on behind the shroud, and like the characters in an old cartoon, the shaded shapes creep in apparent self awareness, while we cheer and jeer the performances of those who cast them. The hidden machinations of the players bear little resemblance to what they choose to show us.

It works something like this. In any political goings-on, there are three kinds of curtains that drape the stage where our politicians play: opaque, translucent and transparent. Then there's the performance upstage, in front - the one they play out to dazzle, distract or otherwise numb us into obeisance. Occasionally, the sharp observer can discern a movement not quite right in the narrow, transparent panels, that belies the otherwise unrevealing obfuscators.

For example, let's say Bush is standing in front of a crowd of foreign war veterans, comparing the chaos under which Saigon fell with the potentially worsening dissolution of order when we leave Baghdad, and saying that it would have been different had we stayed in Vietnam and "finished the job."

He wants us to see brave men and women fighting to victory, but instead in the transparent panel directly behind him we easily see a drunken, AWOL flier from the Texas Air National Guard, circa 1970. He wants us to see the genocide of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, but behind the wider translucent panel we can discern the shadowy images of bullets and bombs felling American soldier after American soldier, the piling bodies and flag draped coffins and weeping Gold Star mothers. He wants us to see an America responsible for squashing terrorism like a foot crushes a cockroach, yet we know that somewhere behind the very wide, opaque curtain America is enabling the torture and rendition of perceived enemies while it supports the governments of those who harbor our real enemies.

Meanwhile every shout is greeted with applause, every wag of the finger greeted with cheers.

Status Quo or Quid Pro Quo

Some of those cheers are our own, fellow lefties. Karl Rove leaving? Sure, shout for joy. Hooray! But now that he is no longer in government (officially anyway), will there be as hard an effort to expose his malfeasance? He is not leaving because any threat of exposure that we know of, so it looks like this is his own decision, status quo for the waning months of a lame duck administration. But what don't we know? Is it possible that this is part of a deal? The weak Congress seems unwilling to pursue any sort of retribution against an administration that continues to abuse its power. This could be more quid pro quo than status quo.

I really don't know. I'm just saying that things are not always what they seem, especially in First World politics, so we have to be willing to look past what is presented as truth and find the real truth. We can't rely on just the Washington Post or the New York Times. We have to make our congress-people be accountable to holding the Executive accountable. That, sadly, is the one thing they seem unwilling to do.

So for those of you who give money specifically to the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), I'm asking you to stop. They are not working for us. They want to continue to do business as usual. I'm asking that you give money directly to the campaign coffers of the legislators who actually seem to stand against the status quo.

Send money to Russ Feingold's re-election campaign, or any of the 28 other senators or 183 members of the House who stuck to their convictions and voted against the Wiretapping bill that was passed just before the August recess. Why did the Democratic led Congress end up passing this bill? Well, CNET has an interesting and uncomplicated answer: it was political.

See, the Democrats want to appear strong in the "War on Terror." But just behind them you can see them through the transparent curtain shaking in political fear. Behind the translucent curtain, their shadows are stomping on the Bill of Rights while they hold out their hands to the "military industrial complex," who hide just out of sight, behind the opaque curtain.

-PBG