Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)
Third RAIL more like it... (none / 0)

Sorry, Cenk, but I think that's some leftover Conservative in you talking. After all, you still think Gates was a good choice. And, then, there's that whole H.W. man crush thing...

It's going to take more than one article written around a stupid time wasting hearing about - shock! - atheletes trying to better themselves through chemicals and grandstanding Congressfolk getting partisan camera time to convince me that Third Way isn't a propaganda machine for the DLC or that the DLC has a progressive bone in it's "body."

These are the Bush Dogs, the enablers of whatever country wrecking policy Bush wants.

Why WERE there hearings on steroids and why were those stories the toppers of the week? Why is Specter calling for Football probes? Distraction, distraction, distraction.

Long as I'm griping, I have one that all "liberal" talk shows and blogs do (Cenk does it on a regular basis)  which irritates me to no end. Whenever something like, say, a FISA bill is being voted on, all the Democrats names who might vote the wrong way are heralded and us great unwashed masses are requested to contact them and try to talk sense into them.

Well, what about the fucking Republicans? Aren't there any Democrats living in Republican districts who can be encouraged to send their displeasure ahead of time? Why should we just keep hounding the same Dems over and over while the Republicans get only encouraging emails from their supporters? Send them a few dings, too!

I'm truly irritated to find that the Democrats haven't even put up a challenger to the Republican incumbent in my district. How many others of you know if you're being offered no choice in your representation? It is pretty damn difficult to get that "veto proof majority" if you don't run candidates.

</bitching>

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:49:37 AM EST

Well, if we stick to the Senate (none / 0)
I have Dick Burbin and Obama, so there's no republican to hound (thankfully).

But yes, if I had a republican Senator I'd be on him too.

PS---I encourage everyone to call, email or write (fax is a great way to get through actually) your congressmen when they do something RIGHT.  Trust me, positive reinforcement almost always works better anyway and it's rarely done in politics.  If you call to thank someone for their behavior the message is more likely to get through.

by Tom Hanc on 02/17/2008 12:06:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wrote to both of my Senators (none / 0)

Bingaman (D) and Domenici (R).  Bingaman has voted against FISA right down the line.  I love him for that, even though he is against impeachment.

Domenici, of course, is literally demented (although I've forgotten the name of his medical condition) and due to retire.  His  ;staffer replied "thanks-for-your-conce rn-I'll-consider-your-comme nts", and then Domenici voted to destroy the rule of law.

Republicans don't listen to their constituents.  They listen to their contributors.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 02:43:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
To be fair (none / 0)
You wrote "Republicans don't listen to their constituents.  They listen to their contributors."

To be fair, that increasingly applies to Democrats as well (hello DLC). 

The answer of course is publicly funded elections.  Because that's the only way to make them listen to their contributors *and* their constituents.  Any fool that would argue against that is either incredibly corrupt, stupid or ignorant (possibly even 2 out of 3).

by Tom Hanc on 02/17/2008 03:20:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow! What an interesting idea! (none / 0)

Hmm.  "Publicly financed campaigns".  That sure sounds like it would get at least some of the corruption out of politics.  Haven't I heard someone talking about that?  I wonder if there are any candidates who would consider it.

Oh! Of course.

BARACK OBAMA!

The revolution starts with publicly financed campaigns.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 03:39:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Trust me I know (none / 0)
that's a big reason why I'm for Obama over Hillary. I also got pissed at Michael S. the other day when he was co-hosting.  He said public financing, while important, was a "pet project" or something like that.

He said it's not something we'll feel the effects of day to day like healthcare or Iraq.

I was incredulous that he would say something so nonsensical, especially since he's a smart guy.  The fact is that corrupt/pro-industry/lobbyi st sponsored politicians effect EVERYTHING ELSE, directly or indirectly, including Iraq and especially healthcare.

Far too many people seem to forget this for some reason and think "yeah, it'd be nice to have public financing but it's the end all, be all".  And of course it's true it's not a panacea, but it is by the far the one thing that can dramatically improve the quality of the representatives from *both* parties over a relatively short perdiod of time.

And that ultimately means a better democracy that functions for all of us.

by Tom Hanc on 02/17/2008 04:53:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know that you know :) (none / 0)

I was kind of surprised at that "pet project" remark, too.  But I think he was distinguishing between legislation that has effects that would be immediately visible to Joe American when he goes to get his mail or to pay his bills versus something more subtle.

There is no doubt that public financing of campaigns would cause a drastic realignment of political relationships.  But Joe American can hold a refund check in his hand.

One thing though: if we do get public financing of campaigns, we're going to have to drastically improve the knowledge and ability to reason of our citizens.  We've been able to let our educational system lag behind other countries with more politically involved citizens because we've been letting corporations make our political decisions, and they benefit if we know only enough to be productive workers.

"New math" ain't gonna cut it anymore.  We're going to have to teach why, not merely how, and that is how the revolution will continue.

--------------------------- -----------------
The revolution begins with public financing of campaigns.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 08:05:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know that I shouldn't be at this point... (none / 0)
...but I am continually amazed at the extent of your inability to grasp any topic at all.

Public financing of campaigns is an entirely different issue than what the Supreme Court addressed and stops no one from speaking or from spending their money anyway that they want to.  It has to do with from whom a candidate or a party can accept contributions: no one at all, if she or he wants public funds.  And those funds would match anything that someone using private funds would try to spend.

And that would be "like shooting fish in a barrel":

"My opponent has taken contributions from [freedom-hating-source] who, as everyone knows, wants to [description-of-a-painful-s ex-act-but-without-Vaseline ] you. But I owe [freedom-hating-source] nothing!"

But if you aren't a candidate you can buy all the newspaper ad space or infomercial time you want with money from any source whatsoever.  And I don't have much of a problem with that (although the Supreme Court's finding that money is speech obviously is a logical fallacy).  Your candidate, however, will be prohibited from coordinating with you, which means that running such independent ads would be a very foolish thing to do unless you want to risk causing your candidate to lose.

By the way: Congress has passed many laws abridging the freedom of speech in direct contradiction to the First Amendment but with, apparently, a compelling state interest (an argument that was not made in Buckley v. Valeo, thank goodness).  But, as I said, that has nothing to do with public financing of campaigns.  YOU will still be able to buy airtime supporting your favorite totalitarian dictator.

Jeezus Ken do some goddamned research on the right topic f'cryinoutloud!  This is getting ridiculous.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 11:21:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not talkin' about FREE speech. (none / 0)

Talkin' about PAID ADVERTISING. Advertising has to hold itself to higher standards of truthiness to avoid lawsuits.

I can't believe you would give money to the swift liars. Do you belong to the 700 Club, too?

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:25:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Take charge! Tim for Senate! (none / 0)
DOOOOO IIIIIIIIIT.

by jarett on 02/17/2008 03:34:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You laugh! (none / 0)

I looked into putting my name on the ballot just to shame the Dems into running someone who ISN'T an anxiety disorder ridden, clinically depressed long haired fat old guy, but the rules say I  would have had to change parties by last September. Don't ask; dunno why.

It would tickle my Elmo to show up at a political rally in my ratty old green bathrobe...

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:33:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What-the...! (none / 0)

"Change parties"?

No.

It can't be.

You're not --

Green are you?!?!

(I'd love to have a viable Green Party in this country -- but without the nutcases they've got now, and there are more than a few.  But I'll vote for the first candidate of any party who shows up at a rally in a "ratty old green bathrobe", whether he's nuts or not.)

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 11:53:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0)

I was registered as an Independent, I switched to Dem so I can vote in our primary.

by MedfordTim on 02/18/2008 10:02:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I asked you about this earlier (none / 0)
And got no response.  

Why is it important to the security of this great nation to have no accountability and no oversight in the process of wiretapping?

Why is warrantless wiretapping important to the security of this great nation when FISA enables those who are performing surveillance to obtain warrants EVEN AFTER the surveillance has occurred?

by jarett on 02/17/2008 03:37:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spining Wheel Goes Around. (none / 0)

McCullagh's Law of Politics:

As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.

House Democrats actually had voted to extend the  wiretapping law for three weeks--Bush and the Republicans rejected that compromiseThe only thing at issue is immunity for telcoms. Period.

In any case warrantless spying is occurring as we speak, any representation to the contrary is a lie. This was done in a program the Bush administration authorized following the Sept. 11 attacks and expanded in the "Protect America Act".

"What makes this situation rather bizarre is that retroactive immunitynfor alleged illegal activities by AT&T and other telecommunications companies years ago is unrelated to extending the Protect America Act (which deals with future surveillance authorization). That makes this situation a little like Bush threatening to veto, say, a defense spending bill if it doesn't include authorization for an invasion of Iran.(1)"

Monitoring programs authorized under the original "Protect America Act" will continue until Aug 8 2008 when the authorizations expire.

The president asserts that the expiration of the Protect America Act will pose a danger to our country. The former national security council advisor on terrorism says that's not true. Former assistant attorney general says that's not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, has asserted that's not true. Why is that not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, the FISA court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act. Steny Hoyer

by MRFred on 02/17/2008 05:16:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, Tex. That's just not good enough. (none / 0)
Why listen to al Qaeda without a warrant? Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have access to information on the process that is not available to you and me. They know what kind of signals intelligence is being acquired, and how it is being utilized. They know how cumbersome it is to seek a warrant through the FISA court. They know that FISA laws were written in the 1970s, before the advent of computers and satellites and global terrorists.

It is not at all cumbersome.  The paperwork can be submitted, the surveillance conducted, and the warrant obtained -- in that order.  It is not necessary to wait.

If you can show me a changelog of FISA in this bill that simply updates it to reflect the fast-paced, high technology nature of surveillance these days, I will be satisfied that both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have made the right decision.  I have not found any such summary.  What I have found is Mitch McConnell stating that the PAA did not assist in the collection of data that put criminals away, despite his trying to lie in favor of the PAA in the past.  I have found that the Bush administration appears not to be interested in legitimate, bipartisan updates to FISA that it did not come up with.    And I have found responsible, technology-aware changes to FISA to be rejected by the Bush administration.

FISA was originally founded to prevent abuses of our intelligence services such as the ones perpetrated by Nixon, Ken.  Why should it be necessary to perform an end-run around it now when technological updates have been proposed on a bipartisan basis and shot down every time?

by jarett on 02/18/2008 12:30:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is what both I and the aforementioned Dems (none / 0)
know:

http://unamericanrevolution .com/activism/keith-olberma nn-buries-the-president-wit h-truth/

I won't ask you to watch the whole thing.  Just skip forward to the 4:00 mark.

The Democrats in question know this is happening, and yet Claire McCaskill wants us to immunize the telecom companies for doing something they KNEW was against the law.  In the military, we court-martial soldiers for knowingly obeying unlawful orders.  There is no reason to treat these companies any differently.  And there is STILL no justification for removing oversight and accountability from the surveillance process.  

Of course our intelligence services need flexibility and speed to be able to keep up with the dynamic nature of modern communications.  The internet is littered with stateless switches that keep no records of the packets that pass through them, much less the actual contents thereof.  STILL, however, there is no conceivable engineering reality that could require the removal of warrants from the process at some point.  I am a computer scientist (currently taking a network management course, in fact) and I certainly can't think of one.  Can you?  Can twba?  Can MrFred?

Those of us who value transparency, accountability, and competence in our government want only for records to be kept on surveillance activities by some body that is outside the executive purview of the surveillance community.  This is not an unreasonable request.  It is not a technologically infeasible request.  It is, in fact, something that has been going on for years while the internet has sprung up around us and the mobile phone network has grown organically from cities out to the Great Plains.

by jarett on 02/18/2008 04:55:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Excellent point (none / 0)
on the court martials!

by Tom Hanc on 02/18/2008 12:01:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This part makes me scream... (none / 0)
"...but they can't share the details with you in the interest of national security."

Not attacking Ken, he is only repeating the official line.

The official line of SHIT, that is.

I am sick to death of these cocksuckers in D.C. - BOTH parties - naking everything "secret" and "national security" just to avoid oversight. We have seen literally millions of examples of documents eventually released which show that there was NO compelling reason vis a vis "national security" for them to have ever been "classified" in the first place.

What we don't know can't hurt them.

by MedfordTim on 02/18/2008 10:10:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is KenTX ignorant, stupid, or a liar? (none / 0)

KenTX says that a vote against the so-called "Protect America Act" would allow al Qaeda to "communicate without fear of warrantless wiretaps".

This is, of course, total bullshit.  The President could get a warrant for a wiretap within minutes if he could justify it.  And it's a sure bet that the FISA court will approve valid warrants.  They are, after all, loyal Americans, too.

Now, I don't know if KenTX is aware of these facts.  If he isn't, then he's merely ignorant.  If he is but believes that the President still wouldn't be able to listen to terrorists' conversations, then he's stupid.  But if he knows that what he said isn't true, then he's an absolute liar.

But I guess it really doesn't matter whether he's ignorant, stupid, or a liar, does it?  He is certainly one of them.  Thus, his comments are worthless, and a case can be made that he should be kept in a secure environment so that he doesn't hurt himself of others.

(Here, Kenny.  I'll give you this cookie if you'll get into the ambulance with the nice man in the white coat.  You'd like to ride in an ambulance, wouldn't you?  They'll turn on the lights and the siren and go real fast, and it will be fun!)

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 03:55:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)