|
|
Tags for This Article:
Obama-Barack (4516) McCain-John (3902) FISA (319) FISA (92) FISA (81) Keith Olbermann (47)
|
Add to My Group
The weeks have blurred together lately, for obvious reasons. I don't stop by for awhile, then I read I'm AWOL. And I don't do a Comment blasting Obama, and I read somebody wrote something over-the-top about my lack of principles. I think it was last Thursday or Friday - dates and quotes aren't going to be exact here and you can forgive that or not - that we had John Dean on, to try to explain Senator Obama's rationalization of voting for the telecom civil immunity in the FISA bill. Simply put, what John said quelled any anger simmering beneath my surface. Because John Dean is the smartest person I've ever met. Failing that, remember the story of the day in front of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 when Nixon's lawyer Charles Alan Wright began the afternoon session by asking him a long, layered question, designed solely to trip him up. Several minutes into this intricate riddle, the chairman (I presume Congressman Rodino) suddenly interrupted Wright. A woman was just walking into the room - the committee stenographer. He'd have to repeat his question; they had inadvertently resumed the hearing with no one taking it down for the record. A crestfallen Wright mumbled something about "but I can't repeat it" and a few seconds of hesitation followed as the committee groped for a solution. Whereupon Dean said, "Uh, Mr. Chairman, it's not a problem. I can repeat it." As one of the Democratic attorneys said later, there were 40 attorneys in the room and they immediately all realized that as Dean spoke, he was not paraphrasing - he promptly rolled it back, virtually word-for-word, to Wright's complete satisfaction. And then he answered it. If neither of those metrics is sufficient, there's an exchange I had with John some time ago. He joked about "muffing that question the way Zeke Bonura used to muff ground balls." I was shocked; John had never before evinced the slightest interest in baseball. "Oh, I don't have any interest in baseball. But my father was a huge fan, and I can remember him telling me the names of all the first basemen in the National League in 1939. Let's see: it was Bonura with the Giants, Elbie Fletcher in Boston and then Pittsburgh, Dolph Camilli with the Dodgers..." With that preamble out of the way, here goes. John said his reading of the revised FISA statute suggested it was so poorly constructed (or maybe so sublimely constructed) that it clearly did not preclude future criminal prosecution of the telecoms - it only stopped civil suits. I have repeated his observation each night since. Maybe I didn't sell my conviction of its conclusiveness. I think John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns). Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn't going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway. When Markos was on (Monday? Again, blurs) he made the simple but essential point that if this is Obama's rationale for this, maybe he should explain it. I think it can be argued that if he's caught the same hole in the bill that Dean has, his best course is actually to shut up and take the criticism and hope the Republicans don't see the loophole. Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror (ask Charlie Black or that idiot who suggested that Black's comments owed to distraction by a reporter's cleavage - not knowing that the Fortune editor to whom Black gave it up was a guy). So why hand them a brick to hit him with - Obama Voted Against FISA - if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA? I don't know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn't read his full piece, but I do know that the snippet he's taken out of the transcript of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing. Same point, in essence, tonight with John Harwood. It certainly does underscore the degree to which the presumptive nominee trusts his own mind. Did Mr. Greenwald note that I asked if we shouldn't worry that this Obamaian certainty could turn into something like President "My Way Or The Highway" Bush, or did he leave that out? I do think Mr. Greenwald's suggestion of some kind of betrayal on my part is simplistic and childish. I'll take the Dean interpretation of this. If it isn't the Senator's game plan, he'll catch hell from me about it later. On a personal level, a thanks to all who expressed sympathies on our two great losses. I will confess, as suggested in another diary, to continuing surprise that there was even a little callousness expressed at Tim Russert's passing. I think the political hats were taken off briefly in respect of the loss of a good man, even on the Right (except for the disgusting New York Post). I was startled to see so many here unable to hold their fire until at least after he was interred. cross posted from Dailykos MSNBC New Anchor
If I had my way, I would tear this old building down.
red herring Who cares if the bill only stops civil suits, but would allow criminal action? We know that Bush won't file criminal action. I don't think McCain can win, but he wouldn't file criminal action. So, do we expect the Democrats who won't impeach to file criminal action? I wouldn't bet on it. Would you expect Sen. Obama, who's gotten over $278,000 from the telecoms in his Senate and POTUS campaigns, to then turn around and start criminal action? Has Obama said he'll start criminal action? Not that I know of, and I wouldn't bet on it happening. The only thing that was happening in the courts were civil suits filed by citizens. The Dems and Obama have just said that we don't get a voice. They are the new deciders and they amazingly decided with an industry that's recently been giving them all a lot of money. There is one way around this. Elect one of the independent\other party candidates President and give them control of the Justice Dept. by
Samson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 40 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 2:36:11 AM
Ed Encho is a free lance writer, activist and consultant who resides in West Central Florida and author of the upcoming "A Monolithic and Ruthless Conspiracy".
Going Native Now let me say that I have always applauded Mr. Olbermann for his taking on the worst abuses of the fascist Republican party and the Bushreich but this double standard really stinks, and going to a pack of rabid swine like Kos' Cyber Kremlin (he is left wing in the same manner that Stalin was) to set them loose against Greenwald and his principled group is beyond the pale. Then again did anyone really think that the establishment and especially GE would ever allow a critic of the entire rotten system itself to rise to where he had a mass audience? Olbermann is just another 'left' gatekeeper who falls in line despite Obama and the Democrats deplorable cave in to the big money telecoms and the war criminals in the Bush administration. Isn't it about time to put the blame where it really lies - It's the system stupid! EE by
Ed Encho (8 articles, 18 quicklinks, 56 diaries, 394 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 1:21:06 PM
Integrity Matters to Americans Subverting the vote aside, it was Bill Clinton who cost Al Gore the 2000 election, not Ralph Nader. If you'll recall those days, the nation was disgusted by Clinton's seeming inability to tell the truth about anything, no matter how insignificant. Bush was presented as a president who would restore integrity to the White House, and it sold well. The deep-seated hatred of Hillary is there because she, too, is perceived (correctly, I believe) as having little or no integrity. Integrity, or the perception of it, matters to Americans--Obama's behavior so far indicates that he's much too willing to compromise even on basic Constitutional issues. "Weak on integrity" is a far more serious flaw than any "weak on terror" charge that might result from standing his ground on FISA. McCain will exploit that flaw, and he'll have a damned good point. JP by
JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 90 comments)
on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 2:50:20 AM
Jeffersonian democratic republican.
Don't get your hopes up "Integrity, or the perception of it, matters to Americans--" A stroll across the river of the average American voter's understanding of America's government and the travesty it has become would scacely get your feet wet. To be sure, maybe 10% of the populace gets it. The other 90% can be successfully steered. It has always been thus in history. We just got lucky in the USA for a while. The luck has run out and history is proving once again accurate. When presented with candidates of true integrity, who spoke truth that was easily grasped by the audience, and who often by large margins won the polls following the primary debates earlier this year, it was laughably easy for the press to completely bamboozle the voters, successfully steering the outcome. It will come as no surprise when we find that the Democratic primary race was no less managed by the power elite than the Republican. The party of the power elite, the "Republicrats", have things well in hand. And you and I do not. Welcome to the Fascist States of America. And Mr. Obama's vote WAS a cop out, reinforcing my belief in the above. And Mr. Olbermann is not correct. Except maybe for the part about Mr. Dean being so smart. by
wch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 11:09:59 PM
Writer from California
... think about co-producing, keith. by
john de herrera (36 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 158 comments)
on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 9:34:16 PM
Life long Republican supporting Ron Paul.
Very disappointed in Olbermann (and Obama) Closing any avenue to punish lawbreakers (particularly constitutional freedom violators), is essentially treason (subverting the constitution). Every representative that votes for this bill should be turned out of office in their next election, if we can't impeach them sooner. Obama continues to make mis-steps which will hurt him in the election (not that I think that McCrazy should ever get near our nuclear weapons). by
Tyrant (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 9:48:12 PM
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
