Month: January 2008

Silly Season

Today’s attack video by Clinton on Obama’s movement from supporting a single payer health care system to not supporting a single payer system (which is the position Clinton also holds) makes me wonder if we’re approaching a point where ads like the one above might be made in earnest.

Digby captured the zeitgeist well:

[The Democratic candidates] are nearly identical in terms of policy, all have political gifts and bring something to the table and I find none of the various electability arguments particularly persuasive. Indeed, I believe that the fact they are so similar in all the important ways is one of the reasons everyone is at each other’s throats on this — since there’s no daylight on policy everyone is having to argue their case based on their own emotional connection to the candidate or what the candidate symbolizes, which often devolves into ugly invective. It really does become personal under those circumstances. You can see the result of this in the candidates’ own debate last night. They weren’t really fighting over anything important because they don’t actually disagree about anything important. But they had to fight. It’s an election. Somebody’s got to win.

The attacks will become more petty, vicious, and stupid. How low can they go before this hits rock bottom?

A Short Timeline for the FISA Fight?

Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker has an interesting update on the pending FISA fight.

When [Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid] tried to get a thirty-day extension to that date last month, Republicans blocked it. So this morning he said on the Senate floor that he’d try again. The time pressures are real, he said, and suggested that even if the Senate were to somehow pass a bill, it would be mighty difficult to get it through the House and to the president’s desk before February 1st. The Senate itself will be a high hurdle, with Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) filibustering over a retroactive immunity provision on the one hand and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) saying that the authority for warrantless wiretapping stems from the Constitution on the other.

Reid is apparently looking for a brief extension of the poorly-named Protect America Act, solely for the purpose of having an easier legislative calendar to work with. The Republicans don’t seem anxious to work with Reid on this, as they are content to try to ram a bad bill through while holding Democrats over the barrel with accusations of being soft on terrorism. Nowhere to be seen in the back and forth of media statements is upholding the rule of law and protecting Americans’ civil liberties.

It looks like the FISA fight will begin later this week or next week, though today’s news makes it look like the debate will be limited by the February 1st expiration of PAA. This is only bad if the Senate continues on its course of trying to pass the bad legislation that came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Big telecom companies partnered with the Bush administration to violate untold numbers of Americans’ privacy. Information and wiretaps were handed over without warrant. It strikes me that the best solution would be one that hastily rights the wrongs done by these companies and their allies in the White House, rather than a course of action that rushes through another bad bill with minimal debate in the Senate.

Update:

Here’s a statement from Reid’s office on the GOP rejecting an effort to extend the PAA on month to allow for further negotiations.

“Democrats today offered a one-month extension of the FISA bill so that Congress has the time it needs to debate legislation that improves our nation’s ability to fight terrorism while protecting Americans’ civil liberties.  I am disappointed that Republicans have objected to that extension.

“We are committed to giving our intelligence professionals the tools they need to make America more secure.  The minority’s obstruction is an irresponsible way to approach national security legislation.”

Cross posted at CREDO Blog.

Disclosure: I have joined the CREDO Mobile team to stop the Bush administration’s illegal wiretapping program and hold the telecom companies accountable for their lawbreaking.

Taking Action on FISA

Credo Action has launched an action alert to their members, asking them to contact Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain to request that they come off of the campaign trail to stop bad FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity. (Full disclosure: I am consulting for Credo Action / Working Assets on their FISA campaign.) It’s time to call on these candidates to make defending the Constitution a greater priority than presidential politics.

Take action through Credo’s action page.

The request on Clinton, Obama, and McCain is not an unreasonable one. They claim to be leaders and they seek to hold our highest office. They should be willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that before they take the oath of the presidency, they honor their oaths as senators to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Given that we are in a political season and the request we make is for these presidential candidates to leave the campaign trail has political implications, it is worth noting that Americans are strongly opposed to warrantless surveillance and retroactive immunity. New polling out from the Mellman Group shows that at a rate of two to one Americans want the government to get a warrant before tapping Americans’ international calls. At almost the same rates and with a majority across the political spectrum, Americans are opposed to blanket warrants. And 57% of Americans oppose giving the telecom companies immunity.

Returning to Washington to stop retroactive immunity isn’t just the right thing to do, it’s a politically popular position.

Single Payer Health Care

This video put out by the Clinton campaign hits Barack Obama for moving to the right on health care and not supporting a single payer system now, despite supporting one in 2003.

A logical question that this attack by Clinton on Obama for not supporting a single payer system would be: Is Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal a single payer system?

The answer: No, of course it’s not.

In fact, the link to her health care plan in her issues drop down is “Providing Affordable & Accessible Health Care.” Which could be described as a 300 million payer system.

I’m happy to acknowledge that Clinton has put forward a health care proposal that is somewhat more comprehensive than Barack Obama’s. But it isn’t a single payer system. And while Obama may have moved to the right since 2003 on health care, both Clinton and Obama are in the wrong place on the single payer issue.

In reality, this video is an attack on Obama not on substance, but on changing his position…to the same position as Clinton. It’s cute and well edited and, in the end, a trivial charge (flip-flopping) that only highlights Clinton’s similar wrongness on single payer health care.

Writers, Who Needs ‘Em?

Via Paddy at Cliff Schecter’s blog.

I was actually just talking with a friend last night about how remarkably funny the videos the WGA has put out during the course of their strike. They’ve almost all been significantly more funny and creative than anything you see on TV, which is a pretty clear statement about how destructive editorial control by TV executives and producers is on the creative process. Frankly, if the writers had final say in what the content of their shows was, I’d probably end up watching a lot more TV.

Also, it’s great to continue to see so many prominent actors stand with the WGA and support their efforts to inform the public about what’s going on in Hollywood.

A Bad Name

Barack Obama, in last night’s debate, speaking about President Bush and VP Cheney:

“The one good thing that they have done for us is that they have given their party a very bad name.”

Yes. Maybe Obama gets it after all.  Then again, his praising Ronald Reagan and calling the GOP the party of ideas tends to give Republicans a good name.

Let’s just hope the Bush/Cheney line is something we see more of and the awful week of Obama’s GOP praise-fest can be left behind, never to be repeated.

MLK Day

I went to high school in New Hampshire, one of the last states to honor MLK Day as a holiday. As a result of the state’s sad history of not honoring the fallen civil rights leader, my private high school had a tradition of not holding classes in honor of Martin Luther King Day and instead using the day to hold workshops on what I’d broadly describe as diversity issues. Subjects ranged from on campus ethnic tensions to gay rights to how Title IX works and so on.

One of the workshops I attended my senior year was facilitated by a representative from Students for a Free Tibet and was about the modern history of Tibet, the invasion by Mao’s Red Army in 1949-1950, and the subsequent fifty years of China’s military occupation of Tibet. The talk was given by Lhadon Tethong, then SFT’s Programs Director, but now SFT’s Executive Director. She’s a Canadian Tibetan, having been born in exile and grown up in and around Tibetan refugee communities, hearing stories from her family about Tibet, the Chinese occupation, and what it means to be a Tibetan patriot. These are the stories she told us on Martin Luther King Day in January, 2000 and something in me clicked.

Maybe it was that I hadn’t had the opportunity to think about Tibet in a full and authentic way before. Maybe I just was ready to give myself to a worthy cause — despite dabbling in work with environmental protection, the homeless, and anti-death penalty campaigning, I’d never found myself fully invested in a movement. Maybe it was hearing an impassioned, educated, clear call for help for the Tibetan people by a Tibetan (and not, say Richard Gere or Steven Seagal). Whatever the case, I was convinced.

I immediately got involved in my high school’s SFT chapter and before I new it I was participating in a relay hunger fast, helping fundraise for SFT’s international headquarters, interning at SFT’s office in New York, and taking part in protests outside the World Bank. I found it easy to devote myself to a cause that I saw as true and just and right. The Tibetan people in exile and inside Tibet needed help amplifying their voice for independence. I would do what I could to make it possible.

I started working for Students for a Free Tibet in a full time capacity in the spring of 2005. I worked for two full years doing operations and communications work before leaving to join the Dodd campaign. I’ve remained in close contact with my friends and coworkers from the Tibet movement and have no doubt that I will continue to work towards Tibetan independence as long as I have to until Tibet is free.

I say all of this and am reminded that my eight years working in support of Tibetan independence started as part of a celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s life. I believe people have a right not to be treated as second class citizens, not to be silenced, not to have their religious beliefs banned or limited, and not to be imprisoned for voicing their opposition to a harsh military dictatorship. These are not extreme positions to hold, but ones steeped in democracy and respect for the rule of law. I believe this is work closely in line with the example set by Dr. King.

Taking Down AT&T

BoingBoing Gadgets is one of my favorite non-political blogs. Joel Johnson, the primary author of BoingBoing Gadgets, did an appearance on an AT&T owned and distributed talk show in which he spoke out and tried to get the somewhat flummoxed host to address the merits of AT&T’s recently announced plans to filter the content of all internet traffic for copyrighted or illegal or immoral material. Johnson’s full post is here.

This is a great example of someone taking the opportunity to speak when they find themselves in front of a microphone. That’s exactly what Johnson did:

The staff circled me just off-stage after the first shoot. “You realize Hugh doesn’t actually work for AT&T, right? He can’t speak for AT&T.” I told them I understood, but reminded them the entire production is underwritten and broadcast exclusively by AT&T.

That’s the point—I wasn’t being a twerp just for the sake of being one. This is a critically important issue, one that deserves as much attention as can be drawn to it, especially in a venue where AT&T and its customers are sure to listen. And as the reaction of the crowd to my questions showed, no one wants AT&T rifling around in their communications. The only way to stop them from doing so is to speak up whenever we have the chance.

I hope you’re paying attention, Senators Obama and Clinton.

For more info on AT&T’s plans to filter the internet, read Brad Reed’s piece at Network World and Thomas Mennecke’s interview of AT&T exec James Cicconi for Slyck News.

Giuliani Is Done

Regardless of any Waterloo-like stands in Florida, Rudy Giuliani is done. Why? Because his “momentum-proof” tri-state area firewall is gone, as best signified by the fact that Giuliani is now significantly behind John McCain in New York, according to the Sienna poll. Trend in parentheses (PDF link).

McCain: 36% (15%)

Giuliani: 24% (48%)

Romney: 10% (7%)

It gets worse: Last month, Giuliani was up 33% on McCain in the Sienna poll. That’s right, there was a 45% swing in New York state against Rudy Giuliani in one month. New York Republicans don’t even like Giuliani any more:

For the first time in a Siena poll, Giuliani had a higher unfavorable rate _ 48 percent _ than favorable just six years after the Sept. 11 attacks. McCain was viewed favorably by 56 percent of New Yorkers.

Another NY poll out today from Marist gives McCain an even bigger lead: 34% to 19%.

Giuliani campaign manager Mike DuHaime had previously called Giuliani’s leads in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut “momentum proof.”

“Some of those leads are momentum-proof at this point,” he said. He stressed Giuliani’s margins in the New York tri-state area of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut versus what he called Romney’s “precarious” lead in New Hampshire where he is known, having been governor of neighboring Massachusetts.

Giuliani now trails in New York (by 12-15%), New Jersey (by 2-4%), Connecticut (by 23%), and Pennsylvania (by 16%), another February 5th neighbor to New York.

If Giuliani is going to lose badly in New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania, and likely lose in New Jersey as well, he has no base of support. His only hope is in Florida.

So, how does Florida look for Rudy? Not good – he trails in every poll that’s come out in the last ten days save one, which shows a statistical tie. The Insider Advantage poll from last Thursday showed Giuliani with a one point lead over McCain and Romney. The Rasmussen poll out today has him down five to Romney.

As I said above, Rudy Giuliani is done.

Cross posted at The Right’s Field

I Don’t Care If It’s Hard

Tristero, writing at Hullabaloo, has a different take on Krugman’s column today on Obama and reminding people that Republicans are wrong:

Krugman’s final point is that all the Dem candidates are missing an excellent opportunity to debunk the rightwing myths that have made it so difficult for liberal, Democratic, and even moderate candidates to wield national influence. I think that is absolutely true. But that is far more difficult for a serious national candidate to do than it is to say. Let’s not forget that in Krugman’s own paper serious people don’t include those favoring withdrawal from Iraq. That means that most of the world, including its political and cultural leaders, do not hold realistic-enough views on Iraq to be worthy of Mr. Gordon’s keen attention.

In other words, the “acceptable” mainstream discourse really is, as the liberal blogosphere has argued since time immemorial, incredibly restricted. It is doubtful that any potential candidate who criticized St. Ron of Hollywood would ever be granted the standing the press has willingly accorded the less-than-worthless Huckabee. To criticize Reagan is the height of unseriousness.

Of course, I’m not saying that’s appropriate. I’m saying that is how corrupted and claustrophobic our public discourse has become. I don’t think any candidate who dared to bash Reagan would receive that much coverage – good, bad, or indifferent. S/he’d be ignored. [emphasis added]

As I see it, Tristero’s point is that criticizing Obama for not taking his unique opportunity as a presidential candidate to reshape how America thinks about the Reagan years is unfair because while Obama should do this, he might lose his veneer of seriousness with the press if it did so. A less charitable reading of this would be that speaking truth to power is hard, so Obama is justified for not doing it. I’m glad Tristero isn’t saying that this is “appropriate,” because I think it’s an awful way for a leader to assess how and when he speaks on a subject.

I think Tristero is probably right about the negative response any criticism of Reagan would receive from the press. But stepping back from the blogger argument about how the media Heathers decide what’s OK and not OK for people to say before they wander off into Kucinich land, I think our concern in this instance should be focused more on the power that a “serious national candidate” has to do and say things that challenge conventional wisdom.

If Barack Obama can’t stand up and speak out on Reagan with his unique platform as a front-running presidential candidate, who ever will be able to? The standards of decorum usually prevent sitting presidents from bashing previous presidents, so don’t expect any ground changing critique of Reagan to come from Obama once he’s in office.

All I’m looking for – and I think Krugman, too – is leadership from Obama. We have a whopping two people in this country that we as progressives and Democrats can hang our hats on to see change brought at the highest levels. Asking Obama and Clinton to act like leaders is not a huge request to put at the feet of people who aim to lead our whole country.

Yesterday Obama proved that he is capable of speaking truth to an audience that may not receive it well. Pam Spaulding at her blog and Stephanie Hunt in the comment here, among others, have suggested that doing so could actually hurt Obama’s chances to win votes in South Carolina. That is as tangible a consequence, if it materializes, as facing a skeptical press.

Tristero is right, there is risk to challenging the conventional wisdom about Ronald Reagan, most of which plays out in how the press will respond to such heresy. But asking someone who purports to be a transformational leader to actually stand up and lead in a transformational way is not only a reasonable request, but a predictable one. Being a leader means doing hard things because they’re the right thing to do and effectively no one else in America has been afforded the same set of tools to speak out on an issue.

I fundamentally disagree with Tristero that it is “far more difficult for a serious national candidate to do than it is to say.” Sure, there will be blowback, but we’re talking about someone who wants to be President of the United States. A national candidate has the microphone needed to say something on a subject that changes the way people think about that issue. A House or Senate candidate can’t do that. Obama has a legion of press that record and replay every word he utters. Every statement or criticism of a bold faced name by Obama becomes a swirling media story that commands attention. If there is someone better suited to challenge the status quo and have the country listen than Barack Obama, I look forward to finding out who that person is.