There are some days when I wonder if it wouldn’t be more satisfying to throw my computer at a brick wall than continue to inform myself of the Bush administration’s march away from democracy, the legislature’s commitment to doing nothing to stymie these activities, and the media’s refusal to treat any of this as worthy of national attention.
After reading Glenn Greenwald’s recap of Attorney General Mukasey’s testimony before the Senate, I’m leaning towards the computer-at-wall option.
The Drum Major Institute, a progressive think tank, has posted their response to Bush’s State of the Union address (Full disclosure: I’m a member in DMI’s Netroots Advisory Council). Here’s a clip from their section on FISA and retroactive immunity.
“Establishing after-the-fact that it was acceptable for telecommunications companies to break the law and spy on American citizens has nothing to do with protection from terrorism, but everything to do with shielding powerful corporations from accountability for their actions. Granting retroactive immunity in this case would set a dangerous precedent for corporations to trample the rights of middle-class Americans.”
There’s much more on immunity at the link above. To read the full report, which touches on the economy, education, health care, and other issues from Bush’s speech last night, click here.
Last night I watched the State of the Union at a Living Liberally event in NYC. There were probably between 150-200 people there, including about a dozen Young Republicans. It was a very vocal crowd, with a lot of hoots, hollers, insults, and rebuttals thrown at President Bush with each spurious claim he made.
What was incredibly interesting is that the lines of the speech that got the loudest boos and shouts was Bush’s lines on retroactive immunity and the Protect America Act.
This is remarkable in large part because the press has not covered this debate in any detail. The traditional media has not called out the Bush administration for why it wants retroactive immunity for the big telecoms, nor the impact of what immunity would have on the rule of law. Nonetheless, the people in this room and people around the country know the stakes in this fight. The American people recognize that the Bush administration’s assault on the rule of law could have a greater negative impact than anything else — more than the war in Iraq, more than the disastrous Bush economy.
It’s reassuring to know that even if the Republican Party, many elected Democrats, and most of the media voices that could draw attention to these critical issues don’t care much for the defense of the Constitution, the American people do.
Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.
Stirling Newberry of The Agonist has a response post to Bush’s State of the Union that infinitely exceeds anything I saw last night from Democratic elected officials and candidates. Newberry’s post is really an early history of the impact Bush has had on America and America’s standing in the world. To call it damning would be an understatement of its power and pointedness.
I’m off to a State of the Union watch party. Last year, I posted a copy of Patrick Bateman’s State of the Union style speech from American Psycho at my old blog, Emboldened. Take a peek if you aren’t satisfied with our non-fictional sociopath’s speech tonight…
Speaking of Kathleen Sebelius giving this year’s State of the Union response, it’s worth highlighting Jim Webb’s response last year. Webb’s speech was infinitely better than Bush’s that night, a rare feat even in the mediocrity of the Bush administration. It was arguably the best speech I’ve seen a Democrat give on the national stage since Barack Obama’s keynote at the DNC in 2004. Webb was especially strong when he was hitting on populist economic themes and offering a devastating critique of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq.
The text of Webb’s speech can be read here.
PS — Webb/Tester or Tester/Webb 2012 (or 2016)!
Imagine what the press would have done if Bill Clinton did stand up comedy routines in 1998 about Monica Lewinsky or Whitewater. Think Progress reports:
At the Alfalfa Club dinner on Saturday night, President Bush made light of Vice President Cheney’s penchant for secrecy while joking about Jenna Bush’s bridal shower earlier that day. “My sister Doro had a wedding shower for Jenna, who got lots of great stuff,” joked Bush. “Mom gave her a toaster. Karen Hughes gave her a Cuisinart. Dick [Cheney] here sent over a gift I could tell he’d picked out personally…a paper shredder.”
The message is clear: It’s OK for a Republican to joke about his vice president’s secrecy in contravention to the Constitution and health of these United States, just so long as it’s done in the comfortable surroundings of Washington’s wealth political elites, with the media elites pressing their ears against the door, hoping to hang out with the cool kids at the after party.
Who am I kidding… Bush would be given a pass by the media even if he dropped this joke into tonight’s State of the Union address.
KURTZ: But in a sense, the Bush administration has been very, very good for Keith Olbermann.
OLBERMANN: Honestly? No. I’m an American citizen, I think this has been a disastrous presidential administration. I would have given what I have, in terms broadcasting success in the nature of this newscast, I would have easily said…if I were given the choice of this or some responsible presidency in the last four years or eight years? I would have taken a responsible presidency.
I agree.
I probably wouldn’t be a blogger today if George W. Bush hadn’t been re-elected in November, 2004. I started blogging about a month later with some friends at The Baltimore Group (later renamed Emboldened). Blogging has brought me a great many opportunities, including the chance to work for Chris Dodd and his presidential campaign. And while I can’t say that I’ve benefited in as high profile or lucrative a way Keith Olbermann may have over the course of the Bush administration, I’d be much happier if we were living in a healthy democracy where peace and prosperity held the day.
Hopefully the next administration will be better than the last and there won’t be the need for people like me to continue to work for a more progressive America because it will have been achieved. I’m not optimistic.
Harry Reid responds to President Bush’s threat to veto a 30 day extension to the Protect America Act. Here’s Reid’s statement via email:
The White House threat to veto a short extension of the Protect America Act is shamefully irresponsible. The President is simply posturing in advance of Monday’s State of the Union address.
When it comes to providing a strong long-term Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill, Democrats in Congress are focused on solutions, while Republicans are obviously playing politics.
The House has already passed a FISA bill, and the Senate was ready to pass its own bill until Republicans blocked all amendments. At the same time, Democrats are ready to extend current law for as long as necessary, but Republicans are blocking that extension and the White House is threatening a veto.
It is shenanigans like this that make Americans so eager for change. We hope the American public will remember these Republican stunts when they go to the polling booth this November.
In any event, current law ensures that no ongoing collection activity will be cut off on February 1. There will be no terrorism intelligence collection gap. But if there is any problem, the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress.
I can’t recall the last time a Senator used the word shenanigans in a press release. I’m quite comfortable with its use here.
This video is from this past fall, but remains a pretty good encapsulation of the arguments being put forth by George W. Bush and his Republican pals in the Senate.
You can expect much of President Bush’s State of the Union address to sound like this.
Hold Fast 