2008 archive

Glenn Greenwald:

In order to satisfy the right-wing extremists he now needs, McCain — who only six months ago was giving answers on spying and executive power that were exactly the same as though expressed by the ACLU, Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd — is now spouting theories of the Omnipotent President virtually equivalent to those used by John Yoo, David Addington and Dick Cheney over the last seven years to impose radical changes in how our Government functions. How far McCain has shifted is reflected by the fact that, in the December questionnaire, he said he would never use signing statements under any circumstances — a commitment not even Obama or Clinton would make. A speech McCain delivered to the Federalist Society a few weeks ago presaged this reversal, but yesterday’s statement leaves no doubt that McCain is now explicitly embracing the Bush administration’s most radical executive power theories.

The bulk of the Bush controversies over the last seven years are grounded in the Bush/Cheney view of executive power: that when it comes to national security, war and foreign policy (so broadly defined that it even includes what the Government does to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil), nothing can constrain what the President does — not even laws enacted by the American people through their Congress. John McCain is now embracing those extremist theories in full. The only difficult question is to decide what’s more disturbing: that McCain switches positions so quickly and completely on such fundamental questions, or that he is now espousing a view of presidential power that has fueled the radicalism and lawlessness of the last seven years?

A couple of weeks ago, I found my copy of Green and Gold. That was the directory of incoming freshmen that rising sophomores at my college prepared. We freshman received it when we arrived for orientation.

Second Son was looking at it yesterday. One thing he remarked on (in addition to the freaky haircuts and funny clothes you will see in high school senior portraits from the late 1960’s) was the very small number of black persons, maybe three or four–we called them “colored” or “Negroes” back then–in the incoming class of about 700
persons.

I pointed out to him that, just a few years before, the college had been all white.

Fortunately, he is from a new generation. He doesn’t care about color.

Will Bunch’s post on Senator Obama’s achievement is just too good–and for those or us who lived through it, black, white, yellow, red, or purple, too true–to ignore.

Addendum, a Few Minutes Later:

Dick Polman has more:

When Obama was born on August 4, 1961, southern blacks could not sit with white patrons at lunch counters, or drink from the same water fountains, or use the same public toilets, or sit where they wanted on buses. They were routinely denied the right to vote. Civil rights workers known as Freedom Riders, who rode buses across state lines to protest segregation in transportation, were often dragged from the vehicles that spring and summer, and beaten with tire irons. Even accomplished black citizens got little respect; when NAACP lawyer Thurgood Marshall met that spring with attorney general Robert Kennedy to discuss the possibility of being nominated for a federal appeals court seat, RFK told him, “That’s the problem with you people. You want too much too fast.”

After all, they keep attacking it. In a column about Dick Cheney’s “joke” about West Virginia, the New York Times points out

Of course, these swipes at parts of the United States have become something of a pattern within the Republican Party — Ms. Capito’s comments not withstanding.

One of the first pages in the Republican playbook these days is to run against “San Francisco values.” This campaign cycle, in Missouri, Republican Congressman Sam Graves is already using the phrase in television commercials against his Democratic opponent.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, President Bush took a swipe at Hollywood.

Massachusetts is also a frequent target. A few years ago, then-Senator Rick Santorum, commenting on the Catholic Church sex scandal, said it was “no suprise” there were revelations coming out of Boston, because it was a liberal bastion.

Attacks on New York used to be common. They seem to have declined in recent years — perhaps as a reaction to Sept. 11, perhaps because San Francisco and Hollywood are glitzier targets.

I’ve mentioned my qualms about Senator Clinton on several occasions. I have been taken aback by a number of things that she and official spokespersons for her campaign have said and done.

Nevertheless, some of her supporters have, as far as I can tell, frankly fallen off the edge of reality, weaving themselves a fabric of fantasy, lies, delusion (remember delusion?), sometimes with very nasty overtones of the vilest racism.

(Aside: Senator Clinton, of course, is not responsible for the conduct of individuals who support her, but are not part of her campaign, though it can be argued that some of her campaign’s tactics and claims have helped create an atmosphere in which such comments could be seen as legitimate.)

Phillybits has been following one such story with dogged determination. The story is of some significance, since it has already surfaced on the wingnut version of Pravda Fox News (see Phillybits for a discussion of this).

Now the Booman appears to have the scoop.

I have met the Booman. I seriously doubt that he would have published this unless he had the goods.

Addendum, Later That Same Morning:

John Cole has more.

After the 2004 Republican convention, the Daily Kos and Atrios, two political blogs, began posting Drinking Liberally meeting times on their sites. By the time Election Day rolled around, 16 new chapters had sprung up.

(snip)

Baratunde Thurston, 30, a stand-up comedian, performs around New York City with Laughing Liberally.

“After the 2004 election, Drinking Liberally meetings were like a support group,” said Mr. Thurston, who was a co-host of the Boston chapter at the time. “There were a lot of questions: ‘What happened? How could fellow Americans re-elect this man? How exactly do you move to Canada?’ In 2006, the mood started changing from pity party to newfound hope regarding the midterm elections. Local politicians would come by and make their pitches. We did joint events with human-rights groups and abortion-rights groups. It was like a swap meet of liberalism.”

Be a part of the legend.

Tangier Restaurant, 18th and Lombard, Philadelphia, 6 p. m. to 9 p. m. Tuesday.

Link via Atrios.

Kathleen Parker’s take: Scottie McClelland not only is dishonorable for being late to the game, he also needs to stop snitchin’ (emphasis added):

The honorable man knows what to do when he believes the president is lying about something as serious as the need for war. An honorable man quits his job rather than be complicit in fatal fraud. He stops the lie in its tracks and heads straight to the nation’s newsrooms. Immediately. Not after he’s left. But McClellan didn’t do that. Instead, he warmed himself by the glow of the inner circle and stood before the nation as a bumbling, inept spokesman, saying nothing repeatedly – and badly.

Unfortunately for the short, unhappy political life of Scott McClellan, the boy who squealed all the way home may be stuck with the title after all. Because no matter how sweet the revenge, on the playground, the snitch is trusted by no one.

Guess her take on the situation is appropriate, given the mafia-esque “we’re doing what we want and to hell with principles, morals, and the Constitution” culture of the Current Federal Administration.

A Clinton’s a two face, a worrisome thing,
that will lead you to sing the blues in the night.

Donna Brazile cuts to the quick. Play by the rules:

Donna Brazile’s statement on her website here.

Video via Kos.

Donna Brazile link via DelawareLiberal.