Must be watched.

Very relevant to everything here.

Bill Moyers : Jane Mayer, Sen. Fritz Hollings

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

Anyone know more about this? Or is this alarmist?

http://www.gregpalast.com/obama-doesn%E2%80%99t-sweat-he-should/

or click on sig.

"In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color.

In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters.

In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.

In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure."

...require audio comments :)

We deserve better after the destruction of the Bush years and we aren't getting it...

What have we done to deserve better? Why of all people in the world, we are privileged to deserve something better?

Those who diverge from absolute Party loyalty are Stalinists.

Then we're all Stalinists on this board. I think we're historically necessary to beat the Trotskyite neocons :).

My question is why would you treat a Presidential candidate so differently from a Blue-Dog Congressman? Why give Obama a pass on some of the most important issues that you and many others (basically the entire "no telecom immunity coalition" hold as core values? If, instead of Obama, the presumed nominee were Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, and one of them as the nominee had reversed himself as thoroughly as Obama did on his FISA vote, wouldn't you be campaging hard for some other alternative?

1. Congressmen are fungible. The President is not.

2. I'm all for primary challenges and vote for the better candidate in the primary. I'm all for also voting for the better person in the general elections - even if the best person did not win the primary.

I, for one, am not looking for ideological purity. Like in any engineering discipline, our representatives have to balance many competing values. I expect my representatives to be honest, though, when they make compromises. I also expect them not to compromise on fundamental principles when it is not necessary to do so (winning at any cost is not a necessity). Losing battles but winning wars is acceptable.

On FISA, what was most insulting about Obama's vote was the justification he issued for his vote and the lame lies various of his supporters made.

THIS IS SATIRE

Wink, wink :)

On Wednesday at 4:15 pm EST until about 5:30 pm, I will be chairing a meeting at the New America Foundation featuring former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former AT&T Broadband CEO and Obama economic advisor Leo Hindery.

The above is a quote from thewashingtonnote.com. I suppose Leo Hindery would be one more reason why Obama voted the way he did on FISA.

The Bush Administration allowed "enhanced interrogation techniques" based on DOJ opinion that it was legal. And he reauthorized a highly illegal surveillance program despite DOJ telling him it was illegal; i.e., DOJ advise is merely a fig leaf.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/315868_wiretap16.html

(or click on sig)

when Comey objected, Bush said fix it to your satisfaction. Sounds pretty law abiding to me, don't you think?

Because that isn't what happened. The DOJ told Bush the surveillance program was illegal, and Bush renewed it anyway. It was after that that Comey, etc., threatened to resign.

The depressing corollary of the Shorrock interview is that what a huge constituency we now have that is positively interested in there being permanent threats to the United States.

New meaning to separation of Church and State. :)

Now that Jonathan Chait's credentials as someone who cannot own up to the truth have been established, how do we get him to where he is ignored?

GG, thanks for informing us, reminding us, of this. It is very important, I think.

billmon points out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/1/21530/45120/924/560478

or click on signature for link

Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy Seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Think Progress

July 31, 2008

It is not beyond impossibility that the anthrax scare was considered to be acceptable by Cheney's office.