As I indicated earlier, I had left a message at each of the three Democratic front runner campaign sites. I received a response from the Obama campaign this evening. It's a little different than the one Paul Dirks posted on his blog What a Country! so I'll reproduce it in its entirety here:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me in support of core constitutional principles, such as support for basic civil liberties and opposition to torture and indefinite imprisonment. I strongly agree with these views and you can see that in my record. As a constitutional lawyer, law professor and public servant, I have been clear, consistent and outspoken in defense of these core principles. And I will work hard to restore our constitutional traditions as president.

This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

My Administration will once again show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. I will also reject indefinite imprisonment without trial and close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

Our Constitution is not a nuisance. It is the foundation of our democracy. I applaud the work you have done to restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government. And I will continue to fight against the assault on our nation’s most treasured document.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

FWIW, my request was specifically that he stand with Senator Dodd and fully participate in efforts to block any legislation that would grant telecom immunity. My request was he invoke the full array of privileges afforded to him as a member of the Senate to accomplish this goal.

Here’s an example of what nonprofit journalism organizations can do. I have liked your idea about forming a nonprofit media organization that would practice the principles of journalism without corporate and conglomeration influence from the first time you posted it several months ago..

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

http://tinyurl.com/2uq47e

Boy Howdy asks when Qwest might have gotten involved with the government on an eavesdropping contract.

Was this going on early in 2001? If so, why?

What was the "national security rationale" for doing this before 9-11, before the twin towers fell?

shooter242, whom I seriously doubt will stick around to go down with the Battleship Potemkin as it is scuttled by all the guys with the big hats and medals (like all the other ratz he'll be pushing all the old ladies and kids off the life rafts) -- has but 1 life to give for his country. Someone else's. Shooter, didn't I meet you on Campus not so long ago?? Playing paintball, bad-mouthing illegal immigrants, supporting the war, but vehemently defending your right NOT to go into the military . . . .

"What's that?? Other priorities?? You're needed on the homefront?? Someone's got to keep the homefires burning??"

Well, shooter, when they come to get you, I'm sure that someone, maybe even one of those danged Un-American commies in the ACLU will stand up for you.

Sheesh, pitiful.

By a remarkable coincidence, some of the exact same talking points are on the front page of the RNC's web site at http://gop.com as of right now, and those same talking points are also featured at http://whitehouse.gov right now, and those same talking points are also in this article in the Springfield, Missouri, News-Leader.

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
/article?AID=/20080122/BREAKING01/80122033

Published January 22, 2008
Bond urges Congressional action on changes to intelligence act

Washington – U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, issued a news release today [...]

[...] “Congress could leave our country unprotected, possibly creating a serious intelligence gap that allows terrorists to use technology to stay one step ahead of us.”

Bond says, “The only responsible action for Congress to take is to pass the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee bill before the Feb. 1 deadline.”

Bond warned “against false claims about threats to Americans’ privacy interests that some liberal Democrats will make over the next week as Congress debates the bill,” the release says.

Bond said “the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee bill goes much further in protecting American civil liberties than the old law.”

- - “The News-Leader” of Springfield, Missouri

Unlike shooter242's line about sacrificing civil liberties and sacrificing the rule of law and sacrificing due process, in exchange for security, the official GOP line is that the GOP and the White House are all about preserving civil liberties and following the law and observing due process.

Senator Bond says the "liberal Democrats" (and Bruce Fein, etc, but nevermind about that) are simply lying about any threat to civil liberties.

Which raise unavoidable questions . . .

Why would they be doing that?

What would motivate such lies?

The weakness in Senator Bond's assertion is that it forces the GOP to assign some motive other than preserving civil liberties to those "liberal Democrats" who oppose the GOP.

So, for instance, Andrew McCarthy, last week at the National Review and this week at Human Events, explains the opposition quite simply: by writing that Chris Dodd & Co. simply want to "shut down intelligence collection" and are a "fifth column" which hates the USA. If one believes McCarthy, then it's only a tiny step farther to be a full-fledged frothing freeper.

And the White House needs those freepers. That's why Bush and Cheney have picnics on the White House lawn for freepers. (See the photos in the archives at freerepublic.com if you think I'm making this up.)

Dana Perino doesn't say such things herself, but her position logically requires Andrew McCarthy to say such absurd things, and without those absurd things, Perino's talking points don't stand up.

It comes down to this: either you believe that Dodd and Feingold hate the USA, or you believe that they're crazy, or you believe that they've got some valid objections to the GOP talking points.

Andrew McCarthy see this quite clearly, so he's spreading the word that the Democrats are traitors.

Your modern "conservative" movement in action: fear and loathing isn't a bug, it's a feature.

When Emerson wrote about the virtues of conservatism, this ain't what he had in mind.