Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith goes to Washington” was released way before my time. In fact, I never saw the film until I watched it with my daughter last year on DVD (she was learning about filibusters in her High School Government Class). We both watched in awe as James Stewart (Mr. Smith, the junior Senator from Illinois) stood on the Senate floor and spoke truth to the American people against formidable odds, including the powerful Taylor business group and the efforts of senior Senator Paine (who was already in the pocket of the Taylor machine). Needless to say, Mr. Smith won out in the end (Only in Hollywood). However, the point I’m trying to make is that even though this fictional story takes place 70 years ago, the corporate greed issues that were being addressed then were just as real then as they are today.

Today we have the Taylor machine (Telecoms) coupled with insider Senator Paine support (Rockefeller and others) presenting an issue which is completely opposed to the democratic principals of this country (Telecom immunity). We know that the junior Senator from Illinois has the oratorical capabilities to take Frank Capra’s fictional character to a new (real) historical level. Will he rise to the occasion?

And I've come to the conclusion that there is no really *serious* infraction against the Constitution that has been fully investigated by either party since Nixon was forced from office.

And we know damn well that such infractions have taken place.

Nixon being forced from office was an immense shock to the political system and the politicians have decided that such a thing will not happen again.

I've become convinced that the Clinton impeachment was Kabuki also. The outcome was preordained and the purpose was to make impeachment of any future president all but impossible.

"Listening to this "debate" is enough to make one become a revolutionary."

Actually, Glenn, the time may be approaching when revolution becomes the appropriate response to those intent on stealing our Constitutional heritage. Based on the thought that the prospect of hanging clarifies the mind, I can't help thinking that hanging a few Rockefellers and a few Republicans might focus attention on how much of a threat is posed, both by the turncoats who identify themselves as Democrats and the carriers of the disease known as Republicanism.

I'm not a big fan of "If you're not with us, you're against us", but, in this case, that's just the truth.

I've been saved by my son who just hauled a pickup truck of sawdust from the Lady near bye who boards 60-horses. Honest.

Unfortunately, while he pitchforks and unloads with a shovel the mulch for 88-blueberry bushes...

...I'll sit on a tree stump and mumble cuss words I make up.

My head will be shaking with disgust.

If there was a herd of good moo cows,

I'd barter a manure deal for posterity.

Yes. My respect!

&*$%@! got that?!

It's just to say, smile,

'Anh you em' and gracious.

We will all be dead one day!

adios. merci. ^%$#@!

@James Levy, January 24, 2008 06:32 AM:

"They [Nationalist Liberals] are four-square for American hegemony, and whatever it takes to maintain and extend that hegemony. They still want to 'create opportunity' in the economy and would like all citizens, even women and gays!, to have some rights, but their bottom-line commitment is to American military and corporate power and its extension around the globe. And that is why the crimes of Bush will remain unrevealed--to reveal them would force the Dems to repudiate the means by which our (sic) wealth and power are perpetuated. That they will not do" (emphasis added).

These are laudably accurate observations regarding most Demokrats, with the exception of of the word "our" in "...the means by which our wealth and power are perpetuated."

I suggest that it is more accurate to say "their" wealth and power.

The increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of fewer and fewer US citizens with each passing year is the very essence of the Amerikan oligarchy.

See, for example, Kevin Phillips' Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich.

As one reviewer notes, Phillips "explores how the rich and politically powerful have frequently worked together to create or perpetuate privilege, often at the expense of the national interest and usually at the expense of the middle and lower classes.With intriguing chapters on history and bold analysis of present-day America, Phillips illuminates the dangerous politics that go with excessive concentration of wealth. (my emphasis).

We are witnessing such "dangerous politics" in the contemporary collusion of the two major parties to hide from view a major instance of the self-serving machinations of the corporatized government, illegal telecom-government surveillance of the Amerikan people.

KR

Rockfeller is not talking about Dems vs Repubs when he uses "we" Glenn, he is talking about the elite versus us rabble (you know, all the rest of Americans.) This is the corporate moneyed Congress conflicting with the ever weakened people powered section of Congress. By talking about victory and using "Us vs. Them", he is talking about shutting down the pesky bloggers, the goddamn activists, and the filthy concerned citizens that have so far introduced enough sunlight on this issue to make it stall.

The days of Dem vs. Repub are dying in true, but Commoners vs. Elites is far from over. Partisanship is just another word for muddying the true issues at play.

I've written three polite letters to my senators, Rockefeller and Byrd, over the past 4 to 6 months or so regarding telecom immunity and my concerns that have been heavily influenced by Glenn's posts. Byrd sent me back a equally polite, "I'm looking into it. Thanks for your feedback. I'll take it into consideration, etc." Rockefeller's office never responded or even acknowledged that they received my letters.

While I'm sure that Sen. Rockefeller will be re-elected by a large majority in 2008, I will never vote for him again.

Ah, yes, I understand the sentiment. However, it is easy to get caught up in the current apoplexy-inducing times while failing to realize there have been others.

The difference is that the state now has at its disposal technological tools to do what was previously impossible. Total surveillance of ALL people ALL the time. Worse, it is setup to be handled largely by computers that are improperly programed to call "out of mainstream" or "out of DC-acceptable" political views as terroristic. Opposed to the Iraq war? You are a possible terrorist and subject to constant spying. Opposed to the corporations that run the country? You are a possible terrorist and subject to constant spying. You are opposed to righwing attempts to force Jesus down your throat? You are a possible terrorist and subject to constant spying.

The closest that any country has managed to get to an over-arching full-scale surveillance of citizens is former East Germany with its Stasi. To do it required a LOT of actual living, breathing spies to watch those around them and make notes. Now, with the technology available, this same thing can be done (and to a large extent IS being done) with a fraction of the number of living, breathing criminal fascist monsters doing the spying. Computers. Databases. AI. Cameras all over the place. Face recognition software. All of it was unavailable even 10 years ago.

This time we see the start of a period wherein the attack and destruction of liberty and freedom becomes permanent because it is just so easy to pull off now. The door to that realm must be slammed shut and not even allowed to open a crack. THIS time, once liberty is gone it is possible that it will never come back. The tools to predict, respond, and identify ALL actors fighting for liberty are in the hands of the fascists. That is the danger here.

I suggest you read "No Place to Hide" by Robert O Harrow. He goes into great detail the construction of the surveillance police state we are now entering. The government is taking advantage of spying powers available to corporations (which they NEVER should have been permitted), powers that are becoming ubiquitous and impossible to avoid, to do their dirty work. They gain from the unregulated and wild west of corporate spying on citizens without having to worry about pesky warrants. They are outsourcing the Police State.