I have generally been lenient on Nancy Pelosi, but absolutely she is one person who could prevent this travesty.

She still has a challenge from someone with quite a bit of name recognition, Cindy Sheehan.

I totally agree with the strategy of hammering Hoyer, who I have always thought to be a total scum-bag, but ultimately, Pelosi has the gavel.

Click on my name for an interesting article, one where a journalist actually admits he got it wrong.

Hi,

I'm an Asian graduate student currently living and studying in the US, here on a US Visa. The ActBlue page that was linked to lists some eligibility requirements, including that the contributor be a United States citizen or permanent resident alien. Does this mean that I am not eligible to contribute? I don't understand why such a contribution would fall under campaign finance law, since I don't wish to contribute to anyone's campaign.

-- CarloL

Apparently not, unless you have been "admitted for permanent residence". ActBlue is a Federal PAC.

Lawful Sources of Contributions

All donations to federal candidates or political committees must be either from individuals or committees registered with the FEC. Direct contributions from corporations or labor unions are prohibited, although these entities may sponsor PACs that raise money from individuals. Contributions in cash of more than $100 to PACs are illegal, as are contributions from individuals who are deemed "foreign nationals," i.e., noncitizens who have not been admitted permanently to the United States. However, foreign citizens who are admitted for permanent residence may contribute, even though they cannot vote in an election.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/1007/ijde/baran.htm

Obama probably thinks the GE will be an easy win because Bush is unpopular, Iraq is unpopular, and McCain isn't bright.

So Obama would be playing it safe i.e. not go into any issues that will get the media going over security.

So liberals need to make it unsafe for Obama to play safe. Force him to act now on his future promise.

Don't forget Dems won 2006 on future promise, but didn't deliver.

Glenn, can you get an interview with Obama?

What is wrong with these people? Don't they see how cowardly it is to cut and run from the Constitution? Is money so important to them that they want to be known as enablers for the worst legislative decision in U.S. history? Are their districts so radical right that they couldn't see the necessity of restoring the Constitution and the rule of law and not sacrificing it for their seats and money?

This legislation goes way beyond protecting Americans. In fact, it is all about protecting their and denying our freedom. How dare they even consider such intrusions on privacy, invasions in personal lives, and disrespect for the dignity of citizens? They probably think of what they are doing as being "realistic" but if their view of reality can be bought then of what use is it to voters?

We know that all of the behind the scene's shenanigans serve but a single purpose - to protect them from the law, creating a two tier system of justice in America permitting the most paranoid and cowardly notions of security to dominate. One might suspect that they perceive the American people as the enemy.

Glenn, I said on another thread and I'll repeat here: how about contacting Chris VanHollen [DCCC] and Chuck Schumer [DSCC]? Not to "target" them, but to make each aware a) of the "netroots" deep concern about this issue; and b) of our incredible fund-raising ability [that alone should make them sit up and take notice].

If they get the message that we'll be giving to oppose Blue Dogs and won't be giving $$$ to the DCCC/DSCC, since it might end up in Blue Dogs' coffers, I think this would be a language they understand.

That I could and perhaps should stop using the expression "more and better Democrats" here. It angers some people inexplicably and it is rather misleading because political parties are not ideologies. In point of fact, the more conservative party today, in the original Burkean sense, is the Democratic party. I'm just going to use the terms radical and conservative for our politicians now, until real liberalism reappears. It is much more accurate and descriptive.

Another thing,

To actually get into a position to minimize the influence of money in politics, we have to get people of a mind to do so elected. That would be more and better Democrats. It ain't Ron Paul, (or most "libertarians"). They think all campaign finance laws are unconstitutional and anyone should be allowed to buy a Senator or Congressman, even the presidency.

Wiki:

Campaign contributions

In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.[238]

Electoral college

In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the electoral college, stating that such a reform would weaken the “voting power of pro-liberty states” and that “Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states.

I think that requirement may refer to campaign donations to actual candidates running for office. Since this is not that type of donation it may not apply in this case but you should double check with Glenn tomorrow, or perhaps someone else can clarify this.

So when the Republicans use their vast corporate resources for swiftboat ad campaigns aimed at Barack and Michelle Obama they will just be engaging in some good ole direct action, right?

You are so revolutionary LWM. What would we ever do without you?

-- adnoto

We have to deal with the first amendment, as it has been interpreted vis a vis campaign laws, that we have now, adnoto. Did the framers envision this? Probably not, but they would tread lightly when it came to limiting, abridging or curtailing that right. Of that you can be sure. I could just ask you why you hate the first amendement but I thought I'd try to reason with you first.