You're right that the Constitution is fuzzy on the point of exactly what is required for a pardon. However, common sense says that an "offense" must be reasonably well defined for a pardon to be executed. For example, if Karl Rove were to be accused of witchcraft, a pardon might be impossible, because the offense does not legally exist (outside certain small towns in New England). Am I right in thinking that?

In this case, it seems to me that a pardon could be crafted to excuse a narrow class of entities from a narrow class of offenses, even without specific charges, let alone a conviction. And it could be general enough that no charges could then ever be brought against those entities for any 4th Amendment-violation-related action.

But I dunno. Is there precedent for pre-charge pardons?

In about 10 minutes this morning (approx 9:00 AM to 9:10 AM EST) the membership went from 4150 to 4162.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

We want to show the Democratic politicians the consequences of playing loose with our civil liberties; money in the ACTBlue FISA PAC is one way; giving an estimate to the Obama campaign of how much support will be disappointed/fall away if this FISA bill passes is another way.

None of what we're doing is perfect; and it is all of likely little influence. Nevertheless, I think it is worth doing.

If it is in our power to create internet avalanches for the things that matter - let us do that.

IF you ever considered seriously supporting Obama, then I think it is appropriate to sign up for the group (click on sig).

Thank you. WHO stands to gain and WHO stands to lose and WHY are the pertinent questions.

Does anyone have a list of what telecoms are in question, and what districts/states their headquarters are located in?

Setting aside for a moment the traditional post-primary move-to the "center" question, which clearly is a strategic issue and reveals more about the beliefs of Democratic consultants than it does about those of Democrats (politicians and voters):

Is it possible that the Dems do have a rough consensus about a few things, and the center of gravity of this consensus is well to the right of (or more corporatist than) traditional liberalism (these points are obvious), and therefore the Dems fool themselves into thinking that the Republicans are doing their dirty work for them when they stand up and fight liberal actions?

This would explain the Dems' smugness and apparent lack of awareness that they look weak. If they think they control the clearly-weak Repugs when they do not, then liberal Dems will naturally wonder WTF they are up to. For example, if they really don't want effective or too-strong climate-control legislation, Inhofe is a good man to have on the right, barking his head off. No need for them to state their actual position then. No need to reveal themselves as what they are. And they would never say this out loud, and so we never get an explanation, just bemused dismissal.

Of course, a strong party would not rely on the opposition for this function. A strong party would have its debates in public, and would announce its consensus to the world, and stick to it through the election cycle. By this definition, neither of our parties is strong.

And THAT is terrifying, and says something about where the American system of political representation is right now.

Flip-flopping: Selling out your core beliefs early...

Candidates Think Flip-Flopping is the Only Way to Win Elections: TRUE

Highlights:

"Raise some big bucks, ridicule your opponent, pander to the locals. Nothing unusual about that for a politician. But wait—wasn't this the candidate who was going to change politics as usual? Obama's decision to abandon the public financing system for the general election is a kind of change, but not what most voters had in mind when they voted for him in the primaries. By forgoing federal funding (and abandoning a pledge to first discuss the matter with his opponent), Obama will likely be able to outspend McCain, who is staying within the limits, by about four to one. Obama called the campaign-finance system "broken" and insists that he relies on small donors. But small donations to the Obama campaign have slackened, and in Los Angeles, Obama was able to take advantage of a loophole that allows him to circumvent the maximum individual donation ($2,300) by raising money for the Democratic Party. (McCain, who is staying in the system partly because he can't raise as much money as Obama, is exploiting the same loophole.)"

"With polls showing a weakness with Jewish voters in Florida, a key swing state, Obama recently made a get-tough-with-Iran show of support for Israel before AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. To be sure, his show of devotion to Israel was no more fervent than John McCain's."

"McCain has a slightly pained or hangdog look when he starts trying to appease the Republican right. Obama gets testy or huffy when reporters draw attention to his expediency."

"It may be inevitable that presidential candidates become less free-spirited as they enter the general election. "When you get to the general, every huckster and ad man and consultant wants in," says Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University. "And the consultants always push you to the lowest common denominator … Candidates are afraid to abandon the conventional wisdom of consultants, that the way to win is to be handled, controlled, scrubbed of all your rough edges.""

"But it's possible to overlearn the lessons of the Swift Boat attack. In the end, Kerry did not lose because he had been Swift-Boated, but because, in the eyes of many voters, he seemed like a phony. "He was so handled that he looked completely scripted and canned, never seemed to be talking from his heart," says Lichtman."

""I think this is a campaign dance," says Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director. "It's the beginning of the silly season. But we have to make sure that we continue to talk about and focus on the issues that are important to people and not get caught up in the back-and-forth.""

"But for the last week, he has mostly engaged in taking potshots at McCain, who has been proposing new (and maybe gimmicky) ideas, like a $300 million reward for a cheaper and more efficient car battery. Offshore drilling is not the best energy plan; there are surely better ideas. But the only successful plan will be based on trade-offs and compromise. It is foolish to remove offshore drilling from the bargaining table because that would kill the dealmaking before it could even begin. Explaining this would require a straightforward and painful discussion of the sacrifices and uncertainties needed to face a tremendous challenge. Voters might even appreciate the honesty."

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143863