The whole Nixon didn’t pardon his subordinates argument is a red herring. Nixon was trying to avoid being impeached. Impeachment was the remedy the founders envisioned for abuse of executive clemency. That’s a real threat in the midst of a presidency as Nixon was (at least it is if you have a Congress with a semblance of a spine). But it’s more or less an empty threat at the end of a presidency (as Bush will be after November). That’s why Bush’s relatively moderate and sane Dad thought (correctly) he could get away with pardoning Iran Contra figures (notably Weinberger) and that’s why Bush Jr. won’t worry about large scale pardons. In case there was any doubt, he already tipped his hand with the Libby commutation, for goodness’ sake. To say nothing of the fact that Bush was willing to violate black letter law -- FISA -- for his surveillance law. Why would he not be willing to use his perfectly legal pardon power?

to Bernard HP Gilroy that this is not about blogs, nor is it even about progressives trying to flex limp muscles. It's about the United States Constitution, which this FISA bill treats as an irrelevant "damn piece of paper." That's what this is about; and that's why so many people are so incensed at what they consider Obama's flip-flop: not because he's turned his back on them, but because he's turned his back on the Constitution in order (let's see if I have this) - in order to save the Constitution at a later date. That's what this is about.

Digby is right. The notion of internal 'firewalls' within religious institutions that keeps govt. money from 'other' money is ludicrous. The result will be improper influence and leverage of govt. within religious institutions, and visa-versa.

A useful precedent is the identical (and equally bogus) rationale that was used by the big investment houses in "separating" their investment-banking and stock-analysis arms. It was a total failure. The companies doing business with the banking firms were able to leverage pressure on those firms to give false, misleading advice regarding key stocks and bonds. Huge damage to investors, the public, including large public retirement funds and the like.

You might be able to firewall money, but you can't firewall the influence that comes with it. Public financing of good religious works, regardless of the benefits they may bring, is simply not worth it. Too dangerous.

You have a huge double standard here. Every politician moves to the center after the primary. They all do it and they all have to do it in our two party system.

And I still think you're wrong on hiring/firing decisions for faith-based groups. Every "faith based group" HAS to do some hiring based on religion or they couldn't hire the appropriate faith leader. If you don't want federal money going to groups that discriminate based on faith at all, then you don't want money going to faith based groups at all.

Why not just admit that -- that you don't think there should be federal money at all for faith based groups? Because there is NO means by which federal money can go to a faith based groups if your standard is that they can't take faith into account in hiring at all.

And why would you find Obama's position on this surprising or a shift? His community work was largely based in relationships with faith communities and institutions.

Furthermore, this line of argument reminds me of the Bush I and Bush II gag rule policies wherein birth control clinics couldn't get money if they even referred women to birth control clinics even if the money was kept completely separate. I don't like that at all.

Gore initially ran as a centrist after 8 years of Clinton prosperity. But when he spoke to the NAACP in July 2000, the populist came out. Listen to that speech. Remember Gore's acceptance speech, "The People vs the Powerful?" Read or listen to that. His third debate. Check that one out too (he goofed on the first two, the third was just right.) Of course, he got savaged for his populist talk. Yet he still got more popular and electoral votes than Bush, despite Bush's theft of Florida's electoral votes.

And now look at him. Bag on that goofball Kerry all you want, hell I'll join you. But leave Gore alone.

This is why continued focus on substance would be good. Some of us don't have time to comb archives for your position. Refusing to discuss your established positions lends you blog and commenters an air of closed groupthinking insiderism. Open it up! -- Mike NYWI

And some of us don't have time to hold your hand and walk you through everything. Where have you been? You are late to the party and you have the nuts to make demands of those of us who have been paying attention? How about you shut up and catch up and quit wasting our time?

I keep trying to get people to answer that question [what would obama have to do to not get your vote] with no luck. Perhaps when he comes out as anti-choice? and maybe not even then. He's on board with eviscerating the 4th amendment and people seem to be ok with that. (And don't say you are not ok with that if you are still voting for him. If you vote for him you are endorsing his positions.)

-- sunny miller

(my emphasis)

No. When Gore was running there was some insipid right winger I always had to take down due to his bad habit of telling me and others who we were and what we stood for. I usually had to do so several times on the same subjects, because he kept repeating the same horse-shit talking points again and again no matter how many times I and others had shown him that he was, beyond any doubt, wrong. He made one time what was in his opinion a statement of fact about me. He said that I love Joe Lieberman. He made this statement based on nothing other than the fact that Lieberman was Gore's running mate, and so automatically I must love Joe Lieberman. I know that was his reasoning because I asked why he had made that assumption about my feelings for Joe Lieberman.

No, I didn't "love" or even like Lieberman, and I explained to the dimwit that my backing and endorsing Gore for president did not mean that I stood behind everything that Gore had ever done or might possibly ever do.

So for you to come off with this horse-shit about, "a vote for Obama is a vote for anytime Obama takes a shit on the constitution or anything and everything else that Obama has done of might possibly do is nonsensical and self righteous. Is that really that difficult for you to understand.