Mother Jones: Obama's New Chief of Staff: A Fan of the Bush Tax Cuts?

http://tiny.cc/jhVEX

[geminiprop] I cannot vote for anyone who willingly gives up my constitutional rights such as FISA and the finger print bills do.

Amen to that. And now, with Obama's stated intent to expand Bush's faith-based programs, it looks like he has no more regard for the First Amendment than he does for the Fourth.

Why are progressives supposed to support this guy, again? Because he'll get us out of Iraq and keep us out of Iran?

At this point, would anyone really want to put money on that?

Lots of talk about how McCain has brought out the swiftboat crew in response to Clark's statements.

Is there any evidence they weren't already going to be coming out? Does anyone really think the McCain camp got on the phone with them just the moment after Clark's comments?

Glenn-

I'd just like to point out that a member-created group opposing Obama's stance on FISA has risen from nothing to the second-largest group on his campaign site. Started June 25, it already has more than 9,200 members. All the other large groups were created by early February. With a little push from you, perhaps the Obama campaign will realize what a firestorm he's ignited among his own supporters in the last several days.

Check it out:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group?show=members

Other than FISA, there isn't a single position Obama has taken that, standing alone, is so bothersome. It's the general approach he's taking to how he thinks he's going to win the election -- by repudiating key factions that supported him and reversing himself in both tone and substance on vital issues, all in order to comport with the prevailing Beltway orthodoxy over how Democrats must prove that they are Serious and "centrist." -- Greenwald

I don't see any alternative but to continue and expand upon the Act Blue effort. This biennial mau-mauing followed by kow-towing that you describe above; it is a dynamic that will only respond to political activism. (And I don't mean marches, although they may yet again have their place someday.)
Making this practice painful is not bad for the Democrats -- its good for them. Those who might not always want to knuckle under to this elite-crafted orthodoxy would have something to point to and say, "but we can't anger the [blogotarians] they'll run attack ads......".

I'm speaking about Democratic candidates in general, but it pertains to the presidential candidate as well. Obama is a very shrewd man. He'll do what he has to to get where he needs to. It's our job to be part of that equation. People who want him to be a caramel Knight of Camelot need to stop clutching their pearls, sighing romantically.... and do the necessary. I suspect he is both able and willing to do so -- but why should he?

If you want your candidate to be the "Parfait Knight", get up off your sweet white asses and assist him in that endeavor.

Glenn, could you continue to link to the Retroactive Immunity page on the Act Blue site periodically? When the growth rate slows down too much, some of us may be able to "goose it" with well-timed, periodic donations.

I've felt for a long time that the war in Iraq is probably the least of our problems as a country. Truth be told, if we lost every piece of equipment in Iraq, and every American soldier in Iraq (and I'm not saying this wouldn't be a tragedy, but just hypothetically), the United States of America would continue to exist as a country. The truth is, we can leave Iraq.

But then, that's the greatest of our problems these days, isn't it? Truth. We are being manipulated by confidence men. Nobody trusts politicians, we expect them to lie to us, we tacitly agree that it is acceptable behavior, and they feel free to lie to us. Facts have become taboo, but ad hominem attacks, red herrings, and straw men are repeated endlessly. A formula sure to create an environment where only lies can thrive.

Here's a truth: in a competition between fantasy and reality, reality wins EVERY SINGLE TIME. I can't fantasize hunger away, but I can starve to death. It may take a while, but denying the reality of my hunger will ultimately kill me.

There is nothing more detrimental to life than denying reality. Lies are killing our country. In this way, I have to agree with Glenn completely on it being important how Obama conducts his campaign. If he cannot hold to his word, speak for the truth, and speak truths, he does little to differentiate himself from his opponent. The ends do not justify the means, the means dictate the ends. He has lied to his supporters and I hate him for it. Just as I hated Hillary for misrepresenting the level of threat the terrorists pose with her nefarious 2am ad. And just as I hate McCain for misrepresenting, well, pretty much everything.

We keep buying into lies, and now our country faces crises on multiple fronts. If lies get us authoritarian crap like FISA, will the truth set us free from it? Or will reality ultimately force us to accept that we live in a police state where we find all to soon that the freedom to speak as we wish is a distant memory?

The sort of justice I could accept would be along the lines of the Truth and Reconciliation approach used in South Africa, in which there was Reconciliation (i.e. no prosecution) only if there first was Truth; forgiveness was granted only if it was sought, and a vital part of seeking forgiveness was admitting to the commission of acts for which one should seek forgiveness (as opposed to applause or benign neglect).

Part of the rationale for this approach was the concern that ordinary prosecution could lead to unacceptable levels of violent resistance from these acts’ perpetrators or their supporters.

While the S. Africa situation then is not identical to ours now, prosecution of the perpetrators here, while all too deserved, could generate massive resistance from many perpetrators and their allies, incl. use of WMDs, (see Dave Neiwart's site, http://dneiwert.blogspot.com) which might utterly destroy an economy already vulnerable to various pressures, many of which have been ginned up by Bush’s allies on Wall Street etc.

Such a Truth and Reconciliation approach, in order to not be a whitewash of this Criminal Enterprise, must include not only GOP leaders and operatives, but those who covered for or funded them. And it must have all the powers of any Congressional probe, e.g. criminal sanctions against the commission of perjury or “Contempt of Congress” (i.e. ducking questions to protect the reputations of their pals).

While foregoing the infliction of real justice upon the perpetrators will be quite distasteful to many, the Truth and Reconciliation approach may be the best that can be realistically obtained in the current political environment, and might present invaluable gains. If the American people were to learn of the magnitude of the Criminal Enterprise for which the Traditional Media has been covering during these last 8 yrs., I quite expect that the wave of revulsion that would sweep across the land would radically weaken the criminal elements and their Traditional Media allies (who have done so much to bury coverage of, or excuse the commissions of, these crimes). Had these crimes been as well known as, say, Rev. Wright, and had they been put in context as well as was done by the Media regarding the Watergate crimes, the last few yrs. might have been very different than what we've endured.

The crucial role of truth, or the lack thereof, in recent US history has been almost incessantly stressed by Robert Parry, at http://www.consortiumnews.com/ . The idea of Truth and Reconciliation has also been taken seriously by Josh Marshall, at http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/153497.php :

“…what the country needs is a cold shower of the truth and a clearing of the webs of lies that have cluttered and fettered our public life. Sending crooks to the slammer is by far a secondary concern.”

For a spoof on how such a procedure might go, see http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bush-s-Testimony-Before-th-by-Bernard-Weiner-080611-825.html .