Mr. Bush certainly seems to meet the Obama threshold: that “somebody has blatantly broken the law”. Bush not only blatantly broke the law, he bragged about it.

If Bush cannot be prosecuted, by what standard can we ever hold a President accountable for his or her illegal actions?

I think that we need to avoid applying "political pressure" just for appearance sake.

Tell the truth: you didn't read this post or the last one, did you?

It was linked on Antiwar.com last night. I read it then, and while I was reading this blog entry this morning, I thought the theme seemed similar, then the article was linked. Durp.

The article also offered solutions, and iirc Cole was responding to criticism he has received for his criticism regarding the effectiveness of street protests in influencing politicians (he argues that they don't matter). He suggested an "America First" PAC that has two purposes:

So I am proposing a coordinating committee that would have two purposes:

1. It would develop a large database of leaders of concerned civic organizations so as to tip them when big votes in Congress were coming. These organizations would then tip their members, who would deluge Congress with millions of emails on what is at stake. There are lots of allies in US civil society for this enterprise, including religious congregations (liberal synagogues, Presbyterians, Catholics, Quakers, Mennonites, Muslim mosques, Unitatiran Universalists, etc.). Such an effort could also mobilizer Greens, Libertarians, and Socialists, as well as sections of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

2. It would direct sympathetic PACs to donate money in close races to anti-war candidates,and to defend representatives and senators who dared buck the Israel lobbies from reprisals. It would also try to unseat hawks like Joe Lieberman and Saxby Chambliss.

This "For America Public Affairs Committee" could easily be organized and could quickly become very influential. All we would need to do is win a couple of rounds with AIPAC and suddenly congressional votes would be much closer.

It would also coordinate the lobbying of those existing small PACs which are more narrowly focused but which have a strong interest in the peace process--J Street, the Peace Action Politica Action Committee, the Arab American Political Action Committee, the National Iranian American Council, etc., etc.

Sounds like a good idea and something that Accountability Now!/Strange Bedfellows might be interested in. I mean, his idea and AN!PAC seem to have the same basic premise, to influence Congresscritters by providing disincentives for pro-war, anti-Civil Liberties, anti-American votes in the Congress. Like Cole said, "win a couple of rounds with AIPAC and suddenly congressional votes would be much closer".

AIPAC is merely a lobby. It is powerful because it is efficient, well funded, and well organized. ATM there is nothing to counterbalance it. Does anyone else think that a single issue Foreign Policy PAC that is antiwar and not beholden to the two party system would be successful in cracking AIPAC's (and the Establishment at large) pro-war armor?

that he's doing a balancing act.

But he also knows that he's got a period of time where everybody's going to, when in doubt, assume the best. I know I've caught myself reflexively defending him without actually knowing the facts. That's a situation that will continue to benefir him for a number of months.

If you are ten years old...

...you believe that Obama read some blogs and suddenly changed his mind. How dumb can you get? At the most -- the very most -- he released his policy earlier than intended. To believe he fashioned a policy after a few days/weeks of blog outcry is nuts, and even an insult to the man. What next...blogs will demand big cars will be banned and he'll go for that, too?

Would also know that Obama has many people working for him, many of whom do read blogs and feed information about what they write up the chain of command at Obama HQ. In fact actual bloggers have even worked for Obama (like Mike Lux at Open Left).

Blogs collectively have several million regular readers and contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns, the childish belief is in fact to pretend no one cares what they say or that they have no influence.

Do you think people like Pelosi, and Obama himself attended Netroots Nation for nothing?

Here's another example, as the U.S. was anticipating war (it was before the Pearl Harbor attack but the European war was ongoing and most knew that the U.S. disputes and blockades would lead to hostilities with Japan) where a staunch ally of FDR nevertheless committed to pushing his interest group's agenda. (I posted this early December.)

*************************************

...It would be a brutal rewrite of history to have imagine that FDR was governing silently without constant inputs by interest groups, liberal groups, labor organizations, leftist groups, and the like.

Hell, there were general strikes, including the then-largest strike ever in the U.S. in the textile industry (whose brutal & violent crushing by state authorities and mill goons ended much organizing in the South), and the 1941 march planned by A. Phillip Randolph against racial discrimination in defense industry hiring, which wasn't carried out because the threat of it led to negotiations with FDR.

A recap might be interesting from that time. Remember, this is 1941 -- the U.S. was gearing up for war. A coalition led by 2 prominent African American labor & civil rights leaders (Randolph & Bayard Rustin) and a radical pacifist religious leader A. J. Muste [head of the Fellowship of Reconciliation], still in a Depression and the call to march had been issued on January 15th of 1941. Randolph, though, had fought for 12 years getting the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters recognized by the Pullman Company.

[Randolph begins defining to Roosevelt what it is he and the "10,000 Negroes" would march on Washington for.]

"Mr. President, we want you to issue an executive order making it mandatory that Negroes be permitted to work in these plants."

"Well, Phil," answered the President [FDR], "you know I can't do that. If I issue an executive order for you, then there'll be no end to other groups coming in here and asking me to issue executive orders for them, too. In any event, I couldn't do anything unless you called off this march of yours. Questions like this can't be settled with a sledge hammer."

"I'm sorry, Mr. President, ," Randolph responded steadfastly.

"How many people do you plan to bring?" asked Roosevelt.

"One hundred thousand, Mr. President," answered Randolph.

Sensing a bluff, Roosevelt asked Walter White [NAACP leader] how many people really planned to march. Unhesitatingly, White replied, "One hundred thousand, Mr. President."

Whether Randolph and White were bluffing, no one can say for sure. What is known is that the president seemed alarmed at the prospect. "You can't bring 100,000 Negroes to Washington," he said. "Somebody might get killed."

Randolph replied that violence was unlikely if the President spoke to the marchers. Roosevelt responded impatiently, "Call it off and we'll talk again."...

...Finally, the officials relented and agreed to draw up an executive order for the president to sign. After he rejected several initial drafts as too weak, the White House finally came up with an executive order that met Randolph's approval.

On June 25, 1941, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8802. The order mandated that "there shall be no discrimination in the employment of workers in defense industries or government because of race, creed, color, or national origin."... Most importantly, the order established a Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to "receive and investigate complaints of discrimination" and to take "appropriate steps to redress grievances."

Holding up his end of the bargain, Randolph agreed to cancel the march.

- Excerpted from Philip A. Klinkner's & Rogers M. Smith's _The Unsteady March_.

http://tinyurl.com/Randolph-1941-FDR

...these leaders represented organizations whose members were all overwhelmingly loyal allies and fervent electoral supporters of Franklin D. Roosevelt.