Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Thank you Glenn for your usual wise insight.
I keep telling Dems they are acting like enablers. In the family of an alcoholic, there always has to be enablers who ignore the bad behavior allowing it to continue. These people live in denial and are often sicker than the alcoholic himself.
I believe we need to try to get everyone to read this article. That's one thing we can do.
We also need to throw out incumbents who support these bad policies. The elections are over, but now is the time to start planning for 2010.
I live in a caucus state that always goes Republican, so I'm working with anti war Ron Paul supporters to get anti war, anti Patriot Act people on the ballot.
If someone lives in a Dem state, they need to get involved at the caucus or primary level, to get better Dems on the ballot.
An election is already lost by November. The real key is getting involved with the actual party so better people are put on the ballot for other people to vote for.
I love what third parties have to say, but the major media won't cover them so they don't stand a chance. What they can do is move into the major party the most closely identify with, and invade the caucus or primary system. That's the key. You have 400 to 800 times the pull at that level.
Check out http://meetup.com and search for "Campaign for Liberty", "Democracy for America", or "People for the America Way"
I'm all for rhetorical influence but loudness and moral high ground have nothing on $$$ put in politicians' pockets. Haven't the past 8 years more than demonstrated the feeble effects of "criticisms, political pressure"?
Did you happen to read the Juan Cole article? You're right, Money Talks, but where do you think that money comes from?
The completely unbalanced contributions and influence of powerful PACs in influencing politicians seems to be Cole's point, hence his conclusion regarding the formation of a single issue PAC.
it's cool dude -
or as my "hero" of yesterday kovie used to say "vibrant criticism is essential to a well-functioning democracy, and Obama, being a grown up, not only can handle it, but he WELCOMES it, not to mention needs it. He said so himself on numerous occasions. The man himself is a lot tougher and more mature than some of his supporters appear to be.
Now that last phrase I can't agree with, because I am also incredible tough and I am constanly suffering from not being critized enough- especially on UT but perhaps if I tell you i also would have to dispute your statement "Obama is not intrinsically good and good things don't happen by virtue of the mere existence of his presidency".
We both know he is the only "evil politician" who is at the same time "the messiah" and he has proven this already with all these good things which already have happened just by the virtue of his mere running for the presidency and the messiah always should be critisized about economical stimulus programs. Because what does a messiah know about econmics. But I'm not so sure it was always very clever to speculate about his Holyness choices for his administration (you still owe me one for Brennan) - because a lot of what is discussed
on such speculations are just - (and if you like German you will love this word) - "Scheisshausparolen"!
, What we've actually had is too little questioning of the President, too much blind support for him, too much power and trust placed in him and the apparatuses he controls that they know what's best, are doing the right thing, are telling us what we need to know and no more.
I could not agree more. And when I say that we've had "too much jumping around" in the absence of empirical facts, I'm refering to those in all walks of life who abetted the disastrous Bush administration by failing to look at facts. I hope that the progressive alternative is one that exhibits a greater consideration of empirical details than faith based rhetorical position of the Executive in over the previous eight years. Again, this includes criticism of the Obama administration when warranted.
Looking at Obama’s comments on Sunday, I think they were fairly innocuous; you could read them anywhere on the spectrum from being infelicitous to indicative of some desire to use evidence gathered through torture as the basis for criminal prosecutions. Given that the man had not taken office, not held the reins of the executive for so much a second, I am willing to reserve criticism until I have some empirical evidence to support a failure, either of policy or moral character. If he after a month or two in office, he fails to close Gitmo, or makes a move towards the establishment of some court with evidentiary rules that diverge from our legal traditions or moral principle, you and I can link arms and scream bloody murder together. Until then, I elect to “keep my powder dry” (trite platitude inserted for your enjoyment).
Glenn,
how about this:
"And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."
Good question. Some of these people have been kidnapped and tortured by us. If they were not nuts before, then they could very well be now. What do we do with them? Maybe we just let them go. Maybe we owe them reources to help them get back to some semblance of sanity. Maybe we owe them nothing but a "bummer dude" here is $50 and a plane ticket back home to Pakistan (or detroit in some cases). Whether they are guilty or not, many (maybe most or all) simply cannot be effectively tried under US law because we kidnapped and tortured them.
I personally perceive Ron Paul's Liberty PAC would be a good ally in supporting a wider America First PAC. As long is it stayed focus on being antiwar/nonintervention and people can put their views on domestic policies aside. I could also see cracks forming in areas such as "humanitarian" intervention.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
