U.S. Presidential Election 2008

So BadBob, what are you wearing today? A frilly neglige perhaps, or have you opted for a fishnet body stocking?

Well, Slate.com and Salon.com are not the same website. Since Glenn Greenwald of Salon is the most articulate, knowledgeable, and passionate writer on these issues, and has been writing volumes about the subject online, you won't get far on anyone else's website before they link Greenwald.

It's not true anymore that a US person cannot be the surveillance target without a warrant.


(excerpt from the Slate.com quote I already used)

I guess as long as I only communicate with my mom in Wisconsin, they can only wiretap me for a week before getting a warrant. But as soon as I try to communicate with my sister in Canada, or you, Conquistador, I can be wiretapped without warrant, and the court can only review how sound the targeting procedures are.

Seems to me that if the feds want to target me in the US, they just have to wiretap me for a week without a warrant, find someone abroad that I regularly communicate with, make THEM the "target," and listen away. No?

I realize that most people on this thread aren't really interested in the details of FISA, so I won't belabor the debate. Also that not everyone is as shocked as I am that so many Democrats, as well as so many Republicans, are going along with this legislation. It's just that for me, it's definitive evidence that the Democrats aren't willing to meaningfully oppose a weak Administration on basic constitutional rights. Even if you believe, as Conquistador does, that the legislation is not a heinous aberration, the Democrats conducted "negotiations" behind closed doors, asked the imperiled telecoms' advice about how they could help them avoid civil prosecution, and didn't even remove any of the teeth from the last version of the legislation.

When Republican Senator and FISA architect Kid Bond goes on National Public Radio to give the following defense of the legislation, I think the US is in trouble, and I'm not going to vote for anyone who doesn't repudiate this logic. When it comes to this, it just doesn't matter which party is in office.

I remember M Barry very well, used to visit DC quite often during those years.
But what does this have to do with the argument about giving DC citizens proper representation?
Oh yeah, I forgot, they're too stupid to choose a white republican mayor who would properly represent them, or perhaps a Clarence Thomas-type
Your argument stinks to high heaven, it is derogatory and bigoted. But you knew that when you threw in your lot with Reagan/Bush synchophants.
And some people get offended when African-Americans sometimes make ironic comments, jeez!

Bad etch-e-sketch Bob: What is that picture supposed to mean?

You keep posting that picture.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ah, the old leftist fallback- accuse your opponent of racism when you don't have an argument of substance. Refer to the above post of yours. You claim that Caucasians have wanted to screw over African-Americans. Problem is, goons like Barry or Coleman Young, who happen/happened to be African-American themselves, unfortunately did a bang-up job of screwing over their African-American constituents. Are you going to accuse them of racism?

People of all races moved to the suburbs in decades past to have a better standard of living. I'm too young to remember it, but surely you remember what NYC was like in the 1970s and early 1980s. I sure do recall the crime wave of the early 1990s, though.

As for DC mayors, it's generally accepted that African-American Democrat Tony Williams did a very good job as mayor of DC from 1999-2007. Guess you would consider him another Clarence Thomas (African American conservatives drive the race merchants crazy) since he wasn't a class warfare type like yourself.

Just curious, Villager, but what caused you to swing (apparently back to) Trotskyism after being center-right during your Columbia days?

cinzia, will give you a more worthy response later but, I would like to point out once again that the 2008 FISA amendments state that a warrant is required for the US government to wiretap Americans overseas.

Bond's remarks are probably taken out of context so I wouldn't take them at face value. No one goes for slavish, unquestioning obedience to what some government official (which is all a lawmaker is) says anyway.

watching corporate raiders come in and deciminate companies, depriving people of their retirement benefits made me realize that government protection of citizens is necessary, this eroded my faith in free-market arguments (though in retrospect this was rather an abuse of the legal system, not free market at all).
the whole Newt Gingrich thing alienated me from the ruling Republican culture
realizing that Clinton was not that bad, and that perhaps Carter was not so bad either, but they did not really change much anyway.
but the 2000 election between Gore and Bush was a real breakthough, before I was just suspicious of the system
the whole smear campaign against Gore was childish, and that the population was swayed by these arguments is just depressing
Having a clown like Bush for president is embarrasing, and the erosion of civil liberties since 2001 is something that even you should be concerned about
what do we have? A ruling class that has taken decisions that benefit only a small cadre of corporate board-members and select investors, real erosion of the middle class, a dismantling of the few welfare programs that can guarantee a dignified existence to the lower classes, "privatization" as an excuse to deny basic services to the citizens, increased social stratification...and we could go on and on. 40 years ago the US was far better off than the rest of the world, but civil liberties and economic progress has spread around the world and been reduced in the US, a strange and unexpected outcome. Evolution is not alwas progress.

Dude... I lived in DC at the time and I can assure you that Marion Barry was the worst of the worst. Do you realize that his initial downfall came from a sting operation in which he was arrested for possession of crack cocaine?!

yup, crack was all the rage
but this is no reason to deny congressional representation to DC
you remember the Greaseman?

from Wikipedia




what can I say? the slogan has caused me to smile, I would vote for the guy if I had a chance. Bush, on the other hand, should be put on trial for treason.

I'm a Howard Stern aficionado...

You haven't commented on my suggestion that DC become part of Maryland (the non-federal areas where people actually live).

What exactly attracts you to Barry?

pick this up from redmaryland.blogspot.com


@Conq - if you are for Maryland integration, there must be a hook somewhere, but can't figure it out. help me here, what agenda does this furthur? Aside from denying the possibility of two black senators with DC savvy. Ohhhh, OK, now I understand. But you are sure this is not racist???

What you fail to understand having been cocooned here in Europe so long is that DC's African-American population reached its peak as a percentage of the population in 1973, and it's now only about 55% and falling of the entire DC population. So much easier to simply charge racism without engaging in any thought process or having anything with which to back it up, huh, Villager? No wonder Marion Barry warms your heart.

No agenda on my part; however, common sense should tell you that the future of DC needs to be decided in a bipartisan manner. Beyond the constitutional issues, Republicans would obviously oppose having DC as a state because it would elect two Democrats to the Senate, making any future Republican majorities in the Senate more difficult to achieve. If you really want to see voting rights for DC, as I do, you would advocate a compromise that would accomplish it relatively quickly. If you simply want to find ways to elect more liberal Democrats to Congress, you'll whine and try futilely to play the phantom race card as you deny DC residents the chance to be a part of a great state like Maryland (wouldn't you want in-state tuition to the University of Maryland College Park if you were a DC resident) and to elect US Senators and Representatives while you, Villager, pursue an impossible goal.

On the taxation issue, perhaps JW can comment as to the extent of the goodies the District receives from Congress.

EDIT: BTW, think of how much better public schools are in the suburban Maryland counties bordering DC than they are in DC itself. That alone would make me want to be a part of Maryland if I were a parent of school-age children or soon-to-be school age children in DC. Don't you care about the future of DC's children?

Maryland schools are good, probably better than DC, which is why Maryland is opposed to absorbing DC.
Check...now it's your move.

That's all you've got in response to a good idea?

Sad to see that you don't care about the kids of DC.

Again, what is your solution?

I must be missing something. Is there a reason why joining Maryland would make the inner-city DC schools better?

After all, MOST suburban public schools outside of metropolitan areas are better than the public schools in the cities themselves, whether or not the suburbs are in the same state as the city.

The parlous state of DC's public schools shows how poorly adminstered DC is, another reason why it isn't ready for prime time, i.e., to be a state, which is the context of the discussion. DC has one of the worst-performing school systems despite having one of the highest, if not the highest per-pupil spending in the entire country. It is especially glaring when one compares DC schools' performance with that of neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland, which is one of the nation's best performing districts.

Being a part of Maryland gives DC an opportunity for improvement. Let Montgomery County's administrators run the DC schools and I am sure we will see some significant improvement.

Does Montgomery County want to take over DC? What with No Child Left Behind, they would be inheriting lots of new headaches. What would be their motivation?

Why not just hand the DC schools over to be administered privately, if there's that much money in the system and very low performance results?

I'm sure you'll help me understand the point you were trying to make, but from this it would seem as though you think that DC's politicians have been selected to date based on the fact that their race resembles that of their constituents, and since that demographic is declining, their opportunities are as well. I'm sure that's not what you meant.


When did states ever have to pass a competency test? Can we make them take it again? That would certainly get rid of a lot of problems.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but teachers' unions would, thus it's politically impalatable (so is outside admin, TBH). The MoCo admin scenario would necessitate a NCLB waiver to get them to take on the task.


I am saying that it's possible that a non-African-American could get elected to the Senate from DC if it were a state. Here is one name- David Catania.
At any rate, DC isn't going to become a state- see the constitutional issues alluded to in the above Villager post.

If he advocates exempting DC residents from federal income taxes, Villager might be able to become the first Trotskyite to be a member of the Club for Growth.

When was the last time politicians gave a damn about teachers' unions?

I'm sorry if this was posted somewhere already, but it's almost worth posting twice: Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my ass' for his support. Blimey. And I thought you had to be all grown up to be a President these days.

Nobama:


Yeah, this is the typical Democratic cop-out. But...


Both of these quotes come from NObama's Call to Renewal Keynote Address, June 28, 2006. What the hell? First, he says that he won't "impose his own religious views on another"...then he says not injecting "personal morality" into public policy debates is "practically absurd." So, is NObama saying that he is absurd? If so, I would agree. He says that our law, and remember he is a lawyer, is by definition a "codification of morality." Does this make any sense? Not to me, unless NObama is saying he doesn't have any morality.

Oh, one more thing...and this is from his book, The Audacity of Hope in the Introduction, which he also wrote...


What the hell is with this fool? He tries to say, "Hey, I don't impose my religious beliefs on anyone" (implying he disregards his own beliefs), but then he says, but he "can't help view(ing) the American experience through the lens of a black man..." (implying he can't disregard his prejudices) This fool has got it completely backwards. I don't even think he knows what he is saying anymore.

This is even more screwed up than both of his positions on Gay Marriage. Nobama the fool, is full of shit.

Out of curiousity, who else is running for President? All I hear is stuff about Obama and McCain. Getting boring with endless repetition since there's only so many ways you can state the same position. There's got to be some other interesting characters pretending to be in the running.

Bob Barr, never say never Nader and some other knobs which may or may not include Mike Gravel and Ron Paul. In various States, there will be an assorted cast of characters.

Euro,

You're the President of Democrats Abroad...can you explain U.S. Presidential Vote 2008: Obama vs. McCain or U.S. Supreme Court handgun ruling or Gay marriage legalized in California?

I am not the president of anything and can you explain this.

Eurovol, have you resigned your position as the President of Democrats Abroad's Munich Chapter now that Hillary has admitted defeat? Perhaps BB wants to replace you.

Anyhow, Mike Gavel left the Democrats to join the Libertarian Party.

There seems to be some discomfort on the part of Obama's more leftist syncophants with the candidate's putative move to the center after campaigning as a McGovernite in the primaries and warming the hearts of the Kat-mäßig MoveOn types. What I wonder is if the leftists excited by Obama's previous rhetoric now view him as a traitor for supporting the FISA bill and capital punishment for child rapists, and his stated desire to continue Bush's faith-based programs (!) among other policy statements he has recently made, or if they think he is just lying to get elected (just like the typical politcian he allegedly was not supposed to be- in their dreams, of course). Wonder how the leftists feel about Obama's support for welfare reform- how about it, Kat?

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton Phone Call Leaked

Well, Conquistador, if you consider me a suitable substitute for Kat, the answer seems to be both.

Some Obama supporters just want to see a Democrat elected and are willing to tolerate all the centrist shifts he has made in the past month or so.

Some are pretty riled up that Obama presented a front during the primaries that he was a different kind of politician than that, and feel they might as well have voted for Hillary in the primaries (or given her more serious consideration) if this is what Obama was going to do as soon as he clinched the nomination.

By the way, there's more news from the FISA front today. (Sorry, Glenn Greenwald again, but he's the best informed and most prolific on the issue):

Funny how all the anti-Obama people and Clinton supporters are on here talking about how us Obama supporters feel now that he hasn't changed, flipped or made shifts to anything. As I have already said and shown you a graph of, he is a Progressive and that ain't the new word for Liberal either. But, do carry on with your bad selves. You all seem to know best.

Sure looks to me like he flipped and flopped and spins and turns and shifts ...Is that what a "Progressive" does?

Cinzia, your concern about being targeted under new FISA rules is a bit misplaced. The scenario you gave of you possibly being targeted is one that FISA has (theoretically) permitted since its inception in 1978. That would, as you have described it, have clearly been a violation of the spirit of FISA, if not the letter. However, if information illegally gathered in such a manner was ever used to prosecute a US citizen, a court would undoubtedly throw it out as a violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. In such a case of willful misuse of FISA authority, i.e., information illegally gathered being used to further a criminal prosecution of a US citizen, criminal and civil sanctions would, IMHO, be justified because of mens rea as well as the violation of the US citizen's civil rights. This scenario, I must stress, is hugely different than someone's conversation possibly being overheard and no damage being done to the victim of the eavesdropping.

Eurovol, a progressive is a liberal, just one trying to avoid the stigma of their leftism. Your last point was a jumble of words with no substance whatsoever. Be it for public consumption or whatever, Obama has shifted, perhaps even almost wholesale, to the center. Either he previously misprepresented his views or is doing so now, or perhaps he has seen the light . No honest person could truly pretend Obama hasn't significantly altered his stances on a lot of issues and is now presenting himself as a much different candidate than he did when he was the liberal darling in the primaries.

eurovol, I was only attempting to depict the general mood as I see it from my position of actually being physically present in the United States. I believe I have presented my own view as a Hillary supporter who was quite happy to vote for Obama until the past three weeks or so. I don't care whether he "flip-flops" or not, but I would like to see him standing up for the rights of individuals not to be wiretapped illegally by their own government, in cahoots with large telecommunication conglomerates. The vote in the Senate is scheduled for Tuesday (8 July.)

I remember being invited to a Gymnasium classroom in Munich just before the 2004 election, to chat about the issues, candidates, Electoral College, etc. Those students were absolutely gobsmacked when I told them that there was no certainty that Kerry was going to win the election. They just assumed that obviously Bush had made a hash of everything since his "accidental" election in 2000, and nobody would possibly make the mistake of voting for him again.

I wonder if the same phenomenon is occurring over Obama. Wishful thinking, if so. But he's certainly keeping everyone's attention.

Conquistador, my major complaint and disgust with the proposed new FISA law has more to do with retroactive immunity for telecoms than anything else. I know you think the telecoms are too powerful to be left open to bothersome petty lawsuits from mere citizens who are concerned that they were illegally wiretapped after 9/11. I just don't accept that any private industry should hold that kind of privilege. Individual rights have been increasingly discounted by all sides of the political class in recent years, and it's got to stop somewhere. This blatant case provides as good a platform as any to stand up and oppose our lawmakers' kowtowing to corporate interests over the rights of individuals.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing as it has been these extremities that have plagued US politics over the years. The only problem with that, however, is eventually the opposition will also "re-align" making it impossible to distinguish between the two. OK, so there may be one or two visual differences between the two current candidates... Obama has big ears

So NObama flipped on FISA too? How can anyone vote for this dummkopf? Now he's supporting Bush's Faith-based Initiative. I thought NObama was for separation of church and state. He flipped on that too! When is he getting his sex change OP?

Cinzia, you obviously don't know the power of the plaintiffs' bar and the class action lawsuits they could unleash (one of my uncles is this type of attorney). I don't want to see pension funds of ordinary folks, the (often largely unionized) workforces of the telecom companies and the telco's customers (including those benefiting from Universal Service provisions) to get shafted so that wealthy trial lawyers like my uncle can get a bit wealthier.

Show me someone whose civil rights were violated in the manner I described above, and it might be a different story.

Well, Conquistador, I felt sorry for the Average Joe employees of Enron and Arthur Andersen (where my brother-in-law worked), as well. Your company breaks the law, you go down. Sucks, but what's the alternative?


Wen Ho Lee?

This just shows how ignorant you are. The Progressive Party started in 1912 as the Bull Moose Party of Teddy Roosevelt. Progressives are not Liberals and I can't help that Liberals want to co-opt the Progressive moniker. I have posted this already, but as usual you are blind to anything that doesn't suite your dribble or your media driven punditry.

See graph here!

Eurovol, if one looked at your stances on the issues, one would come to the obvious and clear conclusion that you are a liberal. Want to fill out a questionnaire to prove it?

Cinzia, I don't think you should be baying for Verizon Joe Six-Pack's blood, and especially not in these uncertain economic times. You're usually much more thoughtful than this. BTW, has any US citizen really been damaged by this? Trial lawyers can go feed at the trough elsewhere.

I don't think Wen Ho Lee's case had anything to do with FISA (thus it's non-sequitir):


Any evidence that anyone leaked any information acquired via a wiretap that should have been approved by the FISA court (but was not) to the media? I strongly doubt it. BTW, the leaker would not be a telecom company employee, thus the government could still be sued in such an instance.

Ignorance must really be bliss!

Euro, do you have anything to say with some semblance of substance to it? Or is it all Democratic, Progressive, Liberal symbolism bullshit. You can try and deny NObama's shifts, spins, flips and flops and try to explain them away to yourself, but we're too smart for that.

Eurovol is so full of rubbish it's disgusting. Can't even back up what he says, either. As evidenced by his reponse below he's also apparently a 10-year old in a 46-year old's body.

Conquistador is so full of rubbish it's digusting. Can't even back up what he says, either. As shown by his reponse above he's also apparently a 10-year old in a 46-year old's body.

You're the one who brought up the poor average Verizon employee, not me. The main point here is that the American public has very little chance of ever finding out for sure what happened with the illegal wiretapping program except via civil lawsuits against the implicated telecoms. These lawsuits will not be allowed to go forward if this new FISA bill passes the Senate.




(Greenwald again, link above) We don't know if anyone has been "harmed," (whatever your definition of "harm" is) because if you have found out to this point that you were wiretapped, it's because the government messed up.

Cinzia, if someone has truly been harmed, it would almost certainly come out during discovery procedures in any criminal trial involving the victim(s). I have already pointed out that the telecom companies are an important part of the US infrastructure, and have a lot of well-paid employees, many of whom don't have college degrees that would allow them to go work for another accounting firm (unless they were subjected to disciplinary action by their State Board of Accountancy) as was the case for Andersen accountants.

Conq. Now that it seems that sooner or later, the innocent, illegally held in Gitmo will have to be released, where should they go?
Amnesty International says the USA proper should grant them residency but if not, Germany is an option.
What's your preference?

Obviously, if they have been engaged in crime, that should be tried in an established court of law and sentenced accordingly.

MT, it may come as a surprise to you, but Amnesty International isn't the controlling authority on such matters. Do you have a source that breaks down who they are and their nationalities?