Special Comment: Olbermann Challenges Obama To Do The Right Thing On FISA
Download | play 
Download | play
Keith Olbermann presented Barack Obama with a few options on how to handle the pending FISA legislation in a Special Comment on Monday's Countdown.
Senator Obama had once said he was against giving immunity to telecom companies who assisted the Bush administration in illegally spying on American citizens, but more recently has said he would, in fact, vote for the FISA legislation, immunity included. As Keith points out, Obama has taken political hits from the right and the left and the right is going to attack him no matter how he votes, so he might as well do the right thing and demand telecom immunity be stripped from the bill.
You've already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you'd seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You've already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you'd vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You've paid the political price in advance.
Now buy yourself -- and those who have most ardently supported you -- something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon.
Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good -- the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history.
Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation -- if you think the FISA bill doesn't have the giant loophole, or if you don't think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of... well, criminals -- then your duty is clear.
Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity.
Full transcripts below the fold:
Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on FISA and the Junior Senator from Illinois.
The Democratic leadership in the Senate, Republican knuckle-dragging in the same chamber, and the mediocre skills of whoever wrote the final version of the FISA bill, have combined to give Senator Barack Obama a second chance to make a first impression.
And he damned well better take it.
The Senate vote on this tortured and reckless piece of legislation has now been postponed until after the 4th of July break.
The Democrats, completing their FISA experience (a collective impression of Homer Simpson falling off a cliff and hitting every bramble on the way down), didn't exactly plan this fortuitous delay.
Last week, the vote on their cave-in was imminent.
But, while arguing over a piece of housing legislation, about how many mortgage lenders can dance on the head of a pin, Republicans dithered so long about protecting their constituents -- the banks -- that the Senate calendar got backed up.
This, in turn, gave Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid some time to think.
There was one among his group, chosen to run for President, who had loudly assailed the idea of handing a get-out-of-jail-free card to corporations who had approached definitional fascism by breaking the law in concert with the Bush Administration.
But this Senator had suddenly realized, that to the large group of voters who operate with an information base that would make Cliffs Notes look like the encyclopedia, if, in the final vote, he stood against FISA, he would hand them a rock with which they could hit him over the head, a rock wrapped up in a piece of paper reading:
"Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror stop."
Thus, Senator Obama, was born your first second chance.
Senator Reid was kind enough to help you out by composing an amendment that would keep FISA -- which you rightly endorse -- but strips out the telecom immunity, which you rightly oppose.
It's a protest -- a decidedly lame one -- but in our daily world of political transactions, voting for the amendment when it has no chance of passing and has been in essence constructed as pure Obama CYA -- that is a petty crime.
Whether it will do more to harm your premise of "new politics" than to your credibility as an immunity-opponent, is for you, Senator, to assess. And live with.
It would be sweet to have a pure, politics-free president, but the last of those retired from office in 1797.
And while we've all quoted the farewell address of "The Father Of Our Nation" for 211 years now, nobody seems to want to remember that its point was to urge his children that: whatever you do, for God's sake, don't form political parties -- some day they will kill you.
Anyway, Senator, your problem here isn't the backlash about telecom immunity, and it isn't really about your political fluidity on the FISA bill.
Your problem is what happens even if this plays out according to plan next week:
1) You vote for the anti-immunity amendment.
2) The anti-immunity amendment fails.
3) You vote for the FISA legislation.
And 4) The FISA legislation passes.
Oh, and, 5) Senator: The Republicans still run against you with the 'elections-for-dummies ' message: "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."
Because, inside the obscenity that was Charlie Black's comment about how a terrorist attack in this country would be good -- good for his boy McCain's chances for election...Inside the inhuman calculation that Benazhir Bhutto did not die in vain -- she helped McCain in the New Hampshire primary...There is a sad and cynical reality.
The Republicans can scare some of the people all of the time, and they can scare all of the people some of the time.
This is all they are right now.
Nobody ever said it better than did Aaron Sorkin in his script for the movie "The American President":
"Whatever your particular problem is, friend, I promise you, Bob Rumson (and for Bob Rumson, read "John McCain") is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: Making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it."
Republicans, with almost no exceptions, have no true credibility on counter-terrorism, no track record of prevention or amelioration, and their president can't even remember the name of the skyscraper he claims to have saved in Los Angeles.
And yet, somehow, the Republicans have managed to convince the public that it doesn't matter that Mr. Bush had already completed 22 percent of his first term, when he, his administration, and his party, failed so catastrophically on 9/11.
The President and party who were at fault, were magically transformed into the President and party who would never let it happen again.
An unjust... repellant... nefarious, trick. But, politically, rather a neat trick.
Senator, the Republicans are going to paint you as soft on terror no matter how you vote on FISA. Or how you vote on the Telecom Immunity Amendment. Or on the next farm bill.
Last week it was Grover Norquist calling you "John Kerry with a tan." By November 1st, it'll be Dick Cheney calling you "Osama Bin Laden with a tan."
When you announced your support of this latest FISA bill (with or without the telecom immunity), the Republicans actually raced to get out a press release accusing you of flip-flopping.
You shared the exact same position, on which they are running their entire campaign and they criticized you anyway!
So, Senator, from their point of view, they think they've got you boxed in.
Vote for FISA and you've contradicted yourself.
Vote against FISA and it's "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."
Vote for FISA and against immunity, and it's political expediency, and Democrats soft on terror, and "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."
This is a problem, Senator.
Because, flatly, of all the measures that can be taken to aid our damaged nation, and our de-valued Constitution, the first, if not the foremost, is not blocking telecom immunity, but making sure no Republican is in the White House past noon next January 20th.
Of all the remedial efforts against the Bush administration's high crimes and misdemeanors, and of all the prophylactic steps against further inroads against the freedoms of the citizens of this nation and the rights of everyone else, the primary step must still come to us through the prism of politics.
Would that it were otherwise. But it ain't.
Frankly, Senator, this political tight-rope act you've tried on FISA the last two weeks, which from the outside seems to have been intended to increase the chances of your election, probably hasn't helped that chance in the slightest.
There is, fortunately, a possible -- a most unexpected -- solution.
Your second second chance.
Since the final version of the FISA bill was passed down from on high, John Dean has been reading it, and re-reading it, and cross-referencing it with other relevant law, and thinking.
Something bothered him about it.
Or, more correctly, something didn't bother him about it.
Turns out lawyers at the ACLU have been doing the same thing for the last ten days.
John compared notes with them, and will be devoting his column at "Find Law" this week, to this unlikely conclusion:
The Republicans who wrote most of this bill at Mr. Bush's urging, managed to immunize the telecoms from civil suits.
But not from criminal prosecution.
Senator, here is John Dean's summary of his findings, which he sent me this morning.
"It is clear not only from the language of the bill (which must be read in the context of other, related statutes to be clearly understood), but also from the legislative history, that there is absolutely no criminal immunity for anyone in these FISA amendments."
Moreover, Senator, it seems as if a lot of people have known this, for a long time.
During the January 24th, 2008 debate in the Senate, Senator Brownback noted, "The immunity provisions would not apply to the Government or Government officials. Cases against the Government regarding the alleged programs would continue. And the provisions would apply only to civil and not criminal cases."
In fact, Senator, just last week, Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent a letter, for the record, to House Speaker Pelosi emphasizing that the liability protection, quote, "does not immunize any criminal conduct."
And if you ask, Senator, about the President responding to all this by belching out a series of pardons or a blanket pardon to those who broke the law on his behalf, Dean has you covered here, too...
It... "would require acceptance by them of the fact that they had broken the law, and thus be an admission of guilt.
"And a blanket pardon would be an admission by Bush that his war on terror has been a lawless undertaking, operating beyond the bounds of the Constitution and statutes that check the powers of the president and the executive branch.
"It would be an admission by Bush, too, of his own criminal culpability (which is why Nixon refused to grant his aides a pardon.)
Senator -- sometimes it is better to be lucky, than good.
Keep your eye on the wording of the legislation to make sure the Republicans don't realize its flaws.
Then vote for the amendment to strip telecom immunity out of the FISA bill.
Then after that fails, vote for the FISA bill, if that's your final answer.
Then the minute the president has signed the FISA bill, you announce that you voted for it because it renews FISA and because it permits a bigger prize than just civil suits; that it allows for criminal prosecution of past illegal eavesdropping.
Say, loudly, that your understanding of this bill is such, that if you are elected, your Attorney General will begin a full-scale criminal investigation of the telecom companies who collaborated with President Bush in eavesdropping on Americans.
And mention -- oh by the way -- that your Attorney General will subpoena such records, notes, e-mail, data, and testimony, from any and all Bush Administration officials, FBI or CIA personnel, or any members of the Executive Branch, who may have as much as breathed in the general direction of these nefarious acts of domestic spying at Mr. Bush's behest.
Wait -- you say there's a political hit waiting for you there too? Another "Obama voted uh-uh... thing terror-stop."?
Actually, Senator, you've already gone down this road, when you spoke to my colleague, Will Bunch, of the Philadelphia Daily News, on April 14th of this year.
He asked about the possibility of criminal investigations of the 43rd President and his henchmen.
"What I would want to do," you told him, "is have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out, are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that, because we don't have access to all the material right now."
"You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
"Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in cover-ups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is: nobody above the law. And I think that's roughly how I would look at it."
Make this clear, Senator.
You've already taken the political hit from the Right, for saying you'd seek to strip out, or rescind immunity. You've already taken the political hit from the Left, for saying you'd vote for the FISA bill even with the immunity. You've paid the political price in advance.
Now buy yourself -- and those who have most ardently supported you -- something worth more than just class action suits against Verizon.
Explain that you are standing aside on civil immunity, not just for political expediency, but for a greater and more tangible good -- the holding to account, of the most-corrupt, the most dangerous, and the most anti-democracy presidential administration in our long history.
Of course, if you disagree with this interpretation -- if you think the FISA bill doesn't have the giant loophole, or if you don't think you, as president, would be ready to support criminal prosecution of... well, criminals -- then your duty is clear.
Vote against the FISA bill, if it still carries that immunity.
The Republicans are going to call you the names any which way, Senator.
They're going to cry regardless, Senator.
And as the old line goes: give them something to cry about.
Good night, and good luck.
EXCELLENT!
Anybody read Wes Clark's new book UNFIT FOR COMMAND.
It's a pretty good read.
I wish he'd challenge him to do the right thing all around.
Too bad politicians so rarely do the right thing. Let's see if Obama can defy the odds.
Obama is naive if he thinks for one minute that McShame and the repugs will play nice. That isn't in their playbook. Ain't going to happen. They will keep doing their dirty tricks and Obama will keep saying he won't play like that. Who do you think the loser is?
There may well be a November, not October, surprise. I am not nearly as confident as I was a couple of months ago.
Ok, Kieth Olbermann thread is up. Time for Paul Revere to ride.
"The Trolls are coming! The Trolls are coming!"
I lay this mess squarely at the feet of Pelosi. She could of stopped it coming up to vote until after the next election.
Very good "Special Comment". I hope Obama watched or or someone makes him watch it.
I believe we can give up on Obama doing the right thing. I was wrong. He is just another politician moving to the center right. Another choice between Republican right wing and Democratic right wing.
It's good to see KeithO has woken up.
harley @ 7:
I blame us. Somehow we have failed to participate in our democracy to the extent that we have absolutely no influence on events, policies and laws that happen in our name, with our tax money that should never even been considered let alone acted upon. We have failed our country and we sit here and wring our hands and continue to fail it.
FUCK YEAH!!!
After their recess, I guess the Republicans will be offering an amendment to button up the "civil suit" loophole!
Keith did well, very articulate and reasoned. I agree with #7, here is our House Dems caving and passing a bad deal along. They had what? 24 hours to try and read through that crappily written bill and vote?
theWalrus @ 13:
This bill reminds me a lot of a magic show. While we are looking over here at what the magician wants us to see we are missing the true nature of the trick.
xoites defends Constituion @ 11:
I called, emailed and sent a fax to every Democrat senator after it passed so easy in the house. I tried to call into CSPAN 4 times but was never put on. I am sure the next time I try to fly I will be pulled asided to get the rubber glove treatment.
Jackibama @ 14:
THEY GOT A BREAK! BY ACCIDENT! As KO pointed out, the schedule slipped in their favor. We'll see...
Obama? Are you listening? America is speaking to you!
As I heard it the civil suit loophole does not mitigate any criminal liability. They can't afford to do that!
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 18:
he threw clark and MoveOn under the bus today. It doesn't bode well.
It's good to hear Keith Olbermann admit that voting for this bill won't make the Republicans less likely to accuse Obama of being 'soft on terrorism', also interesting to hear him frame Obama's potential strategies in terms of 'the greater good.'
To some degree it may be said that Olbermann is at least listening to other viewpoints and participating in the debate reasonably. And bickering between himself and Glen Greenwald aside, the facts are there for all to see: the ball is in Obama's court, and how he plays it will significantly shape his chances for success in rallying the electorate to vote him into office.
xoites defends Constituion @ 6:
what can they say thet we haven't?
nevermind.
harley @ 16:
And that is my point. The phone calls, the emails and whatever else we have been doing just is not enough. We need to put our heads together and find something new that will actually work. Doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same lousy results in not exactly a sign of sanity. Human beings are the most intelligent and most adaptable creatures on the planet. It is time for us to adapt.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 22:
Excellent point. I am as angry with him as most everyone else is.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 17:
Yeah, hope is a frigid bitch in the Democratic party. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
I will say this...go back and look at the Nixon impeachment...it looked like it would never happen until the moment it did. So, as one of the hopeless, I am holding out for my country to do great things again.
Keith hit that one out of the park!
Besides the centerpiece (that immunity from criminal prosecution is not granted in the FISA bill and Obama should use that fact to his - and our nation's - advantage) I liked this quote the most.
Obama certainly did throw Clark and Move On under the bus. After throwing Rev. Wright and his church under the bus. By the time the convention gets here he might better take matching funds. He might not get that much more money. The people that bankrolled him are not feeling so good about him anymore.
I believe Greenwald should not have had the public fight. KO puts together some brilliant rants. Speech and content of that quality takes time and Greenwald did not give KO time to compose the work we heard tonight.
So greenwald, if your cronies are reading this blog: YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANT, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!
I emailed Obama and told him no money this month in protest of his FISA flip flop. The bottom line is we need to avoid another Repub administration for the sake of moving the Supreme Court back to center at least. I have consistently said that we will still have to hold Obama's feet to the fire. Keep up the progressive mantra K.O.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 25:
He was never impeached. He was told to resign by the Republican Party.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 20:
maybe your right i didn't think clark went under the bus....obama wants to say the same thing clark said there are people who can't handle that truth/appraoch...clark makes a point i agree with and i believe it will get SOME people to think twice about their vote for mcBush
SassySandy @ 27:
AND RIGHTEOUSLY SO!
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 20:
He throw all of us under the bus when he flipped flopped on FISA. The reason I voted for him in the primary was he pledged to fillbuster FISA.
Sad, KO has to beg his candidate he pimped to do the right thing.
Geez.
SassySandy @ 9:
I agree. People need to stop looking at this thing like left vs right because it's not. It's about constitutional vs anti-constitutional. I just can't trust the democratic party anymore. They got their precious majority in 2006 but what has it amounted to? The republicans might just as well have won the 2006 elections because Bush has most of the powers he needs to secretly spy on Americans and wage war on Iran. If there was ever an election when we needed to look beyond the two party system then it's this one.
Voting yes even without the immunity is a detriment for our constitution.
We have moron right-wingers coming out in DROVES saying how awesome it is the constitution was upholded when gun rights were upheld.
That's fine... Now let's uphold obtaining a warrant and habeas corpus too. Things that actually seriously matter for our freedom.
getalife @ 34:
See comment 6.
xoites defends Constituion @ 30:
He was about to. the senate repugs went to him and told him that they would have had to convict him. then he resigned. but you are right about that fact. they should have impeached him before allowing Ford to pardon him.
Who are you going to believe, your lying ears or…
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
There is a lot more wrong with this bill than just telecom immunity.
Obama has painted himself into a corner.
xoites defends Constituion @ 23:
The problem is Pelosi. She spent 10 minutes in the House making White House talking points on why FISA should pass as is.
"It is not perfect, but the best we are going to get".
xoites defends Constituion @ 23:
We could all secede.
xoites defends Constituion @ 37:
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 22:
you were right, Xoites.
MountainMan23 @ 41:
I think with the Patriot Act you asking for a Club Gitmo all expense vacation.
Alice X (Chomsky Nader) @ 39:
as per KO< he may as well fight. They are going to slap him either way.
harley @ 40:
No, the problem is US! This is our country. We are sitting on our hands and blaming elected officials who don't give a rat's ass about us for not giving a rat's ass about us.
We need to grow up and get a move on! We have thingsd to do and we are not doing shit!
Did even John Dean forget that a president can pardon anyone he wants to from criminal charges?
Civil suits were the only means to go after this issue that Bush couldn't duck his way out of.
Agree with last few posters about "money"...it was young voters and the grass roost that helped him beat one of the most powerful political machines in history with small donations....it's like he's a different person now discarding the enthusiastic supporters who helped him achieve the unachievable. He's putting out the fire by pissing all over it.
At the rate he's going it's going to be another lesser of two evil election.
harley @ 43:
Filling the jails brought Civil Rights for African Americans.
xoites defends Constituion @ 37:
Do you think Clinton would toss a great General under the bus?
Who is next?
Never been prouder to support Hillary Clinton.
Troll that.
wow........i'm going to get in the way of the bus and get this over with.....i don't want the telecoms to get immunity....mostly because i believe bush and cheney stepped over the line......impeachable
as far as clark goes i agree with him and think i barack obliquely reduced the negativity that the talking heads were going to put on it....what clark said and how it would be interpreted is what obama was refering to...
clark wasn't disrespectful but some will put that spin on it to get the reaction they want....obama opposed the obvious neg spin before it got out of control and was used against him
Also, KO now has to call GG "Daddy."
High time for GG to get some TV face time for prodding KO to do the right thing.
getalife @ 49:
You are doing fine on your own.
I love you Keith! Will you marry me?
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 32:
I agree. I gave to his campaign the first of June and was intending to give in July, but now do not think I will unless I start feeling better about him.
I'm all for Obama and the Democrats spying on Republicans once they get in office.
I'm not sure why you crybabies can't understand that.
He ain't going to play to the independents by 'seeming un-American'
So we should give Obama a pass on FISA because it might be theoretically possible to criminally prosecute? Gosh, its worked out so well since 06: the Democrats stopping the occupation and holding Bush accountable for anything.
No.
The whole bill is corrupt. It says, "If the president says x is legal, then it's legal."
It's a bad anti-constitution, anti-rule of law bill.
Harry Reid needs to go. He should never have allowed this bad bill into the schedule.
All KO comments aside, the criminal prosecution piece made hopeful by Clark is a pipedream. The thing GWB & Co. want avoided at all costs is discovery. Without discovery in court there is no accountability. And it will happen again.
Obama won't vote the right way. I want him to, but after his comments today re patriotism, re MoveOn, etc., it is clear that he won't.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! Says: Dahgrostab’ph-r-i @ 18: Obama? Are you listening? America is speaking to you! he threw clark and MoveOn under the bus today. It doesn’t bode well.
=================
Sadly. If he keeps going in this direction, I'm staying home on voting day.
Please don't make me do that Obama.
ps Keith could have done more good inviting Glenn Greenwald on for the whole show.
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s @ 55:
You may be but i am not. You may be for the United States killing the people that you hate, but i am not for the United States killing the people that i hate. This may be a foriegn concept to you but it is the basis of law. If you want to live in a society that respects your rights you had better start thinking about respecting the rights of others or your moral integrity goes right into the slop bucket.
The bottom line is Obama can't afford to break with his supporters on this issue. He's going to need to keep up the flow of donations now that he's decided to forgo public financing. If his supporters collectively threaten to withhold donations, he has no choice but to listen.
Martin Gifford @ 57:
I totally agree.
getalife @ 49:
Unfortunately, yes. She probably would.
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s @ 55:
Its called integrity and its apparently what you lack.
David @ 62:
I don't give a flying fuck at this point what Obama wants or needs. He will get my vote because the alternative is worse. He will get nothing more until he changes his course.
zm @ 56:
wow paper thin majority handed a bunch of shxt from prior congress.....this congress has dealing with cough up the money up or you don't support the troops,signing statements,secrecy,veto,lieberman,perpetual politicizing
they had this congress with backs against the wall we are going to get our turn if we are patient and think alittle out of the box....the military industrial complex isn't going to roll over mccain has a lot of power and money behind......if barack goes completely liberal totally oppose mccain on everything were screwed the u.s. culture has been conservative i hate it personally the no fear rude bullshit but's not like a light switch just turn it off...the NEOCONS have been three steps ahead of us on everything
jake3988 @ 59:
You shouldn't stay home on election day because Obama or any other candidate "disappointed" you. Look at other candidates in other parties or running independently, do some research, then make up your mind. Voting your conscience even if it adds up to nothing is still better than actually doing nothing.
karl @ 67:
Time to catch up.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 32:
They probably feel he's sold them a false bill of goods, now that he has the nomination in his hip pocket.
He would do well to remember what happened to Ned Lamont after he rested upon his laurels when he defeated Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Senate Primary. Lamont took a vacation, Lieberman went Indy and now sits in the Senate, turd that he is.
If Obama doesn't want to go the same route, he'd better wise up so he can rise up.
Shade Tail @ 64:
Of course she would. She threw us all under the bus when she voted for the war.
I knew what she was about. I was hoping Obama was better. Guess not.
xoites defends Constituion @ 30:
Technically, he was impeached... he was brought up to a hearing, which is an impeachment.... he was never successfully impeached, that is, removed from office. ;P
Wise_Fool @ 72:
I beg to differ. Look it up.
xoites defends Constituion @ 48:
I've watched the news of gas price protests in Europe. Truckers blocking major arteries, refusing to delivery anything - including gasoline.
I've seen the news of 100,000 people in Seoul Korea protesting their government's decision to allow US beef to be sold in Korea again. Several hundred protesters and police injured.
Not too long ago the people of France rose up and shut down the nation when their government tried to rewrite their labor rights.
Maybe it's time we took a clue ..
It was mentioned upthread that if we threaten to cut off donations to Obama, he'd have no choice but to listen to us. That would be true, except he has corporations donating major payola, but it was disguised as netroots fundraising.
That's not to say that all of his money didn't come from the netroots, but if he keeps pissing off his base, we'll soon see who keeps his race financed.
I have a question I really really want to hear Obama answer...
What would America look like today if Richard Nixon had succeeded in pushing legislation through Congress which legalized breaking and entering?
It's not a hard question. Somebody answer it.
In a comment on alternet, someone said
...and us progressives* are dutifully picking through the soup with tweezers, thinking that if we work hard enough we can make the soup edible again. Any rational person would just dump the ruined shit outside the back door and start over.
* I still prefer 'liberals', abandonment of that label is just another example of the left rolling over, begging for the fascists to pleeeease scratch our tummy
I'm from Chicago and I truly believe I am one of Obama's strongest supporters, but this FISA bill capitulation is DEAD WRONG on every level. I will still support Obama but he must show leadership and the strength of character to risk his winning the Presidency in standing against this bill...yes Sen. Obama, this is a "change" moment.
Impeachment History
xoites defends Constituion @ 66:
we have to let him know we are going to get him in but we will not have this bull shit once he is there......bush didn't need to change FISA in the first place this is a trap.....and yes it is a fxxk you to the masses
obama has his gauge needle in the middle he hasn't forgotten us....he isn't letting any of this FEAR tactic stick..that's very hard to do when your at war.....one guy is said to be in uniform and the other guy is said to be naked...find some studies about humans under the stress of fear......if mccain gets in we are in big trouble
SassySandy @ 71:
I doubt Obama will get out of Iraq if he wins.
Guss is that Obama will catch the "chicken-hak" flu from fellow Senators that mysteriously develops whenever something contentious or controvesial appears.
as devil's advocate. what damage that has to be undone may require thet the presidink have special super powers to unearth the crimes and to aggressively reshape the gubmint.
Robert @ 81:
the first symptom is the harry reid cough.
On what basis does Oberman and anyone else believe that Bush won't pardon the telecoms and everyone else involved in this? A mere admission of guilt is hardly a problem for Bush - he has already admitted his guilt on numerous occassions regarding numerous crimes and the pussy Democratic leadership does nothing, and he has every reason to be confident that Obama will also do nothing.
MountainMan23 @ 74:
ever see "running man"?
getalife @ 80:
it depends what out is and i'm not being a smart ass
i say he gets us out.........but i'm listening to you
blackwater may remain to protect 4-5oil cos.
i say the oil companies pay for it....but bush is doing everything he can to make it impossible to get out
you may be correct i just want to believe will stop this
Shade Tail @ 64:
Come on, Carville has his back on CNN.
She would make him VP.
I'm totally confused about what the FISA bill does or doesn't allow? Didn't the ACLU also say that it grants Bush broad powers to spy on anyone he chooses, legalizing what ought to be illegal. But the bill doesn't protect the government for those crimes....
I'm confused!
tballou @ 84:
he can't do it too early because it will make obvious that what they've done is a crime.
When I first heard that Obama wouldn't live up to his promise to filibuster this bill, I emailed his campaign HQ and indicated, in no uncertain terms that I had defended him against racists, Republicans and Hillary supporters. I threatened to throw my support behind McCain, under the premise that I can vote a straight (R) ticket, if that's what I will get anyway.
I received a reply stating that since his lock on the nomination, they couldn't read all of their emails. To add insult, the reply included a link for donations.
If he fails to live up to his word, I will live up to mine.
karl @ 86:
corporations armed like nations? do you want that?
karl @ 86:
They will stay to protect the oil.
xoites defends Constituion @ 78:
Ahhh, too true. he did resign before the actual impeachment proceedings! my bad. ^_^
You are spot on today, Xoites!
On KO vs. glenn greenwald, it is just sad to see peopl driven towards similar goals fighting like the airwaves are a school playground. STFU and focus on the task at hand, both of you! ...oh -- and, great special comment today, Keith. At least here's someone on TV showing people how critical thinking is a GOOD thing, even when the choices are both ugly.
karl @ 79:
Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is standing up to and overcoming fear. Time for us to stand up because the Media Industrial Complex is in control of our destiny unless we take it back. The politicians, for the most part, are hamstrung by having to find campaign money (and guess where most of that comes from) to get elected. We, as a people are left with scraps and lies. Sooner or later something is going to give. If it ends up being us who do we blame? Pelosi? McCain? Obama? The list is endless unless we are honest with ourselves. It is us!
numfar @ 10:
he is pandering.
flip flopping.
(IMHO)
He didn't like Glenn Greenwald critiquing him.
Watch it again and he is contradicting what he said the other day. What qualifies KO to advise Senator Obama on how to campaign or ... oh, what the hell.
he is a blowhard cad.
Marcy at Emptywheel has a post up from a day or two ago asking what is the crime that can be prosecuted, no one is saying anything about what that might be.
I'm sure she will have more to say about it.
I guess I have to go see what Greenwald has to say.
About time Olbermann came to his senses.
xoites defends Constituion @ 11:
There were a great many of us that went all-out, and were squarely ignored in favor of the telecoms, who used our money to pay off the congress against our best interests.
Everyone I spoke with was shocked that is wasn't on the "news" ahead of the vote.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me."
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 91:
the oil companies are going nowhere we can agree on that i would settle for blackwater to stay in iraq they are a public company and arabs of region aren't going like americans their so i want the troops out...it's going to take two yrs. if it happens it's a fluid situation
i think i'm being misunderstood
enough obama, you have enough support and constituency at this point to win this thing going away. but you're going to have us wondering what we have won if you waft any more on your stances. Fisa was a mistake. you don't grant immunity to anyone on the bush side. they all deserve to be tried for their crimes. Seondly, stand up as a man. Make us proud. Because the general stands up and speaks what all of are thinking with regard to mCsame and his war record, don capitulate. support the general in his stance. you renounced the support of your pastor, wrongly so and now you would disassociate yourself from the general. I don't think so. you're going to win. don't leave us thinking what have we won. hell, i wanted kucinich anyway. but i was happy and proud that a
Black man and a woman were vying for the top office. i'm not so proud anymore. get up off your knees.
I will consider Obama a fraud and a traitor just like all the rest if he in fact goes along with the FISA bill and immunity for the TELCOMS and I'll be mighty pissed off that I suckered for this guy and for the first time in my life sent a damned polititian my hard earned money .
He was never impeached. He was told to resign by the Republican Party.
Umm, you completely miss the point. The smoking gun tape wasn't revealed UNTIL HIS IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS BEGAN. Very, very swiftly after the smoking gun tape was revealed, he was forced to resign, because Republicans knew the jig was up, and Nixon would have been impeached and removed from office. Quitting was the honorable act, as well as the politically and legally expedient act. If Nixon had not resigned, and impeachment hearings had been allowed to conclude, Nixon would not only have been the first president in our history to be impeached and removed from office by Congress, he would likely have rotted in prison for decades, if not the remainder of his days.
So, yes, Nixon's impeachment hearings did indeed directly cause his removal from office. Discovery in those hearings brought forth the evidence that solidified said removal from office. Without impeachment being ON THE TABLE, Nixon would never have resigned. Congress used the only tool it had to remove Nixon, impeachment, and it worked.
Dubya, however, has no honor, and isn't bloody well likely to quit. So, if Pelosi wasn't behaving traitorously, exhibiting complicity with this administration, she'd be eager to get impeachment hearings underway, so as to reveal that singular piece of evidence needed to either force Dubya and the Dick to resign, else successfully impeach them and remove them from office. Regardless, it is not her right to take the Legislative Branch's ONLY means of rebuking this administration away from Congress. Such an act is a direct breach of her oath of office, as it specifically undermines the Constitution of the United States of America.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 91:
I see what you are saying but on the other hand, as a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for security for the big oil companies making billions. Do you think they are going to help pay down the debt this war/occupation has caused with all that money they are going to get? I don't either.
Wow, nice broken quote. And nice lack of an edit feature so I can correct the monstrosity above. Grr.
Leslie [Hussein] @ 88:
FISA for Dummies (not you, us).
tballou @ 84:
Bush certainly didn't seem to have to contemplate much before pardoning Scooter Libby. What gives cause to think he would act in any differently for the next crony?
hey i'm all about nothing to FEAR but FEAR itself
i think obama is opposing the FEAR......i'm having very difficult time believing obama isn't smart enough to get it
i think we may hear something good........X you are passionate about this position i think that's great i may seeing it wrong.......it's tough
Janet @ 102:
like i was saying blackwater can stay and oil will pay
not the tax payers anymore
karl @ 98:
I asking again, why would we leave a corporation in Iraq acting as and armed agent of another corporation?
you're obvioously thinking like a colonialist. you must be ok in stealing the natural resources of another country under false pretenses. I am not.
karl @ 106:
Karl, i respect your opinions so much. Don't think i am dissing you. I am not.
Moderation @ 101:
Umm, you completely miss the point. The smoking gun tape wasn't revealed UNTIL HIS IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS BEGAN. Very, very swiftly after the smoking gun tape was revealed, he was forced to resign, because Republicans knew the jig was up, and Nixon would have been impeached and removed from office. Quitting was the honorable act, as well as the politically and legally expedient act. If Nixon had not resigned, and impeachment hearings had been allowed to conclude, Nixon would not only have been the first president in our history to be impeached and removed from office by Congress, he would likely have rotted in prison for decades, if not the remainder of his days.
So, yes, Nixon's impeachment hearings did indeed directly cause his removal from office. Discovery in those hearings brought forth the evidence that solidified said removal from office. Without impeachment being ON THE TABLE, Nixon would never have resigned. Congress used the only tool it had to remove Nixon, impeachment, and it worked.
Dubya, however, has no honor, and isn't bloody well likely to quit. So, if Pelosi wasn't behaving traitorously, exhibiting complicity with this administration, she'd be eager to get impeachment hearings underway, so as to reveal that singular piece of evidence needed to either force Dubya and the Dick to resign, else successfully impeach them and remove them from office. Regardless, it is not her right to take the Legislative Branch's ONLY means of rebuking this administration away from Congress. Such an act is a direct breach of her oath of office, as it specifically undermines the Constitution of the United States of America.
Uh nice quote and you are completely correct. If they started impeachment hearings EVERYTHING would have to come out. There is no executive privilege to be used in impeachment hearings. No refusal to testify allowed. There would be no place to hide for bush and gang. Pelosi royally screwed this up by taking impeachment off the table. It was, for bush, a license to commit as many crimes as possible for the remainder of his term. The ultimate "Get out of Jail Free Card".
xoites defends Constituion @ 104:
Thanks Xoites. That much, however, I understood. It's what Dean's talking about that has me confused. And what about Congressional oversight? Not even Congress knows the full extent of Bush's illegal domestic spy programs.
Moderation @ 101:
Umm, you completely miss the point. ...
Dubya, however, has no honor, and isn't bloody well likely to quit. ....
I don't think anyone missed the point. the point was a point of fact, no more.
Leslie [Hussein] @ 88:
I am no expert on this legislation, myself... but insofar as I have read and come to understand, the president may allow companies to spy on citizens without a warrant if he believes it is a necessary thing, and if he believes he acted according to applicable law. in the case of the immunity amendment, it says that any company that broke the law when the president told them to (remember, the president acted in 'good faith' that he was being legal about it), then they cannot be held liable for CIVIL penalties, AKA lawsuits by the citizens who were spied upon.
As to what I feel about it... the whole thing is crap through and through. The president should not be authorizing search and siezure without the approval of the courts, period. If there is a judgement call to be made on whether or not a warrant would take too long, then someone from the judicial branch should, in my opinion, make the call and live with the problems if she/he comes up wrong. That is, after all, the POINT of the judicial branch. they JUDGE.
Secondly, there should be absolutely NO immunity whatsoever for these companies. Criminal proceedings will go only so far, and they -do- have more moral implications than civil suits, this much is true. you can remove the criminals from the companies and rom the white house, for a time. however, what would send a real message to the telecom companies, to ALL corporate assholes, is the sweeping class-action suit being brought upon the companies that complied. You see, criminality is hard to pin on a businessman, he is protected from it in many ways by the non-living entity (the corporation). as long as he is just doing his job, and the company shareholders support his notions, then criminality prevails. at most, he gets fired, and the company gets fined. the major criminal is the business itself, which only cares about one thing: MONEY. that is why republicans are so visciously holding onto immunity. the company doesn't care about losing one CEO, or even five top-ranked employees... they care that if they get sued, the company goes under, and all those criminals lose. it would be a much scarier message to corporations about breaking the law if they saw a telecom giant go under due to civil suits from their whole client base.
divide and conquer, that is the game. watch the shiny bait! watch it... oh, you're bored? breaking news, there's another piece of shiny bait! look at it! don't mind while we tie your hands behind your back and chisel down your teeth....
Awesome Special Comment. Thanks for posting it.
Leslie [Hussein] @ 111:
Exactly. They are voting on something (and in the POSITIVE!) that they have not even seen.
They do this all the time, by the way.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 108:
I hope the Iraqis back out of this deal and tell the oil companies to go F**k themselves. So far they haven't signed it. They want to pay the oil companies money and the oil companies want to be paid in oil.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 108:
okay i'm not that smart give me a minute it's not up to me they are a PRIVATE company....otherwise the oil companies MAY be under attack and affect the world economy.....i'm not saying i'm correct it's idea...i want the troops out i thought it would be an alternative
i didn't see it as us leaving it there it's up to them if they want to contract with the oil corporations and stay
if not they can leave also....they don't belong to the tax payors.......i'm not a corporate logistics person
1. Large companies have huge overheads.
2. Large companies have profit margins of 1% to 5% of sales.
3. If 10% of a large companies customers cancelled service they would operate at huge losses.
Wise_Fool @ 113:
It's my understanding that the telecoms chose to go along with Bush's illegal spy program. They didn't have to. They chose to.
But what John Dean is referring to is something different: He's saying that the FISA bill won't immunize the Bush administration from criminal charges, presumably later on during a Democratic administration and Democratic Congress. Yet the FISA bill authorizes Bush to not only continue his domestic spy programs, but also broadens his powers to do so. That's the part that has me confused. According to Dean, in order to understand this, you need to read more than the FISA bill. You also need to read applicable case law and be a lawyer, basically.
here's what's going on iraq/iran border
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=61437§ionid=351020201
I Like Pie @ 118:
Agreed. We may not be able to get our elected officials to pay attention, but a well organized and directed boycott could kick some of these folks in the gonads.
Several posts mention Iraq, the possibility of US withdrawal, who will protect the oil infrastructure ..
Amazing news about Iraq and the Oil Companies:
TimesOnlineUK: Iraq opens oilfields to international deals
The Iraqis stood up to the oil companies.
That changes a lot.
Avedon @ 46:
The President cannot pardon himself. Of course he might pardon the entire rest of his administration, and the telecom execs, but that would be an admission of lawbreaking.
You place way too much value on the civil suits. Corporations can delay and drag those out for 20 years, and the executives involved would be gone long before that. And people suing would have to show that they had in some way been harmed by these actions. that would be very, very difficult.
Brownback noted the immunity only extended to civil suits in January. It only protects the stockholders. So why haven't the telecoms been twisting arms to get criminal immunity, too? And in April, Obama expressed a commitment to go after criminal actions in the administration that are discerned with a review of documents, (but not engage in a witchhunt.)
His colleagues at the law school where he lectured express great respect for Obama's legal mind. KeithO may have blown the cover for a legal gambit here, but it's to late now for the Repubs to fix it. However, if the FISA bill is defeated by a fillibuster, the GOP could correct the loophole in the next version.
Obama's a veteran of Chicago politics. Don't misunderestimate him.
Two Words:
Glen Greenwald
PS
Both Obama And Olbermann did some good ole fashioned five-star pandering today.
Sheesh on a stick...
MountainMan23 @ 122:
i'm trying to make that point also and i'm getting shot down.......i say blackwater stay they are a private corporation they can have that option....bush is trying to set this up to be immpossible to leave
Leslie [Hussein] @ 119:
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows"
My understanding is that FISA and ThePatriot act both amend hundreds of laws (which, by the way makes them especially tough to repeal) so it is true that to understand all the implications of this bill you really do need not A lawyer, but a team of lawyers. I have no doubt the people who put this bill together had just that.
tballou @ 84:
A President can't pardon himself.
Richard Peterson @ 127:
True, may i remind you of Gerald Ford?
To me this may be the biggest reason to vote for Obama.
Janet @ 116:
Here is the reason why the deal stinks:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
oil map wow that a large area
Leslie [Hussein] @ 111:
Any rational person would look at Mark Klein/Room 641a and realize they got everything from everybody everywhere, and then used anything they could to go on snipe hunts to make Americans think there was a sleeper cell hiding under every bed in America. Of course, 'rational' isn't a label that can be applied to our elected officials.
It's like being kicked in the stomach to realize that NIXON was a more honorable man than the sitting president.
karl @ 125:
Well, if the Iraqis continue to protect their own interests one would expect them to award contracts to a variety of companies & nations, thus diversifying the mix and keeping the Iraqis in control of the situation. They've already indicated this by requiring each bid winner to partner with an Iraqi company.
Presumably each of these companies and nations would either supply their own security or the Iraqis would shoulder the burden of providing security for them all.
No need for US troops or for anyone to hire any US contractors.
I want to see what the Bush administration & Big Oil do next. This news certainly does not please them.
karl @ 125:
that is privatized colonialism. what else do you call it? we never should have invaded the country, but now it's ok to divvy up the oil? I know I'm not getting through. I'm just trying to understand why.
the one thing the nazis did than as we are doing now is legalizing crime and corruption. So this is what 4200 americans and 1,000,000 Iraqis died for? really? So we can leave a bunch of mercenaries to protect dick chainey's friends?
Leslie [Hussein] @ 119:
Well, yes, in fact... you should basically be a legal scholar in order to understand any of this bill, because it is based upon very complex logistics. First off, all law is arguable. a criminal can break into your house, and break his hand in the act of getting away from you and your tazer.. and successfully sue you, according to the basic logic of civil law (torts). Of course, common sense more often rules in favor of the guy chasing down the robber, but it doesn't HAVE TO end up that way.
As for Dean and criminal investigations, that is really 2 simultaneous issues, if not more. this law is not applicable to Bush, by himself... it is a federal law they are enacting, it cares naught about bush. it is a law that gives the executive branch a certain amount of power to do what is necessary, if deemed so.
the second issue at hand is, did Bush overstep the boundaries of the current-standing FISA law? if he did, he and those who helped him can be effectively brought up for a criminal trial. That second issue will have no bearing on the new FISA law they are trying to enact. The new law will open up a new can of worms for the next president who exercises the new power, and the whole scary process will start over.
There are other issues to be argued as well, such as whether or not this law can/will be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. When civil trials are cut off, it is much harder for the pureme court to make a ruling against that law. see, a case must be brought up to the Supreme Court first before a ruling on constitutionality can be made (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong someone). criminal suits of this magnitude take FOREVER, well beyond the term of the law. In civil suits, the courts can suspend repercussions of a law indefinitely while it decides (I'm not sure if that is available in criminal proceedings). and once the court makes a ruling, the law is declared unconstitutional and is stricken from the record.
It will be interesting to see which path Barack Obama takes, and whether he will make it clear, that as our next president, he will appointment someone (like former Sen. John Edwards) to head the Justice Department, someone who will not pull a Mukasey, someone who will stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law, someone who will launch thorough investigations into the criminality of the outgoing Bush/Cheney administration, someone who will leave no stone unturned in bringing any Republicans who broke the law to justice.
On a related note, the Democratic Leadership Council finally endorsed Barack Obama's presidential bid. (You know, the DLC which is the breeding ground for the Blue Dog Democrats, who consistently rubber stamp anything that Republicans propose, including the criminal Republicans in the White House).
Two questions:
1) What did Barack Obama have to promise the DLCers to get their endorsement, and
2) Did he promise the DLCers that he would select a Blue Dog Democrat (someone like Joe Lieberman) to be his running mate.
God help us, and God help Barack Obama's campaign, if any such quid pro quo occurred.
No more "moving to the right," Mr. Obama, because in the current context of what is happening (and has happened to our country), if "moving to the right" means becoming more like the culture of corruption Republicans and the criminals in the Bush administration who've done so much damage to our country as well as making the future for our nation's children look so bleak, then I believe almost 80 percent of U.S. citizens have seen enough of this already.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 129:
Those last minute efforts by the Bush administration failed:
Iraq opens oilfields to international deals
I still can't believe Obama, or the Democratic leadership(whoever the fuck they are), would allow him to place himself unnecessarily in the middle of this fire storm....stupid...just plain stupid.
xoites defends Constituion @ 23:
Wise_Fool @ 134:
Not always forever, it depends on the urgency. Death row cases, as a for instance in the case of legal injection just recently, will be fast tracked.
Your name, by the way, should end after the first four letters.
Richard Peterson @ 123:
a class-action suit for infringing on constitutional rights of citizens would go much quicker than 20 years, especially when the class-action involves the whole of AT&T's client list. Also, issues of constitutionality of law take immediate precedent in the Supreme Court, they can't just put it off. This would be a backbone fight for the Supreme Court, there is no tabling it for 20 years. And when you can argue your rights have been infringed by a company, it is automatically shown to have done harm. there is no breaking the constitution of the US, laws are secondary to IT, not the other way around.
And I would concur that the first people to get hurt by a civil suit is the stockholders... they are the actual company, the one who dictates to the CEO what is in the best interest of the company. the CEO just falls behind them and executives the wishes of the board, officially. THEY are the real criminals, and THEY are the ones who will continue to infringe upon your rights after the CEO at the time is arrested. Most CEO's are not the Presidents of the Board, they are hired lackeys who take the fall for the Board's unwritten directives, and move to another subsidiary after taking said fall.
Star @ 139:
I didn't say but i have exactly zip. I will tell you a story sometime about what a group of commited people can do without money.
MountainMan23 @ 132:
the only enemy in Iraq are the starving Iraqis. Every time the boosh regime wants more body count, they send the soldiers on stupid missions to kick in doors and shoot civilians. some shoot back, some leave bombs around, some load their bodies with explosives.
like the vietnamese, they will not follow us home because they can't.
their oil was nationalized and chainey and lay wanted it and needed a pretext. they exploited 9/11, colon powell's lies, made up other shit and invaded a second country that had nothing to do with 9/11. All reports since have said essentially that we had no business doing that.
so why are we leaving a privatized colonial army of murderous mercenaries to protect oil companies?
MountainMan23 @ 137:
As it should be!
Left&Left @ 138:
apparently, there was no changing of the guard. the clintonistas are going to make barack unelectable. the merger of democratic challengers is not going well.
Obama is naive. I hope he learns about the Rahm Emanuels and chuck schumers before it's too late.
Xoites, if you knew me better than my ranting here, you would know FOOL applies much more than the first, LOL. But thanks a lot for the compliment. ;P
Too bad he never attacks his own party... snark.
Wise_Fool @ 146:
Yeah, i scratch my ass sometime too. So what?
Lets face it, Obama is not a leader. If the nomination had gone to John Edwards, he would NOT have done what Obama did. Obama has flip flopped on a lot of issues. From Day one, he has not been a leader. Rember the issue of appearing on the Fox News debates? Obama and HRC waited till Edwards made the decision to not appear on Fox, then they followed his lead. I think if he keeps up this flip flopping, he is going to look like a jelly fish by the time the convention rolls around. When he tries to appease the Republicans and moves to the middle, democraticvoters lose respect for him. He's falling into the same old trap that Kerry fell into. Time to man up Obama, or you'll lose my vote.
Unfortunately and depressingly, I think we've run out of time in this country to do anything that will change the process. Well, anything short of outright revolution. Which is rapidly becoming the only option left, stark as it may be to most Americans.
I urged our fellow citizens to demand for term limits on all those elected to Congress years ago, to no avail. Without those, we can do little to stop the lifelong stranglehold on getting important, fair & effective legislation passed through either the House or Senate. And without forcing those in Congress to uphold the basic tenets of the constitution, then I see very little way the country can stay intact. It feels like being in a vehicle that has just reached the peak of the large hill, and is now starting down the other side KNOWING the brakes don't work.
Since we cannot get term limits in place this cycle, voters need to pick candidates who are going to respond to their constituents accordingly or face recall action....no matter if the recall action is annual or not. Do it, fund it by paying taxes if need be (look at all the REALLY CRAPPY stuff you pay for with taxes that does you little or no good anyhow) and get those out of office who do not support the constitution and we the people.
Now, it is quite obvious that the citizens of California and Nevada ( among others ) have work to do in order to oust both Pelosi and Reid, who have been increduously incompetent - if not altogether criminal - in not stopping some of the crap that has passed.
To have a majority and fail to capitalize on it can be explained in only one of two ways:
1. Incompetence
2. In bed with the "other side" to CYA
Either way, there's something horribly wrong with the faux two party system as it stands right now. Because there isn't one.
Sany @ 149:
Kerry, Pelosi, Reid. This list goes on and on.
Comments are closed on this entry