Jack and Jill Politics - Latest Comments in Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Der Vandernder Yid — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:05:00 -0000

@Craig

"On a related note, one would think the Supreme Court would want to uphold the Constitution, no?"

Good luck getting this in front of the Supreme Court, let alone a federal judge. Since the whole damn program is secret, how the hell can you establish standing in litigation? How can you prove that you were injured, if you can't prove that spying happened to you? If you can't prove that you were injured, you have no standing. If you can't prove standing, you have no case that a federal court will hear. With telco immunity, everyone is going to get tossed out on their asses, and you're never going to be able to prove a damn thing.

I'm no expert on things of this nature, but I do know that courts won't strike down a law unless someone can prove an injury typically.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Ms.Martin — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 16:25:00 -0000

Hearts

Very well said.

' Black people have been giving it away for NOTHING in return but a hope and a sense of fairness.

Black people have been giving it away for NOTHING in return but a hope and a sense of fairness.'

So true. This is why the Father's Day speech bothered me, I didn't think it was fair and I was very disappointed and feeling like more of the same.

I feel the same way you do about the other issues and think the variables make it difficult to please everyone.

Michelle

I understand, your frustration is about the uproar over FISA - I agree with Hearts on this. Though I do believe the driving force is that many corporations are involved and the litigation would be voluminous and I'm sure they is much more to this story than the general public is privy to.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

BigAssBelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:57:00 -0000

michelle.

go read the constitution and the bill of rights. it's apparent you have no idea what those documents mean or what went into the making of them.

then you'll know what i'm so "personally" upset about. good grief, you're making this into some kind of personal psychological issue?

there's a term for that: projection.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Michelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:20:00 -0000

heartsandflowers I find your comment at 05:09 AM extremely useful and wise and will be reflecting more on it.

The whole thing but in particular for me right now these parts:

4. Thinking 'change' means wiping the slate clean or starting over from scratch. I think the entire system is flawed and was broken back when the Founding Fathers: stole people and enslaved them, used the income to fund their own war of independence from another 'oppressor' and actively enacted laws that kept slavery in place in violation of ignored laws opposing it.

I know people are attached to the Constitution but they intentionally discounted people from participating and benefitting from it's laws. So people today hold it up as this pillar when it has rarely been used in its entirety in the first place.

........

Why we feel entitled to our lifestyle without accepting responsibility of the actions required to support it.

ex. people who support a vegan lifestyle and oppose animal abuse [and make it into a moral and/or political issue and have an air of superiority about "doing the right thing"] but don't consider the lives of the migrant workers who toil to make fruits/veggies available.

.......

6. FISA rules being followed, being broken, the illusion that citizens are not to spied upon, but historically how the gov't has always spied on people; see MLK, Malcolm X, Black Panthers, Anti-War groups, Hoover. I've heard certain words are coded and get flagged and that we are in fact being monitored all the time.

And really the whole thing.

I know it was a reply to Ms Martin but I will say: thank you so much for this comment, thank you.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Michelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:05:00 -0000

Ms Martin @1:31, don't know if anyone is still reading this thread, but you wrote: I guessed my question would be better answered if you could tell me what you think people are projecting on him as opposed to what he has done or said.

Right now for me, it's the energy of the people who are upset at him because of his statement and actions/lack of actions re: the House vote on FISA.

For some -- NOT ALL but some -- there's this personal sense of dramatic psychological betrayal in how they make their public declarations about how they feel and what they are now going to do. Some of which I have seen on this site, though not as much as elsewhere.

I understand disagreeing with him and wanting to hold him to task and don't have any problem with comments and people coming cleanly from that space.

But the intensely personal-drama feel of some people's responses is really repellent to me. When I was sorting through what I felt going on I realized that it felt to me like relationship or "family drama" of the sort that is extremely self-referential for the people who are so upset.

I'm not entirely how best to name *what* some people are projecting on him around the FISA-Obama-drama; it may be a various things depending on the person, since IMO it really is pretty self-referential to whatever the individuals internal "issues" are.

(again -- I am NOT talking about the comments and people who are politically disagreeing in a clean sort of way, it's the ones with all the angst and personal drama energy I'm talking about).

My girlfriend sees some of this drama as coming from rigid ungrounded ideologies that get projected outward. I see some evidence of that too but not sure precisely how it gets so linked into the personal-drama feel of things.

There's a fair amount of what I am repelled by on the dailykos, which I never read before this election season and may have to stop reading again.

And, some of the comments from bigassbelle on this thread and Friday's open thread to me illustrate a vivid and particularly extreme version of what I am talking about. In this case the FISA statement seemed to serve as the catalyst for an individual to feel so deeply and personally betrayed and freaked out that she wrote that she prays for suffering on people in a country -- The U.S. -- we later find out she plans to leave. Praying for others to hurt while you plan to scape the pain, because you are so internally self-referentially upset ... I will not say the words that I have for this kind of thing. I do also see some evidence of a rigid ideology in these and other of her comments as well, which is along the lines my girlfriend is thinking.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

BigAssBelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:41:00 -0000

and that last paragraph would be predicated on their not wanting to pass this bill, so it's moot.

they want it. they want it for their "people" ~ the corporations.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

BigAssBelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:40:00 -0000

the democrats want this fisa bill, they want it primarily for the telecom companies.

they are enormous donors to political campaigns, the telecoms.

the fisa bill has been fought back by activist democratic citizens several times now.

the democratic sellouts in congress keep allowing it to come up. over and over.

they want this bill to pass. want it.

the democrats could, if they wanted to, do precisely on this bill what the republicans do over and over:

play obstructionist politics and filibuster the motherfucker. but no, that would require some bit of spine and there doesn't seem to be a fucking backbone in the whole lot of them (feingold, dodd and a few others excluded).

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

D. — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:36:00 -0000

Craig,
Think the unemployment benefits are attached to the war supplemental.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Craig Hickman — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:29:00 -0000

Pamela,

But the "liberal media" isn't discussing McCain's age and its effect on his electability with the same vim and vigor that it's discussing Barack's race.

Even though every single poll in the last two weeks tells us age is a bigger issue for voters.

::

For all of our discussions of the Constitution and FISA, has anyone expressed any outrage about the politics behind the way this bill came up for the vote the way this bill came pu for the vote?

On a related note, one would think the Supreme Court would want to uphold the Constitution, no?

What's the Supreme Court going to do when it decides to review this bill?

And what else is attacked to this bill? Isn't there something attached to this bill that extends unemployment benefits? Or did I hear that wrong?

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Pamela — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:48:00 -0000

From the Washington Post:

In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be "entirely comfortable" with it, that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

KarmiCommunist — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:32:00 -0000

Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress With Iran

European officials are increasingly concerned that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

KarmiCommunist — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:09:00 -0000

Fanatical Feminist

The article is just one reflection of what happens when leftists get their way. Leftists are actually communists/socialists -- though most deny it, or don’t even realize it -- who believe that the government is suppose to help them and others, by forcefully taking from others.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! - Marx

Look at some of their other issues, e.g. 1) ‘man-made’ Global Warming. At one time -- on earth -- oceans were covered in an ice-sheet that was one-mile deep…the entire planet earth was covered in ice. Mankind wasn’t around, so how did the ice go away? And, that was just one Ice Age. 2) Environment – “save the trees”…by letting forest fires destroy the forests, instead of allowing loggers into the forests. “no drilling for oil”…lets fund terrorism instead. “Bush caused Katrina”…of course, the environmentalists got a pass on the damage caused by Katrina, even though it was them who had stopped anyone from touching the Mississippi River and the marsh areas around New Orleans. 3) World Peace – “no more wars”…that’s a good one. Leftists think that they can stop the enemy by talking to them, or by threatening them with court systems.

From the above link: Alice Walker believed so strongly that children enslaved their mothers she disowned her own daughter…saw motherhood a form of servitude…etc.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

BigAssBelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:56:00 -0000

As a centrist ~ and now, apparently, center right ~ candidate, Obama is nowhere near liberal enough for me.

But I have supported him in large part because of his stand on foreign policy ~ that we must do things differently, that democrats are the better party to "keep us safe" (so fucking tired of that phrase).

With his support of FISA, he did a 180 degree turn back to the tired old destructive republican narrative that we can only be strong on security if we trash the Constitution.

As ptcruiser said: "Obama either believes the government can act unlawfully against American citizens or he does not."

which is it? and one of the most disappointing results of his statement is the sudden appeasement being promulgated by former staunch advocates of the defeat of this bill. it seems that the thing is just to elect Obama, no matter what, no matter what he does, says, anything. just elect him!!

bullshit. if we don't hold our candidates' feet to the fire ~ all of our candidates ~ we have nothing.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Craig Hickman — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:51:00 -0000

Obama is not that liberal

::

Say it again. It amazes me how much his opponents are doing their best to paint him as a radical.

It won't work.

Anybody who's paying attention knows Barack is not that liberal.

His opponents are talking to those who aren't paying attention and to them only.

I'm no fan of David Brooks and I reject some of his more dismissive and sarcastic language in his recent column, but he basically put out a warning to Barack's opposition.

If they keep underestimating them, they will be run over.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Craig Hickman — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:41:00 -0000

ms.martin, I left out a word when I summarized your position. My bad. But I still don't see what you see.

You think Barack has sold his soul. I see no evidence of that. Clearly we have different thresholds a pol must cross before coming to that conclusion.

That's all.

::

Whoever wrote that Barack didn't cite a single example of a race-based attack when talking to the Floridians at that fundraiser is lying. They are also lying to say that he's suggesting that any criticism against his policies is racist.

Barack called out Floyd Brown, independent slimethrower, who has already created and aired two ads painting Barack as a scary Black Muslim terrorist. One of the ads ran in North Carolina, the other ran in South Dakota.

The "Barack lied about never being a Muslim" ad has nothing to do with policy issues. It includes lies that have already been debunked. It has everything to do with exactly what Barack said in Florida. It is about making the voter scared of him for reasons that have nothing to do with his policies or his politics.

::

d.,

I haven't lost my enthusiasm for Barack's candidacy because I never had any doubt that he was capable of playing tough politics in order to win. Chicago politics ain't never been no tea party. Ambition is the central ingredient for any politician running for President.

He's so inexperienced, he's so naive, folks say.

Uh huh.

The man is a shrewd, calculating, intelligent and talented politician who knows what's up.

Whether he's ultimately elected or not, I haven't seen a bigger political talent in my lifetime.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

PTCruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:06:00 -0000

I am still supporting Obama but his position on the FISA bill is indefensible no matter how much he wants to inoculate himself from right-wing charges that he is weak on security issues. People who defend his position on the grounds that political expediency often overrules political principle are overlooking the real stakes in this debate. Maintaining the safeguards provisions of the 4th Amendment are actually more important than electing America's first black president or first woman or achieving any other historic milestone this November.

Obama is flat out wrong on this issue and his position demonstrates not the sort of practical pragmatism that is the stock-in-trade of politicians but a sort of craven cowardice and fear that is generally displayed by politicians with far less talent than he possesses. Getting elected president of the United States is a process of straining for symmetry, that is, trying to bring irregular halves together by occupying the middle. There is not, unfortunately, a middle position on the protections we are afforded under the 4th Amendment. Obama either believes the government can act unlawfully against American citizens or he does not.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

BigAssBelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:54:00 -0000

d: you're a complete nitwit if you think there's a liberal media in this country. quit drinking the right wing koolaid.

s: hahahaha!! obama a "hard left liberal"? please. he's a center right politician.

michelle: what people aren't getting about FISA is this:

George Bush swore on a Bible to uphold and defend the Constitution. Then he wiped his ass with it.

The FISA betrayal is not about drama or emotion or any of that, it's about the foundation of this country, the Constitution of the United States. The one the Republicans have run roughshod over for the last eight years.

It's not a political issue, it's not a talking point, it's the fucking foundation of this country. To blow it off ~ especially while parroting the worst of the right wing terrorist talking points ~ is a fucking outrage.

Tell me how a constitutional law professor could even think of doing that?

Here, I'll tell you: corporatocracy. End of democracy.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

PTCruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:35:00 -0000

I sort of love the way that one or two persons on this thread throws around the term "hard left" as if it actually describes anything at all about the political beliefs and inclinations of the people who are tagged with this political epithet. If folks who are nominal Democrats or who describe their politics as being progressive are members of the "hard left" then how would one inclined to use this term describe members of the Sparticist League or the Communist Party of the USA?

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:35:00 -0000

According to ABC, some sparks flew during the meeting with Obama and some CBC members, particularly Clinton supporters.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/P...

Apparantly, these members don't understand that Obama has a general election campaign to run and he must move to the middle and not focus on the few dissatisfied women who support McCain.

According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."

Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words -- "Get over it." She found them dismissive, off-putting.

"Don't use that terminology," Watson told Obama.

Clarke did not react the same way.

Watson must be looking for a primary challenge

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

heartsandflowers — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:09:00 -0000

Michelle - thanks.

I've been reading a lot of blogs and between Al Giordano's and Lisa Vasquez -

http://blackwomenblowthetru...

- I have been sorting through my perspective on a LOT of things.

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

Ms. Martin,

I was not speaking of specifics per se, just that people have had an emotional response to Obama and now for some he's 'letting them down' or 'pissing them off'.

1. Messiah complex - there is no savior.

2. Assuming his agenda is 'liberal' or 'progressive' and not defining what that means - or assuming it means something specific. It is something different for everyone, so without one specific set of ifs, ands or buts who considers themselves being heard and who doesn't?

3. No understanding of how the government operates and expecting outcomes specific to a set of circumstances falling into place.

4. Thinking 'change' means wiping the slate clean or starting over from scratch. I think the entire system is flawed and was broken back when the Founding Fathers: stole people and enslaved them, used the income to fund their own war of independence from another 'oppressor' and actively enacted laws that kept slavery in place in violation of ignored laws opposing it.

I know people are attached to the Constitution but they intentionally discounted people from participating and benefitting from it's laws. So people today hold it up as this pillar when it has rarely been used in its entirety in the first place.

5. Free market vs. Capitalism vs. Regulation vs. De-regulation vs. 'No Big Gov't vs. Corporate Welfare, Earmarks and Kickbacks. Union-busting vs. NAFTA

Living Wage vs. Minimum Wage.

Why the Federal Reserve wields so much power with no oversight.

Why we feel entitled to our lifestyle without accepting responsibility of the actions required to support it.

ex. people who support a vegan lifestyle and oppose animal abuse [and make it into a moral and/or political issue and have an air of superiority about "doing the right thing"] but don't consider the lives of the migrant workers who toil to make fruits/veggies available.

6. FISA rules being followed, being broken, the illusion that citizens are not to spied upon, but historically how the gov't has always spied on people; see MLK, Malcolm X, Black Panthers, Anti-War groups, Hoover. I've heard certain words are coded and get flagged and that we are in fact being monitored all the time.

7. How much power we abdicate.

Do I think an Obama presidency will be good? Yes. Will MY needs be met? That is yet to be determined. It comes down to exacting a value to my support. Black people have been giving it away for NOTHING in return but a hope and a sense of fairness.

AIPAC doesn't care about what's 'fair' they want certain actions to be taken even though a larger group of people want something different. But you see who gets catered to? We have to be like that. And it would be great for some balance while we're at it.

So that was long but this is off the top of my head.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:08:00 -0000

I am so excited by Barack Obama's new politics. Like Chris Matthews, I got a thrill down my leg when the senator announced his candidacy promising a "new kind of politics." As I recall, he said, "Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first." Goosebumps!

You know how most politicians say one thing and do another? Well, Barack is different. He gave Hillary Clinton quite a dressing down during the primaries in the Rust Belt for having once supported NAFTA, a treaty Barack called "devastating." Obama said he'd use the threat of withdrawal from the treaty as a "hammer" to wring concessions out of Canada and Mexico. And sure, his top economics aide told a Canadian consulate official on the QT that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was "more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans."

But that only shows how hard it is for Obama to find aides who are as farseeing and honest as he is. Well, yes, the candidate did acknowledge to Fortune magazine last week that he now views NAFTA more favorably and wouldn't seek to renegotiate its terms. And yes, he did say, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." But, oh, the way he employs the passive voice! It's not that he pandered to or misled the voters. No, the rhetoric got overheated. Who else, I ask you, can so smoothly deploy the passive voice?

Barack Obama is so uplifting. He has said, "We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists (note: don't you hate those low priced lobbyists?) but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American." Yes, yes, yes. When he released a list of earmarks he had requested over the past three years in the U.S. Senate, he was being open and honest about the favors he has done. Some might say that $740 million is hardly worth mentioning in the context of the huge federal budget. And if $1 million went to the hospital that happens to employ Mrs. Obama, well, that's because she looks incredible in a black-and-white print sundress.

Obama has called us to something higher than politics as usual. "The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players," he intoned. After clinching the Democratic nomination, Obama's first big appointment was Jim Johnson to head his vice presidential search committee. Johnson has such wonderful experience under his belt, with ties to Walter Mondale, John Kerry, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae, the Trilateral Commission, and it turns out, Countrywide Financial. Well, yes, Countrywide was one of the mortgage lenders Obama had condemned earlier this year for "pumping up the subprime lending market. ... They get a $19 million bonus while people are at risk of losing their home. What's wrong with this picture?" And it didn't look exactly kosher that Johnson had reportedly received up to $7 million at below-market rates as a special friend of the company's CEO, Angelo Mozilo.

But Obama's response showed just how above this sort of thing he truly is. He zeroed in on the nature of the problem as soon as Johnson's shady deal came to light: "There's a game that can be played. Everybody, you know, who is tangentially related to our campaign, I think, is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire a vetter to vet the vetters." How true. It's a shame really that Johnson resigned, not wanting to become a distraction, because he was so tangential anyway.

Obama is the kind of leader who can bring us together. He may have the most one-sided, partisan voting record in the Senate, but that just shows how ready he is for a fresh start. He will take on the "special interests," like the farmers. He voted for the largest farm bill in history ($307 billion). Take that!

Obama is going to set a new tone in politics. Yes, he did promise to abjure private financing of his presidential campaign if the Republican nominee would do the same, but as everyone can see, things have changed. Public finance would provide only $85 million, whereas Obama has raised more than three times that already. As the candidate explained so upliftingly, "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections" but "this is our moment and our country is depending on us."

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:00:00 -0000

W
We really don't know just how liberal or moderate the probable next President of the United States actually is. Secondly, the idea that he admits he has been blowing smoke on some topics (such as NAFTA) and has backed away from his own "overheated" rhetoric on other topics, ("undivided" Jerusalem, "unconditional" pledge to meet with foreign leaders) does not inspire confidence that we can discern the "true" Obama by listening to his words. And of course, we can't discern the "true" Obama by studying his resume and track record because if you blink once you miss it.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Ms.Martin — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:48:00 -0000

rikyrah

Obama said that Hillary Clinton is worthy of your respect. Now I know that's politics.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Ms.Martin — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:31:00 -0000

Michelle

I guessed my question would be better answered if you could tell me what you think people are projecting on him as opposed to what he has done or said.

Re: Saturday Open Thread – Come on in!

Michelle — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 04:09:00 -0000

Hi Ms. Martin,

You asked: Who determines what the full scope of reality is?

Would that be their reality or yours?

About what the full scope of reality is -- I do feel, viscerally, that excluding the reality of some people/groups is a very very common form of "quiet violence" inside this society. In this society the more system-power someone/some group has, the more their reality is supposedly legitimate. It's incredibly ugly the way it works.

My own reality is privileged in some ways and totally and completely discounted in others (to the point where there is no actual language for some core aspects of how I perceive and experience the world).

For me the resonance with what heartsandflowers wrote is the distinction between things he can be held accountable for, and everything else.

I myself feel he can be held accountable for where he is actually coming from and not what people just project into him.

I personally feel responsible for understanding the situation as best I can based on external information outside what I have desired him to be. I have needed to be as rigorous with myself as possible on this point and it's been (and remains) a big deal to me to push myself on it.

Because -- I've been trying to understand why I have such an interest in this political race. I'm generally not into electoral politics like this. I have had gut feelings that I didn't understand. Trying to understand led me to seek out information on where Senator Obama is coming from, what he's about. The three main sources of information that have informed me most so far are:

1. His two books (and also a biography on him, but mostly his books)

2. His actions in the campaign thus far that I have seen

3. Published interviews with him and various pieces of other information (for example recent experiences I have had in interaction with a member of his campaign staff)

I'm not saying these are the best sources of information, just the ones I looked at hardest to answer my own questions.

One of the biggest breakthroughs in my own comprehension was reading Audacity of Hope. It showed me something crucial about how he thinks. In some ways it's alien to me, and in some ways it felt really uncomfortable. But it was crucial information for my own understanding of what he is and isn't.

When I first started attending to this campaign I had various ideas about who he might be, and some of them turned out to be dead wrong. What I did was go searching for information to give me some sense of what is really going on.

For me, focusing on external information has helped a lot in my own sense of expectations. It is what differentiates my own expectations versus who and what he is. It's still in process.

I have no idea if I actually answered your question and certainly I rambled way past what you asked. But that's more or less what I can say in reply right now at least.