There's this story repeated by the late, great Molly Ivins, and also by Bill Moyers (both cite John Henry Faulk as the original storyteller)-- I won't re-tell the whole thing myself and risk butchering it, but its punchline bears repeating right now.  

Basically, having made a commotion out back by the henhouse, John Henry and a childhood buddy have been confronted by his mother, who's come out to see what's up; as Ivins tells it:

" 'Don't you know chicken snakes can't hurt you?'

'Yes, ma'am, but there's some things'll scare you so bad you'll hurt yourself.'"

Or, "'Yes, Mrs. Faulk... but they can scare you so bad, it'll cause you to hurt yourself.' "   (- Moyers.)

That story popped into my head repeatedly this week as I read the FISA back-and-forth. And I was finally moved to register/post here (after a long spell of intimidated lurking) because the things I'm reading have really thrown me.

Too many Dems are beginning to sound like the folks who helped re-elect Bush.  I don't mean the people who helped with phone-jamming and voter suppression. I mean, regular fellow citizens I've drawn into political conversations. Many of them cared about the issues, followed current events, about as much as my liberal friends. They just really, really believed in their guy.

And you could bring up any events or statements you liked--  all they knew was, Bush was no worse than the alternative. Cite recent information that seemed troubling? They didn't know about that (read: no don't tell me, I already know it's not important)-- all they knew was ... etc.

I am as terrified by the spectre of a McCain presidency as you are. But, as far as FISA's concerned....  so?   We're losing something important if we allow fear to pre-empt careful examination and a truly democratic debate.

I don't like to see so many comments keep slipping into "love it or leave it" talk. The unavoidable implication is that we can only exercise our democratic rights on election day, pushing a button for Obama or McCain. What happened to the idea of keeping our elected representatives in line on a regular basis, in real time? 

I thought the point was to galvanize an active citizenry that decides for itself about what's in our best interest. None of you buy the notion that we have to accept what the Bush Administration, or the major cable networks, or syndicated pundits tell us is best. Why are you so eager to accept those assertions from Obama? Why is so much scorn heaped on those who insist on looking closely and challenging this?

Senator Dodd gave an interesting speech (long, but interesting) on the floor last week. I'd like to point out a few key snippets:

"This bill does not say, 'Trust the American people; Trust the courts and judges and juries'.... Retroactive immunity sends a message that is crystal clear: 'Trust me.'

What is the basis for that trust? Classified documents, we are told....  But we’re not allowed to see them! I’ve served in this body for 27 years, and I’m not allowed to see them! Neither are a majority of my colleagues. We are all left in the dark.

[Again, Dodd later stresses:  "[T]he senators who will make the decision have not even seen the secret documents that are supposed to prove the case for retroactive immunity."]

... I can’t put it better than this: " 'Trust me' government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties." 
[emphasis mine]

That last paragraph is Dodd quoting Reagan.  One last point re: political parties.  Obama's website statement included the phrase, "I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the south side of Chicago..." 

That got me thinking about something I learned in Chicago, almost a decade ago, from the first political issue that motivated me to actually get off the couch and participate in some small way. (I'll blockquote for read-/skipability.)

There was a Chicago cop named Burge who'd been using interrogation techniques not unlike the ones that had Yoo and Addington in the hot seat recently -- which he allegedly picked up serving as an MP in Vietam --  and had tortured false confessions out of young black men from the city's south side. Some wound up on death row for crimes they didn't commit.

Long story short: because people had been carted off to death row for someone else's crimes (that's what happens when we use these interrogation methods), Illinois wound up with a death penalty moratorium. And the politician who imposed it? Our Republican governor.  This was a shock to my Us/Them : Dem/Repub framework at the time.

Later, of course, Governor Ryan would be implicated in the licenses-for-bribes operation, which resulted in the deaths of six small children by horrific car accident. He was replaced by an energetic, outspokenly liberal young Democrat.... who is himself now mired in a corruption scandal.

I have trouble picturing any local Chicago pol saying, "Just trust me" -- not with a straight face.  But I think it's fair to suggest (for future reference) that if one of them ever looks you in the eye and says it, you'd better believe they just called you a sucker.

As a citizen, what I learned from Chicago is, above all, you never leave either party or any politician alone and 'just trust them'  on the important stuff.**  

In any case, it seemed funny to me that Obama should mention local political experience when his words on FISA were straight outta the national political script we've been read for eight years now. (Even those who got angry with Sargent for criticizing Obama didn't seem to take issue with the acuity of his points on this, from what I saw.)

He's a politician, not a t-shirt icon.  Bush got away with what he did partly due to the "cult of personality" phenomenon; because so many people couldn't bear to face the cognitive dissonance head-on 'til the ninth inning.  And before you dismiss any comparison to Obama, have you read this? Try memorizing a list of numbers and reading the FISA statements again.

We're all paying for those Americans' ostrich-vision now; they owed us better. If you're willing to just let it slide when Obama takes a problematic policy position that he can't honestly explain... can you really say you're any different?


**  Between the time I wrote that and now [finally finding my way to a wifi connection to post it], I noticed this NYT story on Obama & Chicago.  There's a brief, unobtrusive quote smack in the middle from a local community organizer which, if you ask me, ought to be a netroots mantra going forward:

" 'It was ot one person that made the difference,' Ms. [Linda] Randle said. 'It was everyone coming together.'"

There are avenues of applying pressure that don't involve hysterical threats about the general election.  Something to think about this week...  and in weeks to follow, as we decide what kind of debate will take shape amongst the netroots.