I don't like Max Baucus.

I don't trust Max Baucus.

But my fellow Progressives, the rest of you are driving me friggin' crazy today.

The Republicans are the ones who are supposed to suck at Governance. Not us.

But listening to the debate today...you'd have to wonder.

But there's a reason why why we lost the Single Payer and/or maybe the Public Option. (At least that last one's obvious, there weren't the votes.)

There's a reason why bi-partisianship is a matter of Governance as opposed to Politics, which a lot of y'all seem to think it is.

Read more »

Doing the water cooler ting, and talking to other people (friends, co-workers) about Health Care Reform, has been a horrifying experience. In short, it's been a pain in the ass. All anyone can think about is themselves. Doesn't matter if they're liberal or conservative: "What am I going to lose", "I don't want to lose this", "I don't want to lose that", "I shouldn't have to give up my gold-plated Health Care for someone else", "I don't want anything to change for me."

Jesus.

Me, I'm different. I got Health Care. My workplace is loaded. I can even choose a "gold plated" option should I choose.

But for once, it's not all about me.

There's this girl. She works at a Restaurant in beautiful downtown Burbank, a local family joint. She's one of the 50 million. She doesn't have Health Insurance. She can't afford to pay the going (insane) rates with what she makes.

These is my bona-fides as a supporter of the Public Option, a real Public Option.

In truth, I'm a Single-Payer guy. The Public Option was merely the compromise I was willing to put up with.

Now, that's looking like it's gone.

A Public Option was the only way I could see my girl affording Health Insurance in the near future. No Public Option, and I don't see how she afford Health Insurance once even if President Obama's plan passes.

I don't like this. I don't like where I am. I don't like where we're at. Like most progressives, I resent over the fact that I voted for Obama and the Democratic Slate. I voted for a Platform, yet my voice isn't the one they're listening to.

At the same time, who should really be at blame here? Because I'm about to hear a lot of blame coming the President's way, and the last I checked, the President doesn't pass legislation. Congress does.

Read more »

I'm still processing my feelings about the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates. Needless to say, they start at anger, and grow from there.

Still, it is a momentary anger, a fleeting feeling. Why? Because, as a black man in America, I'm used to the kind of treatment African-American men get at the hands of Police. I'm used to hearing about it. I'm used to seeing it. I'm used to recieving it.

What I'm not used to, at least what's at this point, is the nature of the coverage surrounding the incident, and the views of some white Americans...and white people, some of whom I have some or even great respect for, is shocking me.

Read more »

There's a concept I've been discussing with my Father recently; a concept I've given to calling, the "Third Hand".

When a Political Figure acts against his nature, for whatever reason, there's usually some other force at work, something we don't see.

Put a simpler way, you got one hand on Obama pulling him one way, you got another hand pulling him in reverse, and then comes another hand (hint-hint: a Third Hand), which pushes him the way he actually goes.

Think of it like this, if there's a situation where Obama does something to deliberately anger his base, logic suggests that the alternative, whatever it may be, is far worse.

Read more »

Believe it or not, Arlen Specter's move wasn't all that surprising.

I mean, think about it. This is how the cycle works. This is the process a party goes through when its knocked out of power.

Read more »

Read more »

Obama gets called a motherf#$%$% on the Blagojevich tape, and yet it's his responsibility to come clean.

That's the angle being taken by our worthless Mainstream Media.

Ed Rendell:

"They have never been in an executive position before," Rendell said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "The rule of thumb is whatever you did, say it and get it over with and make it a one-day story as opposed to a three-day story. Politicians are always misjudging the intelligence of the American people."

The man who just cracked on Janet Napolitano for having no life is giving Barack Obama advice on handling the press?

Are you kidding me??

And they were worried about Biden??

Eugene Robinson:

The scandal involves Obama in only the most tangential way, as far as anyone knows, and actually seems to cast him in a favorable light. But the longer he leaves obvious questions unanswered, the longer the president-elect will have to talk about the seamier side of Illinois politics rather than initiatives such as saving the U.S. auto industry or revamping health care.

Maybe, I'm the one who misjudged Ed and Eugene. I like these guys, but they're dead-ass wrong.

What exactly is your responsibility for a story when you're as much a victim in these circumstances than anything else??

You actually had Reporters questioning Obama over the fact that he didn't repeat his call for Blagojevich's resignation.

You actually have reporters parsing when Obama used "I" versus "we" in his Press Conference yesterday.

I'm starting to get the feeling this is as much a result of Press Corps addicted to News Cycle Journalism with nothing to cover, finally getting their teeth into something, and if necessary making @#$% up to feed the beast.

Apparently covering the Financial Apocalypse is just too damn boring...

If Obama doesn't walk up to the State House, and put Blagojevich in cuffs himself, somehow it's his fault.

I expect this B.S. from Fox News...not Democrats and otherwise smart columnists...


Originally posted on Fort McHenry II.

Rod Blagojevich is the one who broke the law (alledgedly). Rod Blagojevich is the Governor with a 8% approval rating. Blagojevich is the Governor who's been made to look like a buffon on International Television (him and his wife cussing everything in sight). Blagojevich is the guy they're trying to get removed from Office. Blagojevich is the one who's made his state look like a fool...

...yet it's Rahm Emanuel that's getting the death threats??  The guy who may have turned Blagojevich in.  The guy who may be responsible for getting him busted.

...yet it's Barack Obama who has to explain himself to the media?

Someone explain America to me.


Originally posted on Fort McHenry II

Read more »

Senator McCain, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.  My first question.  Mr. McCain...do you know the definition of the word, sacrosanct?

Well, according to Webster's Online dictionary:

sac·ro·sanct  \sa-krō-saŋ(k)t\

Etymology: Latin sacrosanctus, probably from sacro sanctus hallowed by a sacred rite

Date: 1601

1 : most sacred or holy : inviolable

2 : treated as if holy : immune from criticism or violation

I bring this up to you, Senator McCain, because in this election, we have seen many, many instance where some things are sacrosanct, and other things are not.

For one, we can question why Senator Obama doesn't wear a flag pin (even though he has been), and the subject of John McCain's empty collar doesn't even come up.

Another, we can question why Barack Obama is able to legally purchase a small strip of land from Tony Rezko, but bring up the subject of John McCain's eight homes, and you get told about his time as a POW.

It's those POW quotes that got me thinking.

All during this campaign, we've been told about your time in the Hanoi Hilton.  For example:

If we question you about your partisanship, you say:

"In the prison camps of North Vietnam, there weren't Republicans or Democrats, there were just patriots."

John McCain July 1, 2008

If we question whether or not you were given the questions in advance at the Saddleback Forum, you say:

"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

Nicole Wallace (McCain Campaign spokeswoman) Aug. 17, 2008

Heck, if we just ask you about the Keating Five scandal?

"Even the Vietnamese didn't question my ethics."

John McCain Sept. 29, 1989

So what you've said...hell, what your whole campaign has said, is that your time as a POW is sacrosanct.  It's inviolable.  We can't touch it.

But here's my question.

Why isn't John Lewis's time as Chairman of SNCC equally sacrosanct?

Let's flash back to February 18th, 1965.

An Alabama State Trooper shoots and kills a young man, Jimmie Lee Jackson as he tries to protect his Mother and Grandfather during a demonstration.  Eight days later, Mr. Jackson dies from his wounds.  James Bevel calls for a protest march from Selma to Montgomery as a protest.

George Wallace...being George Wallace...declares the march a threat to public safety and orders is stopped at all costs.  When the marchers try to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they are met by Sheriff's Deputies and State Troopers.  They are attacked with billy clubs, tear gas, and riot gear.  John Lewis was at the head of this non-violent march, and got his face caved in as a result.

Now, let's be honest, Senator.  John Lewis called you out on the carpet for the things you've allowed said at your rallies, and you don't much like it when anyone calls you out for anything.

"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights.  Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

Actually, to say that you don't like it is doing a disservice to your anger about it.  You were pissed.

"This is not just some obscure party official," McCain said in an interview aired by CNN. "And that's what's so totally unacceptable about it."

I'm sorry, this may put me in the minority here but...what's so unacceptable about it?

John Lewis still has a metal plate in his head from what the Alabama Police did to him that day.  I think he's more than earned the right to call it as he sees it.  My question is where exactly do you get off questioning him about it?

Once again, Senator McCain...is if your time as a Prisoner of War is expected to be treated as sacrosanct by we the people, why isn't the beating John Lewis suffered being treated with the same respect?

After all, say what you will about his quote (and Lord knows you and Rick Davis have), he was at least tying his personal experience to what you've been doing on the campaign trail.

I know what you're going to say already.  You can't compare the two.  "I sacrificed five years of his life in the Hanoi Hilton," you'll say.  "I was tortured."  You can't compare the two.

I don't know...can't I?

I don't know if you want to get into a comparison of length of time because John McCain spent a scant five years of his life in a Vietnamese POW Camp, John Lewis spent all his early years in the Segregated South.  Where as your torturers, Senator McCain, at least were foreign to you, the people who nearly beat John Lewis to death where his fellow countrymen.  And after five years, Senator McCain, you were at least allowed to go home.

John Lewis was home.  There was no escape for him.

Granted, in time, things have gotten better...to a degree, but the hatred that rose up on the Edmund Pettus Bridge (and many, many times before that), has found itself resurrected at your rallies.  Instead of being a man, shutting this crap down, you've come out and said how proud you were of the people at your rallies.

In some cases (as we're seeing more and more of), you have every reason to be proud.

But now, your Campaign hatchet man, Rick Davis is threatening to go to Reverend Wright again, as  a campaign issue.  The real reason you're letting him do so, is the fact that you're losing.  But your excuse?  John Lewis.

I would ask one final question.  I would ask if you had any shame or decency left.

Sad part is, I already know the answer.

The TPM Community is, I imagine, like a lot of other Political Communities on the Internet.  It’s a place to come together, debate the issues of the day, and test the strength of your Political arguments.

This should be a good thing.  Such debates are the lifeblood of our Democracy.  It’s how we identify the path.  It’s how we move forward as a country.

But I’m starting to think that that ship has sailed.

A couple of days ago, I got an Email from my buddy Mike.  Now, for the record, he’s a staunch Barry Goldwater type Republican.  He’s for Bush, but at the same time far more amenable to arguments and discussions from the left than his brethren.  In other words, he'd readily agree with the first two paragraphs of this piece (as evidenced below).

The Email was one to a bunch of friends highlighting an article by Camille Paglia called “Nobody’s Dummy”, in which the Salon.com description of the article describes as: “Liberals underestimate Sarah Palin’s vitality and — yes — smarts at their own peril.”

Mike described what he liked:

There is no question but that Camille Paglia is a liberal.  She teaches university level Women's Studies, writes for Salon.com, and openly supports Obama for president.  However, I have read her last two columns and each time have been impressed with her intellectual honesty.  And it isn't just because she takes swipes at her own people.  More importantly, it is that she is willing to take swipes at her own people, and to acknowledge the validity of opposing points of view, while still disagreeing with them.  I think she represents something important that has been lost: Civil political discourse that is intelligent and willing to eschew a doctrinaire point of view.

First off, I’m not what you’d call the biggest Camille Paglia fan in the world.  For all of her Academic accomplishment, she always struck me as more interested in self-promotion than any particular point of view.  She craves the spotlight almost as much as she loves with the sound of her own voice.  While she’s been an Obama supporter, she always struck me as more anti-Hillary than pro-Obama.  And I would certainly wouldn't call her a Liberal or a Progressive.  As in all things, Camille Paglia's only true party is Camille Paglia.

When I watch Sarah Palin, I don’t think sex — I think Amazon warrior!

Oh yeah. That's intellectual honesty for ya!  (Wink!)

It's quite possible that Mike's just the victim of bad timing.  I will say that sending me a Camille Paglia article isn’t quite the reach-across-the-aisle moment Mike thinks it is.

Mike went further:

As a Republican, it is frankly tedious to have to start political conversations with liberals/democrats under the assumption that I am one or more of the following: (a) a programmable extension of Rush Limbaugh's will; (b) a flaming-sword Christian Warrior seeking to impose my oppressive brand of religio-social puritanism on a libertine public duped by a godless minority of liberal elites;  (c) impenetrably closed minded; (d) dumb; or (e) just another white male of privileged upbringing trying to keep what I've got by keeping other people down.  Political discourse has denigrated to ad hominem attacks where people of one point of view literally dislike those of the other.

This was the moment that served as the catalyst of this article.

That's why I sent him a link to an earlier positing of mine, thus emphasizing my unwillingness to sing kum-ba-ya with the Republicans of the world.

It's very simple.  While I am willing to engage in debate for and against all manner of Political ideas, while I am willing to listen to people who's ideas stand in opposition to my own; there is one area in which I brook no dissent: and that is the subject of the Obama’s personal safety.

Simply put, right now, Mike's guy is @#$%@$ing with my guy’s safety.

Until I start hearing from Republicans that this sort of campaign is inexcusable, the hand that reaches across the aisle will be slapped back.

The fact that McCain has decided to turn his rallies into lynch mobs should disturb all Americans.

And this hatred not only found its face and voice, but is starting to find its way to action:

An Obama sign was burned in Tampa, Florida.

Another one was burned on the front lawn of a Black family in Irondequoit, New York.

Another one near Durham, North Carolina (hard to tell where since the article is subscriber only).

This was all, apparently, in the last 24 hours (since Friday afternoon, October 10th, 2008).

I need not list out the dangers to the Obama Family, but clearly a mob mentality is being incited.

It's disturbing to see a few on the Republican side speaking out, but the number is not nearly enough.

John Weaver:

People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Senator Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Senator McCain, and from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.

David Gergen:

One of the most striking things we've seen in the last few day, we have seen it at the Palin rallies and we saw it at the McCain rally today. And we saw it to a considerable degree during the rescue package legislation. There is a free-floating sort of whipping-around anger that could really lead to some violence. And I think we're not far from that.

Frank Schaeffer:

John McCain: In 2000, as a lifelong Republican, I worked to get you elected instead of George W. Bush. In return, you wrote an endorsement of one of my books about military service. You seemed to be a man who put principle ahead of mere political gain.

You have changed. You have a choice: Go down in history as a decent senator and an honorable military man with many successes, or go down in history as the latest abettor of right-wing extremist hate.

Congressman Ray LaHood (Talking specifically about Sarah Palin):

Look it. This doesn't befit the office that she's running for. And frankly, people don't like it.

Former Michigan Governor William Milliken

He is not the McCain I endorsed.  He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.  I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues.

David Gergen (again):

I really worry when we get people -- when you get the kind of rhetoric that you're getting at these rallies now.  I think it's really imperative the candidates try to calm people down.

But leave it to the McCain Campaign to stay the course:

McCain Campaign Spokesman Brian Rogers:

Raising legitimate questions about record, character and judgment are a vital part of the Democratic process, and Barack Obama's effort to silence and shame those who seek answers should make everyone wonder exactly what he is hiding.

Uhhh, Brian.  The friggin' Secret Service has gotten involved in this mess.

You are witnessing just a few of the ancillary events that thrive in the dark sunshine of racial hatred.  You would see it (and still see it today in some quarters) when a Minister will take the pulpit, read passages of scripture justifying slavery, or justifying their own supposed racial superiority.  Thus his flock could leave church that Sunday with their heads held high, firmly certain in their own righteousness.  And armed with that certainty, any actions they took over the next week could be justified by the word of the Lord.

The Minister, in short, gave them cover for their hated.  He gave them permission to hate.

What is John McCain doing now, purposely mixing the words Barack Obama with William Ayers, Barack Obama with Usama Bin Laden.  All his followers hear are the words Obama…and terrorist.  No scripture needed.  Obama…terrorist.  Thus, the next words come easily: "Terrorist", "Traitor" and of course, "Kill him" and "Bomb Him" , and McCain saying nothing in response, you are hearing cover being given.  You are hearing John McCain give his supporters permission to hate Barack Obama…even though he's said nothing at all.

Not oppose Barack Obama, oh no, that's not good enough.  He needs to turn the page.  He needs to get the country onto a whole new subject if he expects to win.  No.  The only way to get that to happen to is fan the flames of his supporters.

And to make sure the message sticks, the hatred has to spread to Michelle as well.

But the problem is…once he unleashes that hate, he cannot control it.

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

George Orwell

"1984"

The signs burning across the country are just the first step.  We will unfortunately know it's getting worse, I am afraid, when we see one of Senator Obama's ground volunteers attacked.

Barack Obama:

It's easy to rile up a crowd by stoking anger and division. But that's not what we need right now in the United States. The times are too serious. The challenges are too great. The American people aren't looking for someone who can divide this country -- they're looking for someone who will lead it. We're in a serious crisis -- now, more than ever, it is time to put country ahead of politics. Now, more than ever, it is time to bring change to Washington so that it works for the people of this country that we love.

John McCain (late today of Barack Obama):

He's a decent family man with whom I happen to have some disagreements.

That's a start, but it's going to take way more than that.

Mike said to me, in his Email, that he didn't want to be lumped in with this morass of the stereotypical Republican.  He's right.  He shouldn't be.

At the same time, if he doesn't want to be lumped in with those Republicans, I think better get off his ass help to shut this crap down.  He ought to add his voice to the small chorus calling out John McCain.  Silence on his part, or anyone's part in this matter, leaves you suspect.

It is incumbent on Republicans of good character (and clearly they're out there) to stand up to the extremists in their party, and tell them that this hatred has no place in civil discourse, much less civil society.  This is what would be expected of us if some on our side were calling for Senator McCain's or Governor's Palin's harm.  (Heck, it has been called for.  What is William Ayers but an extremist from the left?)

(For the record, the black supporter of McCain's at the Waukesha, Wisconsin who claims to have "taken an ass whoopin'", if that is true…then that shouldn't be tolerated either.)

This can get out of hand fast, and the people I'll blame will be those who stood silent.

I'm a black man.  While it was Senator Obama's Iraq policies that made me support him, I cannot deny that his being black has filled with a special sense of pride and purpose.

At the same time, I've also been afraid for him, and what others might try to do to him and his family as a result.

This is not how it should be.  Any man or woman of any color should be able to seek not only the highest office in the land, but any office anywhere without fear of harm, intimidation or injury.  But sadly, we don't live in that country.

Still, while the racist bottom-feeders of the world can be expected to hate like this, it their leaders, I am sad to report, who are no better.

Yes, I am talking about Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin.

Yes, I do think they're both racists, both willing to exploit Senator Obama's race for political gain, and at the same time, put Senator Obama's life in danger.

But this piece isn't really about them.

Back in May, in the thick of the Democratic Party's self-flagellation, I wrote a post about Senator Hillary Clinton's unfortunate comments in regard to the late great Bobby Kennedy and Senator Obama.  In that piece, I talked about the very real, and almost unmovable fears about what happens to Politicians, particularly Politicians operating in and around the color line.

The first conversation every African-American had about Senator Obama was right to the point:  "Is he going to survive this?", or more to the point "are they going to let him."

"They" is such a wonderful word in this instance, wonderful and telling.

Consider the 1960s, the Civil Rights era, and the progress that was made in that decade (progress that the Clintons helped fight for as students).  That period changed everything.  Looking back, it was change for the better, but it came with a cost.

Four of the people most responsible for that change, our champions, John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert F. Kennedy, four of Black America's staunchest allies...all murdered in the space of five years.

Not just died.  Murdered, lost to assassins bullets.

Granted, these were not the only deaths in the Civil Rights era, and these were not African-America's only champions.  But when it comes to the change that was sweeping the nation, there were no bigger names than these.  The death of any one would have been devastating, two doubly so.

But four?  After four, you start to see a hand in all this.

Since May 23rd, I wish I could say that the threats and racial intimidation cast upon Senator Obama and his supporters had fallen away, but:

On June 22nd, the Washington Post reported that there has been an uptick in visits to sites by White Supremacists.  Not surprising, but not reassuring either.

On August 8th, the Democratic Party Headquarters in Viroqua, Wisconsin was vandalized, and tagged with a racial slur.

Also, on August 8th, Raymond Geisel, 22, was arrested by the Secret Service after being found to be in possession of an array of weaponry, including a 9-mm handgun, ammunition that included armor-piercing and rifle bullets, police-style emergency lights, body armor, a machete and two canisters of tear gas.  According to a Secret Service affidavit, Geisel said that he wanted to "kill, kidnap and cause bodily harm upon a major candidate for president of the United States, that is, Senator Barack Obama".  Of course, Mr. Geisel may just be nuts, or worse still looking to off himself via "death by cop", because seems to have made similar threats against President George W. Bush.

On August 24th, Senator Obama's Offices in St. Paul Minnesota were vandalized.

On August 25th, the quote-unquote "Meth heads" were arrested on weapons charges in Denver.  One of them said that Obama "ought to be shot", and a long range scope was apparently found.

On September 23rd, a black man, the son of the Publisher of the Chicago Defender, was arrested near Senator Obama's Hyde Park Home.  This guy apparently got too close to the Security Perimeter.  At the same time, he had a piece on him.

The next day, September 24th, a life-sized cardboard effigy was found hung from a tree at George Fox University in Oregon.  The Administration eventually suspended four students for the act.

And on October 7th, where a black man was shot in London just because he was wearing an Obama T-Shirt.

These are just the incidents that involve physical danger.  There have been plenty of others: like the Obama Waffles, or the time he and Michelle were called "uppity", or when Grover Norquist referred to Senator Obama as "John Kerry with a tan" that are just plain racists without any direct threat.  Though, there was the time that a crosshair was drawn over Senator Obama in an Atlanta newspaper.

Now, these threats are of varying concern.  Not all concern the Senator and his family, and it's certainly not like these things are happening every day.

Yet at the same time, any one of these incidents would promote concern.  Two doubly so.

But eight?  Eight you start to see a hand in all this.  And it's a hand that needs to be slapped down.

Which brings us back to John McCain and Sarah Palin.

It doesn't look like they'll be slapping anything down.

Too many times, and in too many ways I have been shown the subtle hand of racism, and how it works in this country.  It is not, as too many Americans believe, men in white robes showing up at your doorstep, burning a cross on your lawn.  That's not how the game is played.  No, instead you have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good.  You watch as women tighten their purses when you get on a elevator, if you bother to get on it at all.  Your blood freezes as the red and blue flashing lights appear in your rear view at a simple traffic stop, and you wonder if you're going to get the wrong cop on the wrong day.  You find it harder to get a loan, or buy a house (before the collapse of the Credit Markets), and when you do you find the Republican Party blaming you for Financial meltdown.

This is the atmosphere that John McCain and Sarah Palin have injected their own special brew of the politics of personal destruction.  Do not be fooled, their last minute, desperation strategy is to inject race into this campaign.  It is this atmosphere they have chosen to link Obama with Terrorists.  It is they who have chosen to paint an American Citizen of brown skin, a Senator, the leader of his Party…as the "other".  "Be afraid of him"..."he's not like you".  It is into this atmosphere that they are encouraging their "fired up" base to yell "Terrorist!" and "Traitor" and "Kill him".

Are they encouraging it?  Well, they sure as hell ain't stopping it.  And they sure as hell ain't stopping their "base" from going after reporters, and sound techs, telling one (of course, an African American) to "Sit down, Boy."

But this piece is not about John McCain and Sarah Palin.

This piece is about you.

You, who support Senator McCain and Governor Palin, and therefore support these gutter racist tactics.

You are the ones who are lying down with dogs…

What am I to think, when your candidate is willing to resort to these kind of tactics to win and election?  When he is willing to stir the pot like this to overcome his opponent?  What am I to think when your candidate uses racial hatred as an political opportunity?

What am I to think of you?

I'm sure you don't really care.  After all, you don't think the Senator and the Governor have done anything wrong, much less done anything racially motivated.  This is just good, hard politics.

But you'd be wrong, and more to the point, you'd be no better than them.

Does anything on that list of dates sound like good hard politics?

Lying about Senator Obama's tax plan is good hard politics.

Putting his life in danger, isn't.

Actually, it's vile.

Actually, at lot of it can be considered terrorism.

If you are a McCain supporter, and you stand silent as this stuff goes on, God help you.  But at least now we know what you really are, how you really think.

Quick history quiz.  Who dropped this little quote?

Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Barack Obama last week?

Barack Obama today?

Nope.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, from his First Inaugural Address.  Saturday, March 4, 1933

Perspective is everything.

I'm sorry.  I know I'm probably making these thing too damn long, but if I don't do it like this, I'm afraid something will get left out...you know, like the Mainstream Media does every day.

Today, Barack was in Powder Springs, GA to give a rousing speech on the Economy.  While he was there, he participated in a town hall, and said this to the crowd:

"You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

Hey, blogosphere.  He talkin' about you...

Clearly, he has  disagreed with a lot of people on this very site about the FISA Legislation about to pass the Senate.  I can't say I'm fond of the idea myself.

This would normally be the part where I'd summarize the sad history of the FISA Legislation, and how we call came to be here, but the New York Times did it so much better on Feb. 28th:

It seems to be we are having two different arguments about FISA, and getting them confused.

One is about Telecomm Immunity.  The other is about the nature of FISA itself. 

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the thing that's supposedly being threatened says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No warrants...shall issue.

The idea of wiretapping was probably beyond the foresight of the Founders.  Heck, the idea of attacking Skyscrapers with Airplanes (much less Skyscrapers and Airplanes themselves) was beyond the foresight of the Founders.  I guess the question boils down to how do you feel about Wiretapping possible or actual Terrorists in a secret court where no one hears the evidence against them, no probable cause is known, and the what started the wiretapping in the first place is never revealed.  There is something terribly Orwellian about Secret Courts like that.

On the other hand, how else can it be done?

Let's be honest, the strictest interpretation of the Fourth Amendment would require Law Enforcement to present a warrant to the suspect in question before wiretapping begins.

No warrants...shall issue. 

"Hi, Zacarias Moussaoui?  We're from the FBI.  You're under suspicion of being a Terrorist Agent.  We're going to start Wiretapping you now.  Here's your Paperwork."

You think that would be conducive with good Law Enforcement or Intelligence work?  Do you honestly expect a criminal to maintain illegal behavior knowing the Government is listening in?

Secrecy seems to be the only way to initiate this kind of surveillance, while trying to follow the tenets of the Fourth Amendment...would be to use a process similar the FISA Courts.

Not saying it's perfect.  Just understanding how it came to be. 

Senator Obama said this in his Blog post of July 3rd.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.

It strikes me that if you are uncomfortable with wiretapping Foreign Agents, you may be uncomfortable with wiretapping in general.  You probably think all of it goes against the Fourth Amendment.  Maybe it does.  On principle your wariness is a very good idea.  We should always be suspicious of Government power.  As a matter of practicality then, how do you then stop terrorist acts before they happen?  Because that's the idea.  As much as I appreciate the whole guilty until proven innocent thing, I've thought about it, and I definitely want Terrorist acts stopped before they're committed.

But then, aren't we prosecuting thought crimes, or pre-crimes, and--WHOOOAA!!

Okay.  Brain freeze. 

This is one of those arguments that would either get you really jazzed to be in Law School, or give you a splitting headache.

Since splitting headaches are why I avoided Law School, I'm willing to admit there's a Legal argument out there that I'm missed.  I don't know the answer.  I want our Intelligence Services out there, ferreting out the bad guys, and preventing attacks, but I want our Constitution preserved at the same time.  It's hard to believe I'm asking to too much.  I don't like how these surveillance taps are almost like Phishing.  At the same time, we're not just talking about surveillance on Terrorists suspects, whether they're foreign or not, we're talking about innocent Americans getting swept up in massive data grabs.  Data grabs don't strike me as sound Law Enforcement either.  What if an actual Terrorist tries to dial his contact, transposes the 6 and the 9, and gets my home number instead?  Does that mean Johnny G-Man is listening to me?

Yeah, probably.

I know the Cops say they need these expanded powers, but I don't necessarily believe them.  9/11 could have been prevented without wiretaps.  Good detective work could have traced the Hijackers to their flight schools.  Tracing the money would have helped also, as well as sharing the information amongst the Intelligence Agencies.  Civil Libertarians are right that we shouldn't be scared into throwing away our Liberties, but at the same time we can't blindly handcuff Law Enforcement.  If the law is hampering the way investigations are run, then the law should be changed.

I'm not trying to rationalize Congressional action, or inaction.  I'm just trying to give you an idea of what honest politicians are wrestling with.  It's hard to see shades of grey when everyone is hellbent on keeping it black and white.

There's an argument to be had over the nature of wiretapping.  None it seems, will be brooked over Telecomm Immunity.  After all, giving the Telcomms Immunity will be the end of the Fourth Amendment. 

Really? 

I'm getting the feeling, y'all forgotten why we were against Telecomm Immunity in the first place.

Remember, we're not after the Telecomm Companies, we're after the Bush Administration.

Don't get me wrong.  I wouldn't mind burning me some Telecomms.  They're no friends of mine, especially those idiots at AT&T's Billing Department (three months to refund an online purchase my @#$$%).

But we're after Donald Rumsfeld, not Lynndie England.

We want Tony Soprano, not Paulie Walnuts.

The idea has been universal to virtually every Mob movie ever made.  Getting Paulie Walnuts to rat out Tony is way more valuable than just getting Paulie himself, as bad as a guy he was.

The Telecomms are the Paulies in this equation, but they might need some arm-twisting.  The Civil Lawsuits hanging over their heads struck me as a terrific way of doing that.  But, according to John Dean Civil Immunity doesn't stop us from investigating the Bush Administration.

I have taken a closer look at the House-passed bill and tracked its legislative history. 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.

In addition, I spoke with the Washington office of the ACLU, which has been following the legislation closely while trying to limit its further rollback of prior protections of civil liberties. The ACLU agrees that there is no criminal immunity, and while this fact had been largely overlooked, Legislative Counsel Michelle Richardson said this point had been mentioned in passing in both the House and Senate during the debate. With a little more digging, I found that the sponsors, as well as the Bush Administration, also understand that there is no immunity in the House-passed bill from criminal prosecutions for violations by anyone.

The House-passed bill has provisions virtually identical to many in the earlier Senate-passed bill. No one in the Senate watches out for the best interests of Bush Administration better than Republican Senator (and former presidential candidate) Sam Brownback of Kansas. During the January 24, 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.”

So, even if we don't get the Telecomms in Civil Court, we can go after them Criminally...

At the same time, no one in the Bush Administration has been granted immunity, period.

So, what are we angry about again?

Granted, I'm not in love with this.  Even John Dean described the legislation as being "written on the hood of a car", and I don't like the idea of the Telecommunications Industry buying their way out of trouble.

But what's really at stake is what's going to happen next, because the resolution of this matter has been punted to January 21st.  And it is here, that we have some hope.

What I would want to do is to 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. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. 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.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups 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.

That was Senator Obama on April 14, 2008.  So what does he have to say now?

As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer.  Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

But the dealbreaker for the Senator was this:

The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.

Let's say for a moment that the opponents of eliminating Telecomm Immunity (of which I could myself as one) get what they want.  Wave a magic wand, and POOF!  The FISA Compromise has been stripped of its Immunity provisions, passed the House and Senate Conference, and signed by the President.  What happens next?

Uhhh...Nothing.

The Bush Administration hasn't exactly been introspective, has it?  The odds of them investigating themselves rest somewhere at the intersection of Diddly and Squat.  I'm sure an Inspector General will face no shortage of obstacles as well...at least, until the next President is sworn in.

Besides that, the odds of getting the blue dogs to agree to a stripping of the Immunity are low.  Surviving a Presidential veto is even lower.  (None of this is any reason to back down).

Then there's the possibility of Pardons, but remember what Keith Olbermann said in his Special Comment of June 30th:

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.

So, best case, Immunity is stripped.  Bush leaves office having done no investigations of himself, but has been able to sign zero pardons, leaving it for the next President to take up the baton.

Worst case, Immunity is granted.  The Civil Lawsuits go away, which is bad, but still Bush leaves office having done no investigations of himself, but signed zero pardons, leaving it for the next President to take up the baton.

Why are we angry, again?

I'm sorry.  Let me rephrase that.  Why are we angry now??

Seems to me that if we're going to get pissed, we're going to get pissed if Obama is sworn in and doesn't pursue this any further.  That could happen.  But what are the odds that the Double-Talk Express, should he be sworn in, will follow through on these investigations?

I remember watching Bubba's Transition in 1992?  He had said throughout the 1992 Campaign that he wanted to end the Army's ban on Gays in the Military.  I think he was serious about it, too.  LGT was a strong constituency for him during the campaign, and there was no reason to let him down.  During a transition presser, he was asked if he was serious.  He repeated that he was, and all of the sudden, the town shut down.  Everything became about Gays in the Military.  The GOP had a field day.  Before he's even sworn in, his whole agenda for the country was on the chopping block.

Do you want Obama to go through the same nightmare?

How much Political Capital is it worth spending when your overall goal of holding the Bush Administration accountable hasn't been taken off the table?

Remember: 

If I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law.

If a President Obama starts his investigation, the Republicans will dive on the tracks to stop that Train from leaving the station.  They will do everything in their power (if necessary even stopping Iraq Withdrawal funding).  And since there are Democrats involved (Nancy, Harry, Jay Rockefeller for sure), they may not be alone. 

If there's a place that your anger is going to be needed, it's at that moment.  When Obama is sworn in and the Beltway Insiders tell him to forget the investigations.  You've got more important things to do, forget about what President Bush did...or else.  That's when the force of this movement can best be felt.  That's a better use of your anger and your time.  That's the time to shut down the Capitol Switchboard.

There is a time for the FISA fight.

The Fourth Amendment may have gotten beaten up, but it's not dead.  It may have to wear sunglasses for a couple of months, but it's not dead.

Justice delayed may be Justice denied, but better late than never.

My sole issue is, and remains, ending the War in Iraq.  Everything else is a distant second, including this crappy FISA Legislation.

There is a time for the FISA fight. 

It just isn't now.

This article was originally posted at Fort McHenry.

On July 1st, Barack Obama went to Zanesville,Ohio to give speech about Faith.  It was notable, not for the fact that a Democrat was out there, openly talking about his religious convictions (in a way the Republican Candidate won't be), but for his proposal to, apparently, expand on Bush's Faith based Programs.  At least that's what the headline writers focused on.

CHICAGO - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

And with that, a million hearts across America started to break.  If you listen carefully, you can hear the tiny violin I'm playing for them right now.

That is the opening paragraph of the AP story posted early in the morning of July 1st.

One problem...the AP got it wrong.

Here's what the Senator actually said:

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work. 

Gee, AP.  I can totally see how you got that confused.

Note to the AP, you might lay off the sprinkled donuts.  Just hand them to John McCain, don't snack on them yourselves.  You get a sugar rush, and apparently, it affects your reporting.

A friend of mine sent me an email that same morning.  His tone was one of clear disappointment.  He lamented Bush's blurring of church and state, and was disappointed that Senator Obama seemed to be headed on a similar course.

A lot of us on the left have been freaking out about the Senator's recent, so-called shift to the center, saying he's already playing not to lose.  But for anyone who's read the Senator's speeches, read his books, or has been...you know...paying attention...his stance shouldn't come as a total surprise.  I think the problem comes down to his one paragraph that I don't think a lot of people read on Page 11 of The Audacity of Hope.

I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not ail, of them. Which perhaps indicates a second, more intimate theme to this book-namely, how I, or anybody in public office, can avoid the pitfalls of fame, the hunger to please, the fear of loss, and thereby retain that kernel of truth, that singular voice within each of us that reminds us of our deepest commitments.

As much as he is one of us, Senator Obama is his own man, capable of an independent thought or two, even those of us on the left uncomfortable.

Funny thing, I thought that's why we liked him.

Traditional liberal discomfort with the notion of Religion stretches back to a more fundamental discomfort with Religion in the public square.  Let's face it, Religion has been used as a weapon so many times, that it's hard  not to view it with suspicion.  Added to that, so many Religious types have revealed themselves to be nothing more than knee-jerk, mouth-breathing Conservatives, therefore,  the enemy.  These (among others) are the reason why so many of us have shifted away from Church.  Why sit in the pews, and have things that you cherish and believe in belittled by your Pastor, Reverend or Priest?

Senator Obama put it another way:

At best, [Democrats] avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Mind you, that was from the same speech that got James Dobson's knickers in a twist.

Liberals, however, have a heritage of using Religion, and Religious imagery as both sword and shield.  The moral underpinnings of the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Sufferage, the Labor Movement carried with it the morality and justice of the Church (the kind we all used to love) that ushered in these new ages and new ideas.

Martin Luther King, after all, was a Baptist Minister.  He wasn't thanking Gaea, Zeus, Xenu or the Earth Spirit, when he extolled that we would be "Free at Last".

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right," Lincoln said in his second Inaugural Address.

Shortly before resorting to the "Johnson Treatment", LBJ would often say "Come now, let us reason together", which was taken from Isaiah 1:18.

Impressed?  Don't be.  I had to look 'em all up.

So, when Senator Obama talked his talk in Zanesville, he was echoing words he wrote back on page 221 of The Audacity of Hope.

Allowing the use of school property for meeting by voluntary student prayer groups should not be a treat, any more than its use by the high school Republican Club should threaten Democrats.  And one can envision certain faith-based programs -- targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers -- that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems and here merit carefully tailored support.

This position is unacceptable to a lot of progressives.  They beieve, as I do, in the separation of church and state.  After all, another friend told me, it's in the Constitution.

Yeah...except for the part where it isn't...at least not explicitly.

Oh boy, this is going to be complicated.

(Okay, let me first say that I'm a total layman.  I don't have a Law Degree, so if there are any Lawyers out there reading this, and I've totally blown this, lemme know.)

Okay, first things first.  Separation of Church and state.

Nowhere in the Constitution can you find the phrase "Separation of Church and state"  Instead, the First Amendment says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's also mentioned, briefly in Article 6:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now, I am by no means saying that the Separation of Church and State is a false idea.  Quite the contrary, it is as basic to the American ideal as the right to bear arms is.  It may not say as much in the Constitution, but it has (right or wrong) become a part of who we are.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Apparently, Justice Scalia decided to delete that first part.  Then again, who cares what the Framers thought, right fat man?

Looking at Wikipedia, the concept of Separation of Church and State seems to trace its origin to a letter from Thomas Jefferson in 1801 to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Okay, it may not be in the Constitution, and I have no idea if it even counts as one of the Federalist Papers, but one of the Founders clearly believes there to be a wall between the two.

The Senator reiterated this point in the Call to Renewal speech:

[Conservative Leaders] need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Consider this put another way, from another source.

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right that is guaranteed by the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment clauses.  It encompasses not only the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. These rights are fundamental and should not be subject to political process and majority votes.

Wow.  Who said that?

Apparently, those infamous right-wing Religious Fundamentalists, the ACLU.

Yeah, that ACLU.  Our ACLU.  The one I'm a card-carrying member of (at $35 bucks a pop.)

They go on:

Religion is pervasive in the public square in the United States - and it is constitutionally protected.

And to further back the Senator up, the ACLU says...

Children are free to pray in public schools either as individuals or in groups. In addition, whenever a teacher opens up an assignment topic for the children's choice (such as which book to read, what to discuss in a talk to the class, or which song to sing), students may choose religious themes - and the ACLU has protected their right to do so.  In addition, schools may offer courses about religion or about the Bible or other religious works.

Basically, the notion of prayer in the public schools is not illegal...so long as it is being exercised by individual citizens.  Even Teachers can join in, so long as they are acting as individual citizens.  The nanosecond such prayer becomes a mandate by these employees of the state, then they're violating the Establishment Clause.

It's a fine line, and even we liberals don't know it all the time.  I really didn't know it until I did the research for this piece.  It is so often said that Prayer in Public Schools is illegal.  It's not...depending on how its performed.

So the ACLU is okay with Senator's notion of Prayer in the Public Schools.

But they go further still.  They actually have an opinion on Faith-Based programs.  And what they said shocked me further still:

Supporting the good work of faith-based social service providers should not mean abandoning basic American ideals. We must not allow the vital services of faith-based groups to become co-opted by the administration as mere government-funded religion.

The government already can and does work collaboratively with faith-based organizations.  It has long granted tax dollars to religious social service providers that agree not to discriminate in hiring or providing services, and that operate their social services in a secular manner.  These types of religiously affiliated charities do not deny people employment based on faith, nor do they mix religious activity in with their government-funded services.

I have a strange hunch that the ACLU will have no problem with what Senator Obama is trying to do.  In fairness, they have fought, and continue to fight against aspects of these same Faith-based programs that discriminate, divide or (more importantly) directly violate the establishment clause.

But that's exactly the situation the Senator is looking to avoid.

Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square. But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups. President Clinton signed legislation that opened the door for faith-based groups to play a role in a number of areas, including helping people move from welfare to work. Al Gore proposed a partnership between Washington and faith-based groups to provide more support for the least of these. And President Bush came into office with a promise to "rally the armies of compassion," establishing a new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

But what we saw instead was that the Office never fulfilled its promise.  Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded.  Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed.

So what is Senator Obama proposing to do?  You can say a lot of things, but when the AP says "expand" the connotation is that he wants to take Bush's program and make it bigger.  Reading his speech, something I encourage everyone to do, I think he's looking to scrap a program that has been bitterly partisan and ineffective and helping those it claims to help.

The partisan part of the Office is what drives those hard memories around the Liberal Blogosphere.  It's what drove David Kuo to resign and write his book.  The Office was little more than a tax-payer funded bribe machine, paying off well-connected Religious Leaders to make sure the Conservative Base turned out in 2004.  It's remarkable how little we've heard from the Office since then.  It seems to have gone to the same place all those Orange Alerts went in anticipation of the Democratic Convention.

Now we have Senator Obama proposing a seemingly better version of the same idea.  If anything, he wants to help fellow Community Organizers do his old job better.  But does the Senator proposing a thing automatically make it a good idea?  No.  But conversely, just because George Bush proposes an idea, doesn't automatically make it bad either.  (I so wish I could take credit for that, but I was writing this at the same time E.J. Dionne was writing his piece, and he is a writer of bigger stature so...sigh...he gets the credit.)

I'm not sure if this a good idea or not.  For one thing, what's going to be the criteria?  Are you telling me that a group of Wiccans will be able to access Federal Funds if they have an effective Drug Treatment Program?  Can a group of Atheists get some dough if they have a way to help First Time Offenders transition back to normal society?  Could Tom Cruise and John Travolta (shudder) get Federal Dollars for Narconon?

Perish the thought.

Still, my feeling is yes, right or wrong, for Obama's idea to work they have to.  After all, his program is going to be called the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  Neighborhood is the key word here.  But as the Senator said, he doesn't have all the details worked out yet.  This is one area that will bear watching.

Another thing, as much as I am opposed to the idea, there will be another Republican in the White House one of these days (2050 anyone?).  What's to stop him or her from turning this Office into the same Partisan cesspool it was under Bush?

Probably nothing.

In the end, we are Liberals after all; and Liberals are the tolerant ones.  We should not be scared of this idea, or any of the Senator's ideas; even the ones that contradict our own.  They are nothing if not thought out.  They always come from a place that we as Democrats, much less Liberals and/or Progressives, can access and access easily, love of country, love of our fellow man.

It is for our fellow man, that we do these things, fight these fights.  

Our fellow man has decided that he wants to go to church.  No matter what you think of the idea or think of his practice, it is ultimately his choice and his choice alone.  If you are a Liberal, you will defend his right to make that choice.  It is a Conservative who seeks to tell him where to go, what to do, and who to pray to.  The Liberal only wants to make sure that nothing bars that man's path to God, no matter what God it may be.

Right or wrong, I don't think Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, despite my own reservations will do that.

But in the end, those you of with doubts about Senator Obama, remember, he also said this in The Audacity of Hope.

I suspect that some readers may find my presentation of these issues to be insufficiently balanced. To this accusation, I stand guilty as charged. I am a Democrat, after all; my views on most topics correspond more closely to the editorial pages of the New York Times than those of the Wall Street Journal. I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans, and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody's religious beliefs-including my own-on nonbelievers. Furthermore, I am a prisoner of my own biography: I can't help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives.

Good enough for me.

This entry was originally posted at Fort McHenry.