It's ironic that the Fox T.E.A. Partiers (and Republicans) are castigating President Obama about having taught the methods of Saul Alinsky.  Saul Alinsky was a great American, and because he created the best Community Organizing method there should be no surprise that President Obama knows all about it.

We Democrats need to resurrect these ideas to proactively push for what we want.

Even more - the Fox T.E.A. Party and the Republican Party use his tactics.   They don't seem to have learned all of what he meant, but they do use his tactics.  Knowing that, we can anticipate what they will try.

Opening paragraph:

What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.

Strategy:

There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.

Rules:

• Rule 1:  Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
• Rule 2:  Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
• Rule 3:  Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
• Rule 4:  Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. "You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
• Rule 5:  Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It's hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
• Rule 6:  A good tactic is one your people enjoy. "If your people aren't having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic."
• Rule 7:  A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
• Rule 8:  Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage."
• Rule 9:  The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O'Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city's reputation.
• Rule 10:  The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, "Okay, what would you do?"
• Rule 11:  Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don't try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Ethics:  "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

• The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
• In war, the end justifies almost any means.
• Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
• Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
• The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
• Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
• The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
• Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
• You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
• Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

Alinsky, Saul.  (1972)  Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals

We all know how Republicans conduct campaigns.  Not just the Rove/Bushes or Baker/Bushes - but almost any Republican.

The mindset is distinctly Manichean.

The rationale is:

   1.  Republicans are supposed to Win
   2.  Republicans are "Good for America!" 
   3.  Therefore, anything I do to win serves America.

The path is a bright line.  If it were logical, it would be inescapable.

There is nothing they won't do or say.  I am cynical, but this is fact.

Mark Schmitt, at The American Prospect, puts it this way  -  there is no cost to them for going to extremes, and no advantage to them for decorum.

This is going to be the nastiest, lowest, meanest campaign ever.

I just read the article in Salon "Obama/Kennedy vs. McCain/Goldwater" by David Talbot.

I was struck by the following quotation of John F. Kennedy describing what would happen if we took the posture which President Bush does:

... Kennedy, in a September 1963 speech before a conservative Mormon audience in Salt Lake City: "We must realize that foreign policy in the modern world does not lend itself to easy, simple black and white solutions. If we were to have diplomatic relations only with those countries whose principles we approve of, we would have relations with very few countries in a very short time ... If we were to treat foreign policy merely as a medium for delivering self-righteous sermons to supposedly inferior people, we would give up all thought of world influence or world leadership."

 
I can't imagine a more apt description of the Bush Administration than treating "foreign policy as a medium for delivering self-righteous sermons ..."  Our enemies list has grown rapidly because we've expressed disapproval of other nations principles - usually only because they differ from our stated principles.

I don't see as realistic any scenario where Senator Obama asks Ms. Clinton to be his running mate.  I, or course, could be wrong - I supported Sen. Clinton in the primaries here in Georgia (a lifetime ago!) after being forced to give up my hopes for John Edwards.  My track record, needless to say, is poor.

It seems to be a fact that Senator Obama will earn a majority of possible convention delegates from primaries, caucuses & etc.  When that line is crossed, I'll be surprised if we don't see a rush of super delegates committing to him.  All of this is predicted by pundits and insiders, and seems to fit what I see.

That leaves the question of what Senator Clinton will do next.

The opinions I've read and heard so far seem to reflect more of the orator's desires than reality.  Most seem to assume she will simply return to the Senate.  Others assume she'll run for Governor of NY.  And it seems non-supporters assume she is positioning herself for another run in 2012 - as exemplified just today by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post.  None of these sounds proper to me.

I want Senator Clinton to take up the office of Democratic Leader or the Senate. 

Of course not!

Every episode in his political history says that George Bush considers himself to be in the service of "Good."  Since he is "Serving Good" everything he does is "Good" - without limit.

Yesterday, President Bush promised about Iran

"We will confront this danger before it is too late!"

There is nothing he will not stoop to - to him it is not "stooping" but "Serving."

I am now disgusted that the House of Representatives still refuses to even consider, much less investigate, Impeachment proceedings.  There is no other mechanism left which has any chance of preventing war with Iran.

Glenn Greenwald posted in his blog at Salon.com on Thursday and Friday last week a great discussion of when and how America's standing in the World's eyes changed.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/05/american_credibility/index.html

One of the most stunning sections, to me, was a portion of the passage Mr. Greenwald quoted from Ian Walsh - a Canadian -

And then the Bush years happened. George Bush, with the acquiescence of Congress and the consent of the majority of voters, who elected him in 2004, made the US a unilateral actor on the world stage ...  (emphasis mine)

This encapsulates an essential point from the discussion -- In the eyes of the World, every individual American is complicit with Our President in all the wrongs.

I know this is always the case in reality, and rhetorically.  But this single idea brings me to the conclusion that the primary way we individual Americans can begin to rebuild our reputation in the World is by repudiating President Bush.  We must show that we do not agree and are not complicit with Mr. Bush.

There seems to be no way to accomplish that repudiation short of beginning Impeachment proceedings.

I want someone to ask President Bush this question:

Mr. President, if we maintain our forces in Iraq, is Iraq the only place terrorists will attack us?

I know the answer to my question is "No - al Qaida, or many other terrorist organizations, will seek to attack the United States and its interests world wide."

The Scary Answer

The truly scary answer from President Bush would be "Yes."  This is the answer he implies when he argue that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will "follow us home."  If he really believes that, in fact, he must answer "Yes".

But if he believes that staying in Iraq makes that the only place we'll be attacked, he is by definition malfeasant.  There is no need to protect anything else as long as the only place we'll be attacked is there.

POTUS BOGUS

Of course, the fact is that Mr. Bush seems to know that we need at least some protections for places other than Iraq.

That means he must know his argument is bogus.  It means he knows that the US presence in Iraq is immaterial to whether terrorists will try to attack us here.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3684.html

"If any Republican is elected president — and I think obviously I would be the best at this — we will remain on offense....I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense," Giuliani continued. "We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense."

He added: "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

Rudy Giuliani, New England College in Henniker, N.H. April 24, 2007

WOW!  Rudy Giuliani says if he's elected President, he'll govern as a paranoid facist.  I can't think of any other way to interpret his statement.

He pledges to anticipate what the terrorists might do and to remain on the offensive to stop those possibilities.  That means if, as President, he hears a warning that al Qaeda is going to set off an explosion, he'll attack .. somewhere, someone, some thing, befoer they do.

Good God Man! 

Especially since the price of gasoline skyrocketed in September 2005, I've heard over and over, ad nauseum, that the major determinant of the price of gasoline is the price of crude oil.  The explanation has even been used during the current down-turn in prices.

I decided to graph the two prices (from 2000 to current) together to see whether the one mirrors the other.  It seems, with exceptions, they do.  It's the "with exceptions" part that's puzzling to me.

In my graph there are a couple of short term anomalies.  The first occurred between April & May 2001.  The average price per gallon of regular unleaded (US Cities Average - Bureau of Labor Statistics) in this period rose from $1.75 to $1.94 while the price of crude oil fell from about $0,49 to $0.48.  The next anomaly was an opposite trend - from February to March 2002 the price of gas fell while the cost of crude rose.

The gasoline price rise normally blamed on Hurricane Katrina actually began in the period June to July 2005, and peaked by the end of September 2005.  During this time the average price of gasoline went from $2.38 to $3.11 per gallon, and the cost of crude went from $0.90 to $1.08 per gallon.  Notice the price of gasoline rose over 23%, but the cost of crude oil rose 16%.

The most interesting anomaly is the last two months.  From July to September 2006 the cost of crude oil has fallen a little less than 17%.  During the same period, the average price per gallon of gasoline has fallen almost 32%.

The last thing my graph made clear is that the trend line for the average price of gasoline is diverging from the trend line for the average cost of crude oil.  In other words, by my estimate, the US Cities Average price of a gallon of gasoline is increasing about 34% faster than the average price of crude oil since January 2000.  If the differential between the trend lines had remained constant, the average price of a gallon of gasoline would be approaching $2.00.

All of this reinforces that the commodity (gasoline) price is affected by much more that the cost of crude oil.  I guess I knew that.  But the current down-turn in prices is only half explained by the reduction in crude oil cost - so what does explain it?

I'm trying to keep track in my own mind of what our reasons are for staying permanently in Iraq.  Unfortunately, I can't do it!

Retired General William Odom wrote in this piece published July 17th that staying in Iraq is preventing us from reaching our long-term goals in the Middle East.  I think he is right, and this has set me thinking about what is going on.

Recent reports indicate that the insurgency we are fighting is primarily Iraqis.  They believe we are an occupier intent on colonizing Iraq in order to take their crude oil for ourselves.

So, every day we stay in country we reinforce that idea.  Worse, we are actually constructing permanent bases.

The claim that we are occupiers, backed up by the evidence that we are building permanent military bases serves to increase the number of insurgents fighting to liberate Iraq.  Their numbers are further increased every time we kill an insurgent because we mobilize revenge seekers.

Based on all of this, we can only win in Iraq by killing the entire population.   If we embark on this course, defending Iraq will become a religious necessity for Muslims, and we will eventually have to kill every Muslim world-wide.

So, General Odom has it right - we either suffer the short-term tactical defeat by withdrawing, and in the process preserve our long-term strategic goals, or we embark on a campaign of genocide, and lose our strategic goals for the foreseeable future, and in the process become what they claim we are.

Writing it out in this manner makes the decision seem too easy to me.  How do we get our "big thinkers" to see?

Several well respected political thinkers have opined that trying to Impeach and Convict President Bush is, for now at least, wrong. I remember several posts on the topic by Josh Marshall at TPM, and at least one article in The Hill, arguing that if the Ds expend energy right now trying to effect an Impeachment they will lose in the Mid-term elections.

I can see the logic, and I understand that if the Ds give them a rallying point, the Republican base will rally. If the Democrats wait, and if no other rallying point arises (everyone knows Mr. Rove is trying to find something to use) maybe this tactic will bear fruit. I'm willing to wait -- but only until the next session of Congress.

Regardless of which party is victorious in November, I think President Bush must be Impeached and tried for the good of the nation.

Most people are familiar with the bill of particulars against President Bush.  He has violated his Oath of Office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" by failing to enforce laws, by using signing statements to declare that he can choose to ignore laws, by stifling free speech, by ignoring the requirements to obtain warrants, by arresting people without cause, by denying those people arrested recourse, by ignoring the right to speedy and public trials, and by claiming extra-constitutional powers.  He has chosen to make war (apparently for imperial purposes) and lied to justify the war.  And, he is seeking an excuse to start a third war.  He hides under a cloak of secrecy and is seeking to effectively establish an "Official Secrets" doctrine.

These abuses are all affronts to our Constitution.  If they stand, President Bush will have eviscerated Article I, Article III, the 1st Amendment, and the 4th Amendment.  These affronts can only be cured by Impeachment.  If they are not cured, the precedents will have been set, and every successive President will use them.  It also remains within the realm of possibility that President Bush will declare, using his Unitary Executive doctrine, that the coming elections must be suspended lest they interfere with his prosecution of the War.

I think the idea of America hangs in the balance.

I have been for all of my adult life a proponenet of "Sunshine" laws.  My reading of history tells me clearly that our founders believed that all government business should be conducted in the open so that citizens could be informed and make informed decisions.

 The one consission I'm willing to make is that there are some occasions where lives would be endangered, so some informaiton shoudl be temporarily secret. 

The current Administration recognizes that information is the currency of power.  However, they are so power hungry that they are unwilling to share.  Thier default position is to withhold information so only they have the power.

 President Bush is a "Corporatist."  Pure and simple.  His Administration and everything it does is aimed at increasing corporate hegemony.  This can only come to pass in secret.