I can't tell you how tired I am of the Bush Administration's crazy-making over the last few years.  

After the 2006 elections, I breathed a sigh of relief for many reasons.  One of the main reasons for my relief was the very sane and healthy prospect of resuming Congressional oversight of the Bush Administration's Executive Branch.

It shouldn't have surprised any of us that, as should by now be obvious, the Bush Administration would feel no shame in trying to keep its activities secret from the American people by employing any means necessary.  It's obvious that they believe their control and operation of our government is none of our damn business.  You see, they believe that they have the right to keep their activities secret, and executive privilege is their King's X, allowing them to tell us with impunity and without apology, "We do what we want and it's none of your business."

So when is executive privilege justified?  Reading about the power struggles and thinking about it has only made things murkier and more confusing for me.  Listening to the back-and-forth between oversight committees and the  executive branch provides little illumination.  

So far, the conversation goes something like this (using "shorter"-style translation):

Congressional Oversight:  (to Bush Admin. or Exec Branch Dept.)  We need documents from you.

(weeks/months pass with no response)

Congressional Oversight:  Hey!  Stop ignoring us.  We need documents from you.

Bush Adm/Exec Branch:  Huh?  Oh, sorry.  We've been busy.  Fighting terrorists, you know.  We'll get them to you.

(weeks/months pass with no response)

Congressional Oversight:  So where are the documents you promised?

Bush Adm/Exec Branch:  Well, here are a few
of them--mostly redacted.  But isn't it an impressive number of sheets of paper?  10,000!  We'll send the others once we find them.  If we find them.

Congressional Oversight:  You mean they're lost?

Bush Adm/Exec Branch:  Maybe.  We don't know.

----------------------------------

An interminable amount of time passes.  Finally, we get to this:


Bush Adm/Exec Branch:  We invoke executive privilege.

Congressional Oversight:  Now you tell us.  Why in the world do you think that applies here?

Bush Adm/Exec Branch:  Because we need to protect the valuable level of candor between the President and (fill in the blank depending on what they're covering up) in their deliberative communications, you know, especially on these politically charged issues.  (Are there any issues during the Bush Administration that aren't politically charged?)  Besides, you haven't demonstrated a real need for these documents.  And anyway, you're just engaging in phony political theater.

Congressional Oversight:  We're doing oversight.  It's our responsibility.  And you haven't proven a valid basis for asserting executive privilege.

And on and on and on and on.....

-------------------

So what the hell distinguishes where the line is drawn between these two--(1)  when the President does have a right to executive privilege that supersedes the citizens' right to know and (2)  when the people's need to know what the hell their government's doing is more important (not to mention the most valuable check on abuse of government power)?

I've been looking for a distinction that answers this question--something that's clear and concise and irrefutable.  Is it some ineffable, delicate balance that only someone much smarter than I can grasp?  I'd started to think maybe that was the answer--either that or I'm crazy and no longer possess the ability to use logic.

Then I found this on the Obsidian Wings site.

That makes sense.  God bless publius at Obsidian Wings.  That makes sense.  And I'm not crazy.

(This started as a comment on another post.  I decided to make it a blog entry and see if anyone takes an interest.)

Obama's proposed tech policy excites me more than anything else in his policy proposals. What I see in both his policy ideas and in his campaign are indications of a genuine desire and talent for bringing politics and governing back to the grassroots level.

He has used the internet with great success to finance and organize volunteers for his campaign. They have brilliantly made use of the internet's campaign-building benefits--social networking, viral marketing through You Tube, etc.--which are free venues for promotion of Obama's so-called movement.

I've had to be careful to avoid dismissing the "movement" as strictly marketing strategy. What Obama has envisioned, and what the campaign is portraying, is a new model for campaigning that, to a great degree, removes the need to involve the traditional rich and powerful sources of campaign funds. Removing the necessity to rely on rich and powerful contributors also removes the resulting need to "serve" those contributors whose interests may be incredibly narrow and often not beneficial to the general citizenry.

The fact that Obama has been so wildly successful in fundraising from the "little folks" leaves me very hopeful that this alone, whether Obama wins the general election or not, will inexorably change the nature of all future campaigns. In order to simply remain competitive, candidates will have to follow this fund-raising model. And that will mean candidates will have to solicit the financial support of the "little folks"--and both the candidate and the policy proposals will have to be appealing and convincing enough to persuade folks to donate.

Now, that's an application of the Republican Party's much-beloved free market concept I can get excited about!

It remains to be seen how successful Obama is with his plan for using the internet to make the government more transparent and "user-friendly" for the citizenry. Optimally, an internet-based venue for opening lines of communication between the citizenry and those who govern will encourage much greater citizen participation than we have seen in the past. Hopefully, the result will make us less vulnerable to the complex machinations of lobbyists and government "insiders" who rely on processes that are complex enough or murky enough to discourage us from even trying to stay informed and involved. 

To me, such a plan sounds like it will be incredibly difficult to design, implement, and manage.  But, man! What a priceless innovation that would be!

The combined changes in both campaigning and governing could actually change the distribution of political power in this country! I don't know about y'all, but I'm ready to work for it!

No matter what your opinion of Barack Obama or his policies may be, I hope that you will see how big just these changes would be. If we're careful, work hard, and have luck on our side, these things could change our country's politics and government--in the best way--forever.

I just thought I'd share the email I received for the Rev. John H. Thomas, President of the United Church of Christ.  The UCC is planning to purchase a full-page ad in the NYT--in part to describe who we are, and in part to defend and stand together with the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

I'm so proud of the UCC.

Dear Laura Jordan,

 Home: Newsletter


Let's buy a full-page ad!

Dear Laura,

We want to place a full-page ad in The New York Times - perhaps as early as next Wednesday - to proclaim the truth about who we are as the United Church of Christ. Will you help make this a reality?

One week ago, I received a call from the Rev. Tom Stiers of Riverside Church in Manhattan, who said his congregation was sending a check for $6,000 for the purpose of supporting the purchase of a prominent, full-page ad. He encouraged us to invite others to join this effort.

The vision for the ad is to speak proactively to the breadth and diversity of our denomination, while also acknowledging the hurt that many in our country have experienced in recent weeks, including the members of Trinity UCC in Chicago.

This will be an occasion to explain the uniqueness of our polity, to acknowledge the freedom of our pulpits, and to affirm the rights of our members to agree or disagree in love. The statement will speak to our oneness in Christ, who strengthens us to be agents of justice, peace and reconciliation.

Of course, the cost will be significant, perhaps in excess of $120,000. That's a lot of money. But the potential positive impact of such a statement is worth much, much more.

People are looking at the UCC like they never have before, and that's why it's critical that we respond proactively and tell our church's story. Otherwise, we will let others continue to define us in narrow and distorted ways.

We have a few days to raise a significant amount of money. Can we count on your support?

The Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

P.S. Click here for more information about how to give online or to send your check by U.S. mail. 

Since there are so many people posting on their blogs lately, it seems like a post can easily slide into oblivion before it ever gets fair exposure.

A TPM blogger called me out on an insensitive post and I owed her an apology.  Unfortunately, I don't know if she ever got the apology--her post slipped off the list of recent reader posts during a very busy period of blogger postings.  I keep checking the thread for her response, but there's nothing.

So I decided to make a post of my own offering an apology--specifically to her and generally to all.

Her post:

From: Cafe Even Paranoids Have Enemies

By Swapan Chatterjee - March 13, 2008, 6:59PM

Cripes yourself Laura.  Looks as if you are again, shooting without looking first. This is what you wrote, “Hillary is going to have to increasingly claim that everyone is out to "get" her. She's going to look absolutely ridiculous. First it's the vast right-wing conspiracy. Then, it's the unfairly biased television media. Now I'm starting to hear that it's liberal print journalism and the blogosphere as well.”  

My response:

Mea culpa!

I should be fair: it's not Hillary saying this kind of crazy stuff. I shouldn't have worded my comment as a burn against Hillary Clinton herself.

I was making fun of some of her most defensive and irrational supporters who see unfairness everywhere they turn. After a while, they begin to sound ridiculous.

Unfortunately, when supporters become zealous, it seems like they become less able to distinguish between themselves and their preferred candidate. They internalize perceived slights against their candidate and feel personally attacked. I confess I am not immune to this, but I haven't given up trying to remain rational!

On the flip side, another mistake is attributing supporters' words and deeds to the candidates themselves. Maintaining this distinction gets really tricky and I clearly failed here.

In addition, I think zealous support makes it harder to remember that people who support the "enemy" are distinct individuals who don't all necessary think with the same brain. We get into trouble when we start seeing sentences that begin with "you people," and "XXXXXX supporters are the kind of people who (fill in your favorite fantasy construct)." When I see generalizations like that--lumping me into a group and labeling me--I feel insulted. It's disrespectful of each person's ability to think independently. So I should conscientiously try to avoid doing it to others.

I did a poor job of wording my comment and I apologize for that. I don't believe what I said is true of Hillary Clinton herself, and I don't believe that ALL of her supporters sound crazy.

Keith Olbermann did not hide his disgust tonight for the latest bit of race-related ugliness to flare up during the Democratic primaries.  He promised a Special Comment on the situation on tomorrow's edition of Countdown on MSNBC.

I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say.

I consider myself an independent voter.  I live in Texas, a red state, and have recently decided to give all my support to Democratic candidates in order to repudiate George Bush and the Republican Party. 

I have something to say.  Rather than compose a new post, I'll just copy some comments I've encountered in a recent thread.  I refer to Gary Rees's post from March 7 (in case you're curious).  Also, you might be interested in strvu9's post from March 10. 

I appreciate your consideration.




TPM Reader Blog Post by strvu9:

By - March 10, 2008, 6:25PM

Reading some of the stuff on here today (especially suggestions that Hillary is somehow culpable in the Spitzer problems!) has actually left me feeling sick to my stomach!
Maybe  I'll come back in a few days , maybe after the nomination has been settled but , like I've said before, I am an undecided Democratic Voter who is currently so disgusted by some of my fellow Democrats  I feel like I have morning sickness! And it's late afternoon! 

PERMALINK | Recommend this! (5)

stravu9,

Yeah, I feel you. Sometimes I have to just take a break and get away from the snark and the mean-spiritedness too.

There are a lot of posters here with nasty personal axes to grind, but there are a lot of nice people here too. It just starts feeling like you have to step over a lot of manure to get to the occasional flower patch.

It's gotten a bit toxic here. Take a break, cleanse and refortify, and come back soon.

:-)

Posted by laurajordan
March 10, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink

And lots of posters here that spew sugar-coated venom while they complain about vinegar.

This must be an example of that "Change you can Believe in."

Don't let them run you off

Posted by workerbee
March 10, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink

I catch your reference workerbee. Okay, I'll engage.

My comments are genuine...both to strvu9 and to you. Go back and read the thread you were posting on a couple of days ago. I did. You were definitely stirring people up with your gratuitous insults. I begain by asking you to stop because it's not helpful. You responded by insulting me and continuing to shower insults on people on down the thread. GMan's post was a thoughtful one about the importance of voting for the party's candidate, whoever it might be. He (and I) spend a lot of time reminding Obama supporters to cool off, be rational, and remember what's important. You were undermining that with your sanctimony and personal attacks. So I concluded that you enjoy insulting people. I call that acting like an asshole.

You think I'm not a good enough Democrat, and you're a much better one? That's how you come across.

I live in a red state that's trying to build a stronger Democratic Party. It's difficult here. We try to entice independents and former Republicans, and we don't do it by being sanctimonious and preaching to them about how emotionally immature they are (even if it's how we might feel). It might feel good to blow off steam, but IT'S NOT HELPFUL.

Maybe you don't live in the same situation. Do you live in a 'blue' state? I can tell you that your anger (which I don't question the 'righteousness' of) and nastiness would not be helpful--in fact, it's the kind of thing that has independents running from us in droves.

So I asked you to consider the overall usefulness of your comments and you refused, choosing to insult us further. Go back and read the thread and think about whether your comments are helpful.

Posted by laurajordan
March 10, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink

Sean Wilentz is a published historian who has had a long friendship with Bill and Hillary Clinton.  He (along with some posters at TPM) has a stick in his craw about widespread accusations that the

Does it smell like condescension in here?

Did anyone else get a whiff of self-satisfied schadenfruede?

I found the source.  It was a conservative who came to visit us over here at TPM.  I thought I'd share the exchange I had with him/her:

"OxyConservative" sez:

I'm surprised the Clinton campaign let Obama off the hook for stealing Deval Patrick's speech. Obama didn't just steal Patrick's speech...he's stolen Patrick's entire campaign! Which speaks to the authenticity and genuineness of Obama's campaign, rhetoric and message.
The people of Massachusetts voted for Deval Patrick's campaign/message in 2006, but when they saw Obama running the same campaign with the same message two years later, they thoroughly rejected it. They were played for suckers once and wised up.
Most people usually catch on to a snake oil salesman. Unfortunately for Democrats, they look like they aren't going to catch on fast enough. But the rest of the country will in time for the general election.
And on another note, Obama (along with Deval Patrick) promises all of this magic change, which leads to the following questions. Just what has Deval Patrick "changed" for the better in Massachusetts in his two years there? And what, if anything has Obama ever "changed" for the better in his entire life?
The only "change" I have ever seen Obama accomplish is that his campaign (Deval Patrick's really) has changed alot of Clinton supporters into insane, rabid, foaming at the mouth Clinton haters.

Posted by OxyConservative
February 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink


Here's my reply:

Ah, OxyConservative. How nice of you to come visit us at our neighborhood.

"...Obama promises all this magic change..."

"...And what, if anything has Obama ever "changed" for the better in his entire life?"

You're not interested in respectfully asking questions are you? And you have no idea what Obama has accomplished because you're really not interested in finding out, are you?

Well, I have the information, so I'll offer it to you anyway.

First, let's look at your criticism of Obama's (in)authenticity: Deval Patrick and Barack Obama have been friends for more than an decade, and their political beliefs are very similar. They've openly admitted this -- they've also openly admitted to "borrowing" from each other during political campaigns. See for yourself in the Boston Globe article dated April 16, 2007:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/16/patrick_obama_campaigns_share_language_of_hope/

Now, I haven't followed the career of Deval Patrick as Massachussetts Governor, but I do know a little about Barack Obama's accomplishments. The most thorough research and information gathering on this subject I've been able to find has been at Obsidian Wings. Enjoy:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

It's wearing thin, the "what has he done except talk?" question, OxyConservative. It's becoming obvious that people who continue to ask it simply aren't willing to listen to the response.

"Most people usually catch on to a snake oil salesman." It seems you and I agree about that. I believe Americans are generally fair-minded, sensible people. They catch on when the doubts and accusations raised by people like you just don't make sense anymore.

Posted by laurajordan
February 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink