La, la, la, la is eventually going to stop working.

In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC

the link in the first sentence. There are actually two -- one to Glenn Greenwald's piece:

Political harmony v. the rule of law: an easy choice for the political establishment

and one to Ari Melber at The Nation:

Netroots Summit Grapples with Bipartisan Attacks on Rule of Law

(And to clarify -- the 2 links to DK are old Armando posts from 2005.)

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

...in the Greenwald piece....

Writing from the Netroots Nation conference, The Nation's Ari Melber detailed what he calls "Bipartisan Attacks on the Rule of Law," and specifically highlighted the fact that close Obama adviser, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago, "cautioned against prosecuting criminal conduct from the current Administration" during a Conference panel. As Melber wrote:

Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, [Sunstein] argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton -- or even the "slight appearance" of it.

As I documented last week, the idea that the Rule of Law is only for common people, but not for our political leaders and Washington elite, is pervasive among the political and pundit class, in both parties. While common Americans should be imprisoned in record numbers when they break the law, the worst that should happen to the political elite when they commit crimes is that they should be voted out of office. That's the dominant mentality governing how our political system works.

[...]

UPDATE II: On a side (though not entirely unrelated) note, the aforementioned Obama friend, Cass Sunstein -- protector of Bush lawbreakers, advocate of illegal Bush spying and radical presidential powers, and fierce critic of blogs as "anti-democratic" -- earlier this month married beloved Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power. It's amazing how these sorts of circles always end up being so cozily closed.

And in a conversation about this at TL, it was noted that Cass Sunstein is on Obama's short list for SCOTUS. Wouldn't that be nice.

I'm guessing that Obama's vote for FISA was partially due to advice from Prof. Sunstein.....and he's not the only adviser that gives me the willies. One of his current advisers on healthcare was the architect of the original Harry and Louise ads that the Reps ran in the 90s.

Not only do I not trust Obama, I don't trust many of his advisers either.......but I'm sure they make the Village very happy.

Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."

We must have been reading Greenwald and had our jaws dropping at the exact same time! LOL!

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Yeah....still picking my jaw off the floor.

:/

Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."

but I associate with some pretty strange people with some pretty strange ideas. Some of them love to give me advice. I don't always take it, but it's interesting to listen to it sometimes.

I'm beginning to feel like there's some really hysterical fears out there about the senator from IL. Many of them ~not all~ are sort of funny.

The difference is I've always known who I am, I've always been consistent in what I believe in and stand for. The same can not be said of Obama. I think a big reason so many people have a hard time coming to grips with "who is this guy" is because he's still in process of learning that himself.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

You are one of the lucky ones.

I've changed a lot over the decades of my life, even some of my beliefs and what I stand for in a lot of cases. I guess you could say I continue to evolve into the me I'm meant to be. :)

beliefs. Of course everybody changes as they grow and learn, but I don't get the sense Obama ever felt a strong sense of himself and sort of blew with the wind depending on who he was with. He still seems that way.

Are you justcallmeOHIO?

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

I've got to admit to that.

I don't get the same impression of Obama that you do but we're all different in how we interpret things. I think he'll do ok as president. No one can know for sure until he gets there though.

Tough as nails and balls to the wall might be enough come 2009.

Don't think he's exactly the guy for that. Too, how do you say it, wishy-washy? Too likely to say the first appeasing thing that comes to mind, rather than fight for specific principles. Principles that are right now, at best, illusory. Mr. Tabla Rasa has allowed his supporters to define him as they wish to see him. And the recent turn abouts re: FISA and Iraq...I could almost hear the collective "d'Oh!" coming from my pooter as a few thousand bloggers slapped their heads, in their "I could've had a V8!" moment.

What makes me assume, in regard to Senator (might I add, my senator, my "I'm too busy running for President to do my damn job" Senator) that there is nothing on which to hang my vote? Because his track record, what there is of one, isn't exactly anything to brag about. You want the real story of his meteoric rise through the sewer of Chicago Politics to a National Senate seat? Have a read here:

Barack Obama and Me

And, as far as Donjo is concerned, whether you like him or not (and I happen to love the guy) has made an excellent suggestion. And you could add to that reading list, John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" as a sort of lighter (heh) read companion piece.

the last time I looked.

but it does look like you have two names.

Why the hell would I need two names?

I've never been afraid to say what I have to say under the one I've got.

What's happened to people here? Have we all gone paranoid?

I missed your 2nd question yesterday. the answer is no. Maybe new people just aren't welcome here. Sorry to have bothered you.

since you don't seem to know much about the Chicago School of Economics (and the law school) and the trouble they have caused, may I suggest you read through Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine." I guarantee it will change your mind about a lot of things. After you're well into the book, let us all know how you feel about Obama's associating himself with people from that group.

In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC

I'm more concerned right this minute about associating myself with someone like you. You seem to always want to throw demands and challenges around as though you run the show and everyone else needs to only talk about what you want to talk about and do what you think they ought.

You remind me a lot of the dominant type that I've known all too well. I don't like your type sir and wish you would just do me the favor of not trying to tell me what I should be doing ~in my spare time~ or what I don't seem to know much about. You don't have a clue what I know or don't know and you are arrogant to assume you do.

Do I make myself clear?

I didn't TELL YOU a damned thing. I suggested you read this book, that's all. Is that a crime? What do you have against that? People around here tend to be readers. Get off your high horse and may I also SUGGEST you stop insulting and berating people you don't agree with.

P.S. I'm not little. And somehow I don't think this blog has anything to do with "associating" oneself with anyone. If you don't like something may I suggest that you just ignore it. Quite simple. As far as I know, NO ONE is forcing you to be here. Oh, there I go again, telling you what to do.

In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC

at the top of this thread, there is a bar of yellow links - and one is labeled BOOK CLUB. Clarkies used to suggest books for others to read and even sometimes discussed them. How nice it would be to return to that "tradition" which seems to have gone by the way side along with everything else.

In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC

...that will scroll right past comments you don't want to read. If someone doesn't like the way in which a particular poster writes, then scroll right past it. I'm a Mac user, and I have two scrolling choices: the space bar and the elevator on the right. Easy to find and use. Not sure where this feature in located on a PC, but I'd bet money it's somewhere easy to find.

As for making oneself "clear", we operate by the First Amendment here. Each poster is free to say what he/she pleases (within in the guidelines set by the administrators) and each is free to scroll right on by anyone whose "type" you don't like.

Evolution and growth.  All for it.

But right now, I prefer a President who isn't sporting a "God isn't finished with me yet" t-shirt. 

The vacuum created by the lack of hard evidence of the principles by which Mr. Obama lives generates rumors. So it is necessary to draw conclusions by the company he keeps. If we are to be an informed electorate, we need to know more and more about those in his company.

What is known about some of his advisors and associates is disturbing to say the least.

When I purchase anything major, I research it first. I don't want to fall for a salesman's pitch only to have the wheels come off after I've signed the deal. The deal in November is my vote.

Knowledge is power. Reading over the comments here in the past two days I find no one stating even one principle that Mr. Obama stands firm on. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

linked above:

~ snip ~

... Here's what The New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported last week during her Washington Post chat:

Albany New York: I've already ordered your book from Amazon, but am very interested in your take on why there's been no little effective political opposition to any of this Administration's initiatives. Is it a question of limited public awareness or interest, or a more political calculation that one shouldn't appear to be soft on terrorism?
.
Jane Mayer: Since you're in New York, let me tell you about a conversation I had with one of your senators, Chuck Schumer. When I asked him why, given his safe seat, and ostensible concern for civil liberties, he didn't speak out more against the Bush Administration's detention and interrogation programs, he said in essence that voters don't care about these issues. So, he said, he wasn't going to talk about them.

~ snip ~

As I documented last week, the idea that the Rule of Law is only for common people, but not for our political leaders and Washington elite, is pervasive among the political and pundit class, in both parties. While common Americans should be imprisoned in record numbers when they break the law, the worst that should happen to the political elite when they commit crimes is that they should be voted out of office. That's the dominant mentality governing how our political system works.

For all the talk about how radical and lawless the Bush administration has been, this widely-shared view that our political leaders should be immune from consequences for lawbreaking is the administration's defining belief. After the 2004 election, President Bush held a news conference and was asked about the failures in Iraq, and this is what he said:

QUESTION: Why hasn't anyone been held accountable, either through firings or demotions, for what some people see as mistakes or misjudgments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election.

~ snip ~

And this is exactly what we are now hearing from the likes of Harold Ford, Chuck Schumer, Cass Sunstein, David Broder, Tim Rutten, and on and on and on -- criminal prosecutions for government lawbreakers are far too disruptive and politically untenable and unfair. The only fair reaction is just to vote them out of office or wait until they leave on their own accord. All of the Beltway platitudes are trotted out -- we can't look backwards, or "criminalize policy disputes," or get caught up in unpleasant battles over prosecutions when we have too many other important problems too solve -- all in order to argue that, no matter what happens, our glorious political leaders should never be held accountable in a court of law, like everyone else is, when they break the law.

Why would we expect political officials to do anything other than break the law if we continuously tell them -- as we've been doing -- that they are exempt from consequences? And how can Bush -- or Nixon -- be criticized for conceiving of the Presidency as being above the law when that's how our political establishment, including many Democrats, explicitly conceive of it as well?

In today's The New York Times, Charlie Savage reports that right-wing activists have already begun agitating for full-scale pardons for all parties involved in Bush's illegal surveillance and torture programs:

~ snip ~

UPDATE II: On a side (though not entirely unrelated) note, the aforementioned Obama friend, Cass Sunstein -- protector of Bush lawbreakers, advocate of illegal Bush spying and radical presidential powers, and fierce critic of blogs as "anti-democratic" -- earlier this month married beloved Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power. It's amazing how these sorts of circles always end up being so cozily closed.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

That's the one I've been waiting for but not expecting to see until after Christmas. A late present of sorts.

Theory B.... still chugging along with gusto! :)

Excuse me now while I see if I can gather up all the pieces of head on the floor. Whatta mess.

Yeah. One thing we want to urge caution about in THESE TIMES... be extra cautious about holding anyone in the bush administration accountable for... anything. Good friggin idea.

Judgment.

Well to give the benefit of the doubt... maybe somebody made him pick Sunstein as an advisor. Maybe Sunstein USED TO BE a real progressive law and order Constitutional maven take no prisoners kinda guy. Maybe he changed. Or maybe he didn't change but was just really really good at hiding who he really was so that nobody knew.

Judgment.

Oh. There's the cortex! Good. Glad I found that. Comes in handy. :/

.....either way, the Village wins.

There is a divide in this country, but contrary to what O preaches, it's not between right and left, it's between the ruling class and the rest of us.....and we currently have no champion in the fight.

Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."