Hagel Problems

McClatchy tells us some of what the GOP has against Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Critics have pointed to a comment Hagel made in 2008 to author and former State Department Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller about why he sometimes opposed pro-Israel groups in the Senate. "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," Hagel said, but "I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator." They also have cited his calls for direct negotiations with Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that the U.S. and Israel refuse to deal with directly, and his votes against some Iran sanctions.

Now the idea that somebody would consider themselves a United States Senator before a shill for Israel is an odd reason for an American Senator to get his knickers in a twist. I can't think of a single nation on earth, now or in the past, that makes no mistakes, even Exceptional USA. The idea that none of Israel's actions are above reproach or even being questioned strikes me as ludicrous. If I don't have a lot of company in that regard then we need Israel as a 51st State so we can kick them around a bit.

The Middle East can certainly bring people to the point of stupidity pretty quickly. If people have guns and bombs that they're using and you decide you can't talk to them, then the only thing that is going to happen is that the use is going to continue until they're extinct.

I'd be willing to bet that the real core to the GOPering of Hagel has to do with him changing his mind in regard to Iraq and by extension kicking the GOP and GWB. That is something that will get any partisan's back up - well at least someone blindly partisan.  Don't expect me to have much nice to say about people whose willing blindness allowed GWB to waltz us into Iraq. 

There are some Democrats with reservations thanks to some things Hagel has had to say. All I really have to say on that regard is that anybody whose spent much of their life talking about politics has probably got some things they'd rather not have said.  This is not a Judicial appointment for life, in a few years he's gone, short of another appointment.  In that regard it is important to remember that these folks are not out there on their own - they work for the President of the US.

Now I don't particularly like Hagel nor do I particularly dislike him. It seems to me that short of some legal problem the President should get who he wants without high drama. I'm pretty confident that the guy has been vetted. What the GOP needs to come to terms with is that Barack Obama has been twice elected President and that is just about all there is to that. Consistently playing obstructionist in the face of that fact in regard to such appointments is childish in the extreme. No, I haven't forgotten who I'm talking about...

Entitlements and Entitlements and

Now that the dysfunctional 113th has been sworn in (no, that's not being at all previous) the talk has all turned to the upcoming CLIFFS, OMFG!!!  Yep, the train is steaming down the tracks and the bridge is out (Casey Jones) [still out] giving folks something to talk about for the next couple months.  And what is everybody talking about, what budget busting, economy shriveling thing is it?  Entitlements. 

There, I said the bad word.  I'll say it again, just for emphasis - Entitlements.  You know, the nastiness that the grubbing Fed hands out to those others.  You know like that Medicare that hands out something to those 'olds' who'll be 'olds' enough in four years or whatever.  The primary drivers of nonsense like that have never paid SS/FICA on their entire wage for their entire working life, you might bother to note that SS/FICA sunsets at $110,000 wages/salary and no other income.  You might bother to note that the worst occupational health cost they face is a paper cut from the envelope with their dividend/capital gains check.  You can probably do that until age 67... or older.

I got to listen to ex-Gov Rendell talk about the increase in life expectancy make a mockery of (D) concerns over the last decades.  True, I (skilled labor) can expect, statistically, to make it to 72yrs up from 66 in the Sixties, but then the paper cut crowd can pretty much expect 84.  So... those who put the least in take the most out.  But - we have to give the GOP Vandals something if we expect them to give any ground, and what we'll give will affect Gov Rendell and his cohort essentially not spit.  Getting to age 65 as a capable construction worker is damned tough to expect, but it isn't a hell of a lot more likely to be exactly easy for a waitress.  Screw those folks if it keeps the GOPers from crashing the economic car.

The word you won't hear, you can't get to hear it, is Defense.  The Sacred Cow can't be mentioned.  If something happened to take some few percent out of that budget we'd all be dead or somehow unsafe.  Now if you consider that we're number one in spending on this and of the top 15 spenders we spend more than the following 14 put together; we must no be getting much bang for our bucks if we're suddenly going to be unsafe if we spent more than only the following 13.  Unsafe gets put a lot more into context if you consider who it is that gets most of that spending and just how goddam rich they are.  Some very Important people would have a little less Monopoly money to play with versus screw you old and poor.

I suppose you could point some of this stuff out to your Representatives, you could but I'll repeat, the losers in Defense spending cuts are Very Important People and YOU are not.  Messing about in the business of you betters is, well, unseemly.

Now We've Got A "New" Congress

So I just watched the House stand up and applaud the election of The Orange Man to be Speaker of the Ass-ylum.  Well there you go, he got there by about 3 votes from a bunch who is so impressed with him that the non-Representative loon Allen West got a couple votes.  So if you've been engaging in any welcome of a "new" Congress you should understand just what kind of gauntlet was thrown down today.

The Vandals just gave Speaker Boehner a shot across the bow.  If he bothers to act as though the business of the people means getting some things done; his neck is already in the noose and the trap trigger is set.  The tax bill was passed with twice as many of his Party voting against it, they've told him today that they're not kidding even if nobody else wants the job right now. 

There are some big important votes coming up and their lack of action could be a sledgehammer to the economy's head.  Sure, the Debt Limit vote ought to be nothing more than affirming a joke, but that joke has become a mean practical joke on the citizenry.  I'm not sure how many people would think it reasonable to not pay the house mortgage because the carpet is dirty - but there is a sizable portion of GOPers (demonstrated today) that do think it is reasonable.  Allen goddam West is about as up-front a "fuck you" as it gets.

I'm about real tired of hearing optimistic bullshit about what the '12 election means.  What that election means is that Congress is still in the hands of the Vandals.  In a Party with a modicum of sanity they'd just be the fringe that you have to put up with getting on the TV machine and saying stupid stuff.  This GOP is not that Party.  It does not mean squat to these people and, in the final run, their Party that the President and the Senate are Democratic and that most people think they're full of shit.  If you think things are going to be better over the next two years... 

Dealing With The GOP

I've already laughed at the idea of GOP reassessment so one need not fear I'm going to repeat that.  I've listened to two of John Boehner's blatherings now and while I appreciate the cheekiness of offering to compromise all the way to the President's opponent's position on taxes and spending, it is pretty silly to think a bunch of Democrats will get along with it.  A bunch of media is all aflutter with fiscal cliff themes which is a serious over statement of what is going on.  There is not only no damn rush to deal with it, it is strategically stupid to do anything before we topple over... er actually, step down the slope.

Mitch McConnell managed to tell the President that he could go ahead and offer up a Republican House Bill....  Now, admiring the cheekiness of Orange John is a bit different than saying something nice about complete and utter lunatic ramblings by Mitch One Term McConnell.  The House is not "Republican" it has a Republican majority which is a bit of a different thing.  It is quite possible for the Tea Baggers to stay loyal to their idiotology and fringe while other GOPers come out to play.  That of course depends on just how scared the rest of them are of Teabaggery.

The GOP has proved itself willing and adept at taking hostages so being put in the position of step forward or have the edge of the cliff crumble under them whould turn on some lights.  They're perfectly aware of the efficacy of making the choice of going along or facing the absolute wrath of the citizenry and the plutocratic interests.  The plutocrats might not much like paying higher taxes and in another deep recession could probably buy up even more of what's left, but payment to those pissed off peons could be real bad - like pitchforks bad.  Not to mention that some of the wealthy actually do depend on doing actual business, you know, the making of or doing things which you don't do in a crashed economy.

I don't propose that the President and Democrats march into Congress and insult the GOP, as deserving as they are, but that they put them into corners that force reasonableness onto them.  I am, however, real tired of hearing about "middle ground" where the GOPers will meet the President.  The GOP can be dragged or forced into meeting the Democrats on their side of the divide, otherwise all the talk about not just being red/blue but the United States will simply end in RED.  The real trick will be to get the media past the wishful thinking of magical Bipartisanship.

The US Budget - Short Version

FYIGM*





*(F--k** You, I Got Mine)



**Yes, I said Fuck and I meant it.

Republicans And Governance

I don't know if voters last Tuesday were thinking about national outcomes, local politics, or just pissed off and it really doesn't matter in relation to governance. The reason it doesn't matter is that whatever voters wanted the result is an over 50 vote House Republican majority. It may matter later, but the result is what matters now. The House is Republican while the Senate and White House remain Democratic and the House is not Republican enough to over-ride a White House veto.

Nothing can get to the White House for signing that doesn't pass the Senate and to even be considered, as the Republicans demonstrated so willingly, there must be enough votes to defeat a filibuster. As far as legislation goes, the House Republicans are helpless without serious Democratic help. The House knows this even if the public doesn't really pay enough attention to understand it. The House Republicans are free to pass any kind of stupidity they choose without having to pay for it in the real world. This also means that they are pretty free to not pass anything that pleases them. That little piece should bring to mind the subject of the budget. That could mean real havoc.

The matter of the House taking up whatever investigations it pleases has concerned some. It is quite true that Committees could harass the White House with stupid pointless unfounded investigations. It is also true that a twenty four hour news cycle needs to be fed and the feeding opportunities presented by such are large. Here's the rub for some of the whackoes, there are other news outlets than FauxNews and they are capable of reporting the actual allegations made by someone like Issa about a President most Americans find personally likable. Public perception that pure mischief making is at work would have huge public relations costs. That might or might not dissuade some but outcomes rule, either dissuasion from game playing or public backlash over it. The media might play the game of false equivalence that such and such was investigated under BushCo ... but even stating the issues investigated will blow up stupidity in front of viewers. I really don't think I'm overestimating either media or the public. I really don't care if folks like Issa are stupid or not and I'm not real worried about a bit of White House harassment.

The real deal is that no matter what representations John Boehner may make about how they'll affect the direction of the nation, their options are seriously limited. Considering the limits and Boehner's knowledge of them, I'm real doubtful that he has any idea of doing anything more than shooting for political advantage and that may be more illusive than Boehner and other pundits seem to think. GOP blindness to its own public image weaknesses could lead them off a cliff.

To Be Fair To Senate Democrats See Merkley and Brown

In a recent post I cast doubt on the future of health care reform of meaningful proportions. Saying anything good about the GOP and Health Care is simply beyond me and anyone that is actually willing to look at the entire mess without junk prejudices. A bunch of Democrats are laboring mightily to bring something like reform into being without being high profile names like Sen Ted Kennedy.

I'd like to suggest you take a real look at two, Sen Jeff Merkley (OR-D) and Sherrod Brown (OH-D). They aren't alone, but rank as a couple of my favorites. I tried pretty hard to help Jeff get elected and I've watched Brown with great interest since I was mostly raised in Ohio and had reason to be pleased with that - at one time.

I'm leaving out people with real claims to attention for the simple reason that 535 is just too many people to comb through (sure, discount any (R) but that's still a lot) and also manage to bore you. Sen Merkley will probably see this, but it wouldn't hurt for readers to send kudos to these guys and others you may know of independently. Thanks Senators and all the rest of you in the trenches.

Who Didn't See This Coming? Health Reform, Nah

Health care reform has died messy deaths for over 50 years and it begins to look as though another fatality is in the offing. You could take the Republican stance and words from nearly any time in five decades as short sighted ideologically driven arguments have scared people stupid. We have this failure of something nearly resembling a system because apparently through repetition the same stupid statements resonate with enough Americans to kill reason.

Pundits are beginning to express surprise that the populist mechanism built by the Obama campaign isn't turning out demonstrations and real public push in support of the reform drive. Some easy excuses are that it is summer and also people are burnt out. The big thing is, "get behind what?" I have less than no idea what is going to come out of Congress and I don't know any citizen that does. It begins to look as though what will go forward is nibbling around the edges of a problem that requires chainsaws and wrecking balls. You may not forgive me for this, but I begin to believe that what will happen will be nothing more than cover to do essentially nothing and kill reform for another generation. Why the hell should I climb on that bandwagon?

Advocates of single payer were kissed off from the outset and bipartisanship was touted. I'm supposed to give a damn about support from the political party whose Senate leader recounts and anecdote about a friend of a friend in Canada who died as part of his opposition? Once single payer went away there was only a debate about how watered down the result would be. You cannot start your negotiating position by tossing your strongest alternative because it is politically difficult. It stood in stark contrast to the Republican do nothing position and left somewhere to go in negotiations.

Now that you've watched the Banks get bailed out and make money hand over fist as the rest of us sink you get to watch the big profiteers of health care do the same at your expense. If in case you have not paid attention, you are unaware of the linkage of health insurers and Banks it would pay you to understand where your insurance payments go after the overhead costs - invested in Banks. You expect, what, when two of the most powerful economic interests have common ends? I'm a left Democrat not some half hearted Republican shill and I'm not putting five minutes of my time into kissing up to them and their plutocratic masters.

I never expected Pres Obama to be a leftist and I understand incremental progress but I also never made any agreement to stand next to a cesspool and start moving toward it. How badly beaten do Republicans have to be before Democrats stop acting like a more reasonable version of them? If you've noticed and wondered about a lack of posts here - I'm sick of being limited to pointing to Republican idiocy (despite their enthusiasm for providing it).

Health Care, Or What

If you've followed this blog at all you know that I'm a supporter of the concept of single payer health care. I have no doubt that big health care insurance companies would take a hit but it would scarcely be fatal. Single payer would not be a 'gold plated' offering, it would no doubt have some limits on what would be covered and for how long.

This piece of limits would cause some serious hand wringing from the Right, as though no such things exist today. We have really stupid costs built into the system now, we spend incredible amounts on end of life measures, not creating comfort at that point but fighting futilely against death. A tiny minority of doctors are responsible for the vast majority of malpractice claims. The uninsured and under insured drive medical costs for everyone up drastically. Emergency rooms get used as doctor's offices and simple procedures get avoided until they are major. Insurance companies deny treatments until they fall onto the public dime.

Democrats and Republicans have completely different views of health care and who should survive - ie people or insurance companies' profits. Well, a bit more accurately most Democrats and some Democrats and Republicans have different views. You can certainly understand that campaign contributions from insurance companies (surrogates) go to those sympathetic to insurance companies and that doesn't quite reach bribery, but expecting something different is silly. The question that occurs is exactly why some Democrats are so damned sympathetic to insurance companies. It is important to realize that your premiums don't go to pay claims, they go to ... wait for it ... investment in investment banks. Remember the villains in the crash? Add them to this crapfest.

Real frankly what you'll get for your trouble in electing these folks is squat. There are some Democrats working real hard to look out for the public and they deserve kudos and support but if all Democrats were there - the deal would be done already. The Republicans have already shown where they stand - you're on your own - and considering them in the debate is simply childish approval seeking.

I don't have a lot of hope that Pres Obama would veto a junk bill since it is what he could get on his biggest issue. I wonder how I'll find myself dealing with how health care shakes out, I may lose my sense of humor. I'm closing in on the end of my leash, and my friends I break leashes.

Not The Party Of No?

Rep John Boehner (R-O) is the House Minority Leader, the guy who stated that the Republicans were not the Party Of No. That minority is 42% of the House, considering the number size of House Districts, that means somewhere near 42% of Americans are represented, fairly accurately by their politics since most of those remaining House Republican seats were pretty safe bets. In electoral politics if you don't reach a 47% threshold you can pretty much consider yourself to have been handed your ass in a bag. Consider that a young, somewhat inexperienced black man held an old "been around for ever" white guy to just under 47%, House Republicans are less popular. Apparently there is something not real hot about Republican politics.

The stimulus bill that House and Senate conferees agreed on contains around 32% tax cuts. The Senate bill infuriated some Democrats - this one for sure - and while the conference bill has enough problems, primarily the sops to Senate Republicans, it isn't so offensive as to create a revolt from the left and more than grumbling from the middle. To be perfectly clear, the current tax system needs to be addressed, the tax encouraged upward shift of wealth is disgraceful, but a stimulus bill isn't the place for it. The actual dollar numbers going to tax payers are nearly meaningless individually, but in the aggregate conspire to blow an even bigger hole in the federal budget.

Republicans voted in lock step, NO. They once again trotted out their philosophy that people are better judges of how to spend "their" money than the government is. 'Spend, spend, spend,' was their complaint. What the Republicans will not explain, other than just claim, is exactly how it is that the pittance any tax break supplies to the vast majority of Americans will be spent in a manner that will generate or sustain employment. Americans are still buying the small dollar purchases that would be covered under a tax break that was spent rather than being saved or paid toward debt. Government has the ability to pool money and make large purchases, an ability a taxpayer only has through the mechanism of debt, something not so easy to acquire at this point and probably not a real good idea for many.

Republican hate for taxes has over the years from Ronnie Reagan has become virtually knee jerk. Government is bad and taxes are evil. Republicans proved they can make government bad and they've shown clearly how their version of tax policy works out. Boehner's crew has made it clear that they were happy to take their vote back to their constituents and that they made the vote based on their constituents and a bad bill. This is a big bet they're making.

The Republicans have made it clear that they had no hand in the crafting of the bill, not quite true - but they're saying it, so the only upside for them is if it fails. If it succeeds they cannot claim credit for their Party ideology, though they're already starting the push for the claim that recovery would, in the future, have happened without the debt. In order to run a "heads we win, tails you lose" strategy they need to position themselves to claim that failure of the bill to perform was due to the lack of their ideology and if it succeeds to claim that everything was going to be fine, anyhow, and the government just busted the budget for no reason. Right now the latter piece is a bit touchy, voters don't think things are going to be just fine. The words are already out there, though quietly. The problem with the "told ya so" strategy is that it will only play with the base, average voter just don't want to play labrynith reasoning.

Bipartisanship is one of things that sounds really nice to say, but in practice is brutally ugly. The short end must see either over-riding national benefit, unlikely, or some political gain to be obtained. If ideology isn't to trump national interest about the only thing that would do it is warfare. Go ahead and try to come up with another issue where ideology isn't going to trump. There may be some issues where bits and pieces of the Republican Caucus can see sufficient local gain to get political cover for breaking ranks, but it will be the same game that ex-Sen Smith (R-OR) and Rep Greg Walden (R-OR2) used. Republican Party leadership didn't need their votes and allowed them to meet Oregon's political climate. A review of their votes and the margins will easily demonstrate that.

If there is an aspect of bipartisanship that could be achieved and that would be actually useful it would be in the tone of rhetoric and collegiality in Congress. It is not in the national interest to have our leaders throwing Molotov cocktails, publicly or privately. There is a problem, Boehner and Cantor are both bomb throwers, check their history of statements. It is a bit difficult to be friends with someone who in essence calls you a dirt bag and liar publicly. These are the people who will be the public face of House Republicans and they don't have a bit of a problem with bending or manufacturing facts. Barack Obama had better be careful that reaching across the aisle also means getting your hand back with all its fingers.

Bush Legacy And Reality

Frank Rich over at NYT has an article up concerning financial and other high jinks under GWB. The major thrust is the devaluation of ethics that is not only tolerated but the norm, to the extent that new revelations that dwarf previous and historical official malfeasance cause less than a ripple. A short list of Rich's complaints:

to the $117 billion spent (as of mid-2008) on Iraq reconstruction — a sinkhole of corruption, cronyism, incompetence and outright theft

Back in 2003, Powell said, the Defense Department just “kept inventing numbers of Iraqi security forces — the number would jump 20,000 a week!

next to big-ticket administration horrors like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and the politicized hiring and firing at Alberto Gonzales’s Justice Department, the wreckage of Iraq reconstruction is what Ralph Kramden of “The Honeymooners” would dismiss as “a mere bag of shells.” The $50 billion also pales next to other sums that remain unaccounted for in the Bush era, from the $345 billion in lost tax revenue due to unpoliced offshore corporate tax

had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne spent $235,000 from taxpayers to redo his office bathroom

The tentative and amorphous $800 billion stimulus proposed by Obama last week sounds like a lot, but it’s a drop in the bucket when set against the damage it must help counteract: more than $10 trillion in new debt and new obligations piled up by the Bush administration in eight years,

Yes, it certainly sounds like a mess. You could add to these economic factors no realistic resolution of illegal immigration/illegal hiring, tax policies favoring off shoring manufacturing, tax policies favoring wealth, drug company give-aways...

It is when the beneficiaries of this behavior become obvious that the real stink begins. Take Dick Cheney's former CEO-ship of Halliburton, going into 2000 HAL stock plummeted from $54/share to $17 thanks to asbestos liabilities in companies Cheney acquired for Halliburton. In 2008 the high was $57/share and currently in the face of falling oil prices it stands at $27. If you follow the market philosophies of the Republicans and trace profit as motivation it begins to be reasonable to propose that a war in Iraq was started for the benefit of Halliburton. Tracing oil prices over the last 8 years one would begin to believe that the Iraq war and Iranian "crisis" were instigated for the benefit of the oil industry, Exxon has done quite nicely out of it. Market demands (China, etc) do not track similarly. But mentioning China brings up issues regarding its profiteering under Bush.

It is estimated that of the $350 billion bailout banks planned to use $10 billion for bonuses. Banks that were on the verge of failing are on a bank buying spree and credit is still frozen. As unemployment rates spiral upward the banks that were too big to fail use taxpayer dollars to get bigger. If you stop to think that $10 billion in bonuses was for failure in one year, what does that say about bonuses in the years of reckless behavior before the show hit the wall?

Does anyone wonder where the hundreds of billions per year in Iraq went? You certainly don't think it was primarily wages or bullets. It was the high dollar mechanisms being paid for and those flowed to a handful of military industrial companies and support systems like uber right winger Eric Prince's Blackwater and ... um ... Halliburton.

You have an economy in tatters and two wars and political corruption on an unheard of scale today. For six years people have been pushing back and until the last couple years these people were labeled as traitors and Bush Derangement sufferers. That labeling was not narrowly held by Republican loons, Republican prosecutors were dismissed for not finding prosecutable Democratic vote irregularities by the highest levels of government. Media went along with every Republican trashing of those attempting to restore some kind of reality in government. Media has reported the news as though there were two sides to it, not analysis where it is a matter of opinion, but the stories themselves. Shill organizations like Fox put the least credible left representative they could find up against their experts. The media couldn't find enough combat pictures to suit it as they regurgitated government propaganda and hired government propaganda tools as analysts. The media did not push back until the utter bullshit they spouted was demonstrated as untrue and the public began to rebel in the face of it. The concentration of media ownership and its corporatising under Bush is an unremarked upon phenomenon. It is unremarked because they toe the plutocratic line.

The mental and ethical health of this nation is in crisis. Things that historically would have resulted in revolt are seen as the lesser problems. Thirty years of Republican propaganda taken as common wisdom have driven this mess. People who would blame Bush alone forget that he is simply the embodiment of those policies unrestrained. You can draw a straight line from Reagan to today, Clinton may have put half-hearted brakes on the process, but Bush was enabled not only by Congress, but by the media and the public. Today is the what the Reagan Republican Party is all about. Go ahead and try to find a "left" US government that put us in this state, for all the scare tactics Republicans use.

George Bush certainly is not responsible for the existence of Ronnie Reagan Republican policies, he is responsible for them unbound - no amount of spin will change history's judgement on that score. The question that now remains is whether his enablers will pay. McConnell and Boehner are still in Congress - and in positions of power, Halliburton still exists, the media is still consolidating, and wealth is weathering the storm quite nicely - thank you. And by the way, my left Democrat stance still engenders spit flecked rhetorical spray from the powers that be. Think about it.

Reid and Pelosi

I may be the Chair of Baker County Democrats but that doesn't mean I'm a shill for Democratic elected. When I don't like something; I say so. All that said, I'd like to try to make some things fairly clear about Reid and Pelosi. The Democrats have been castigated as spineless in some circles lately and there are some realities that ought to be clear that apparently aren't.

The House is now and has always been a pretty rambunctious and quick to react place. The House is where you are more likely to find the more extreme ends of the national political agendas. There are a number of reasons for this, partly at least due to the smaller demographics of the Congressional Districts in comparison to most significant elections. Senators, Governors, Secretary of States, and others all face state wide electorates and have to appeal to many more interests than the confines of CDs. In general terms, CDs are geographically small (there are exceptions like OR-2, which is larger than any state east of the Mississippi) and so their interests can be quite parochial. It has been said that getting Democrats to do anything is like herding cats, well Pelosi has an entire House of cats, both Parties.

House rules are a bit less confining than Senate rules which results in legislation that frequently gets quite a make over at Senate level and which though passed will not get past a Presidential veto. In the last two years the House passed quite a bit of fairly progressive legislation - that went nowhere. Speaker Pelosi gets branded as a lackluster leader by the malcontents, what they ignore is the near absolute hatred the right wing has for her. There is a reason for that. Legislation that dies at the Senate or is vetoed gets little press, with some exceptions like Iraq issues.

The lack of Impeachment is held against her and in all probability on the merits the Democrats could probably have gotten it passed. On the merits, alone. It would not have resulted in a Senate conviction, absolutely not have happened. What would have happened is that a President with 25% approval ratings would have gotten some more bad press and all business would have stopped for a partisan brawl. That partisan brawl would have occurred right before and during Primaries and Presidential General Election. A good sized piece of the electorate would have seen it as no more than Democratic pay back. On pure principle GW Bush should have been impeached and probably tried for some serious felonies, on principles. It would not have happened, the Senate Republicans would not have allowed it, period. So what Speaker Pelosi didn't do was something practically meaningless and politically deadly. The American public is not deeply immersed in the Constitution and reacts more emotionally than logically - the measure taken was that the elections counted for more. Tough on ideals, but we are talking about politics here.

Majority Leader Reid's life is considerably more complicated than Pelosi's. Sixty votes are required to end debate and send legislation to a vote. For the last two years Reid has had a plus one majority in his Caucus. That does not mean 51 reliable votes just because something has Democratic support. Senators tend to be more to the center of their Party as representatives, that having a lot to do with statewide campaigns. Senate candidates generally don't face low turnout elections as House members do every four years (every other cycle). Low turnouts tend to attract Party activist voters compared to the general electorate resulting in more conservative or more liberal point of views wins, not so in the Senate. I may find some of the Republican Senators to be troglodytes, but one need only compare them to their State's Republican House members to find that they are more centrist.

No Party leader is in a position to not know the outcome of their own Party's votes on legislation and will generally have a pretty good idea of the other side's votes before putting the matter to a vote. Failures are a public issue and not to be engaged in unless there is demonstrable public pressure available - in other words, the opposition can be made to pay for their opposition. Behind the facades, politics is a very rough game played for stakes that may not be publicly visible, in fact frequently are not. That isn't much about secrecy as it is about the public stomach or interest in knowing what it takes with 535 discreet points of view from discreet interests to get anything done. The news apparatus also knows this, if it were not the case C-span would have a huge viewership - it doesn't. It is quite possible for news organizations to know exactly what is going on - Congress leaks like a sieve - but there is no profitable point in the media putting the resources into it. Unless you're willing to look very hard, you do not see what it is that Party leadership is actually up against.

It is certainly true that Reid could have forced actual filibusters to take place, but there is an underlying reality - vetoes. Anything that required Reid to actually fight with a real filibuster would have been vetoed and failed in over-ride. There is a political cost for inaction within Congress, it is obvious with Congress polling worse than GWB. Before tying up the Senate with a publicly obvious play there has to be political advantage, not the feel good of punishing Republicans by forcing them to fulfill a filibuster.

As far as Franken and Burris are concerned, the Senate could not seat them because the legal requirements in their respective states have not been met. So what exactly does one expect the Senate to do?

Congress needs to have their feet held to the fire, but it pays to do so with some idea of what is going on.

Commissions? We Don't Need No Steenking Commissions,

It has been reported in numerous places that Democrats would like to institute something resembling the 9/11 Commission to investigate torture by the Bush Administration. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that:

"At a minimum, the American people have to be able to see and judge what happened," said one senior adviser, who asked not to be identified talking about policy matters. The commission would be empowered to order the U.S. intelligence agencies to open their files for review and question senior officials who approved "waterboarding" and other controversial practices.

Obama aides are wary of taking any steps that would smack of political retribution. That's one reason they are reluctant to see high-profile investigations by the Democratic-controlled Congress or to greenlight a broad Justice inquiry (absent specific new evidence of wrongdoing). "If there was any effort to have war-crimes prosecutions of the Bush administration, you'd instantly destroy whatever hopes you have of bipartisanship," said Robert Litt, a former Justice criminal division chief during the Clinton administration. A new commission, on the other hand, could emulate the bipartisan tone set by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton in investigating the 9/11 attacks.

There is, somehow, the idea that the rule of law is disposable where Bush & Co are concerned. A commission is a very good way to look very busy and bury something so that it is never acted upon. If there is an idea that some commission's findings would prevent torture with new recommendation a hole immediately appears in the logic. It is entirely unnecessary to find ways to prevent torture, it is already illegal and waterboarding has been a war crime for a very long time - as a specific example. What exactly are the needed steps a commission would find? To make illegal what is already illegal? If illegality was insufficient to prevent torture, perhaps the conviction of a few criminals would get the idea across.

What ever you may think of GW Bush's intellect, he does have a few effective lawyers working for him. Being lawyers, the technical aspects of law are what counts. You might like to consider this from the Wall Street Journal:

The White House isn't inclined to grant sweeping pardons for former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations and detentions of terror suspects, according to people familiar with the situation.
Some Republicans have been pushing for President George W. Bush to grant pre-emptive clemency to officials who fear being investigated by Democratic critics. White House officials have countered that such pardons are unnecessary, these people say. The officials point to Justice Department legal opinions that supported the administration's methods of detaining and interrogating terror suspects.

If you want to read through all the so-called reasoning behind this, knock yourselves out. Illegal is illegal no matter how many memos you write, they have no force of law. Bush can't acknowledge the illegality by issuing pardons but more to the point is that lack of being pardoned.

It is a point of law that we hold to pretty darn firmly that the accused cannot be forced to testify against himself. Those directly involved don't have any reason to talk and if Congress were to compel them to, the Ollie North mess is the outcome. At these levels you have to have some direct testimony, the actual criminal torturing scum are those who ordered it. This doesn't involve the usual criminal action of some Spec 4 soldier, it involves bureaucrats experienced in isolating themselves from fallout. You need documents and you need the testimony of direct participants, people with every reason to not cooperate.

Once GWB has made it clear that criminal penalties have not been taken off the table, the only alternative is for Congress or DOJ to start taking them off the table to get that "Commission" testimony. GWB avoids pardoning and puts the onus on the Democrats. This leaves the incoming administration with some rather uncomfortable options. They can take the actual dissuasion for torturing - its illegality - off the table or they can get involved in messy and difficult prosecutions that will be labeled by the usual suspects as partisan foul play.

If you're willing to sit on or promote such a Commission, here's the deal, you ought to have to spend a week getting the treatments. If you have in mind the concept that political considerations trump the existing laws, you should get to experience the previous trumping of existing laws. There is exactly no need whatever for a Commission to exist until after a DOJ prosecution of those involved. You do not promote avoidance of behavior by OKing it. If you propose to keep future administrations from playing at torture then there has to be a cost for doing so. Otherwise they will simply look at history and note the outcome for the Bush Torturers and figure, "hell, why not?" Law is a deterrent if it is perceived as functioning and applied, it is not some moral guide post - if that were the case no jails would be built, everybody's morals would keep them from acting up.

Don't hold your breath; the political class is reluctant to kick its own around and particularly to jail them. It seems that having administrations investigate and prosecute the malfeasance of previous ones exposes them to the same when they become previous. There also is a little matter of Congressional votes in regard to this issue and a few others. Can't have people held responsible, now can we?



***Update***
Kari Chisholm, founder of Blue Oregon and Mandate Media, from comments:

What about a South African -style Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Basically, the idea is that if you testify completely, answering all questions truthfully, then you're immune from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.

I do think that one key here is the civil liability issue. The DOJ may wind up uninterested in prosecuting people, but they won't be immune from losing their house.

Seems to me that as much as we'd like people to go to prison, it can be more valuable to turn them into pariahs and render the verdict of history.

And then, we can change the law to ensure that Presidents are never again able to issue executive orders to undermine basic human rights and American principles against wiretapping, torture, and the rest of the atrocities.

11/26/2008 05:10:00 PM

The verdict from history is safe, convictions in hand it is even safer. What is it that is proposed to be fixed? This is extraordinarily simple, it is against the law. This is not a question, there may be some mechanics of charging whom with what that gets a little sticky - GW Bush is up to his pie hole in it - but it is simply against the law and has been against the law for a damn long time. The fix for those who would ignore the law is for the law to not ignore them. This is an entirely political bullshit proposition to avoid the nastiness of prosecuting goddamn Republicans. If those pricks want to operate within the laws of a somewhat civilized nation called the US then playing bipartisan is just fine, but outside tha line your ass is the law's.

No, it will not happen. It will not happen because this country is in such a damn mess that Democrats will fall all over themselves to keep from kicking their teeth in. Somehow, if the President does it, it is not illegal. The idea being to avoid truly messy transitions and specious charges being brought at regime changes. The thing about it is that this is egregious, it is not specious, it is not politically motivated, it is and has been against the law and people have been jailed for long periods to doing it. There is exactly one way for people to get over the idea that "I'm from the government," grants carte blanche and that is for not to. Go ahead and try this shit as a private citizen and see what happens. There it is, exactly.

Obama, Buyer's Remorse?

It seems there are a bunch of people who are now unhappy to find out that Barak Obama is a politician. This a guy who started his career in Chi-town politic and in that city and Illinois they play the game in a rough and twisty manner. Barak knows how to be careful with his language and how to read the public. Many of the unhappy people have not paid attention to what he has actually said, rather what they wanted to hear. They also are apparently unaware of how the politics of legislative bodies works.

Let's start with what he's said versus what people wanted to hear. In February when it became clear that the Supreme Court was going to hear the DC gun ban case on the basis of individual versus collective right he said clearly that he did not see how the 2nd Amendment could not be read as an individual right. He was not and is not a friend of gun owners in general, what he is being is a realist about what the ruling means. He is neither responsible for the ruling nor is he a fan of the outcomes - challenges to blanket bans and capricious or draconian licensing.

He has repeatedly stated that we need to leave Iraq more carefully than we went in, that his 16 month withdrawal plan was subject to conditions on the ground. Anyone proposing military strategy that ties themselves to one particular line is a fool - need I mention George II? The simple fact is that a withdrawal or retreat is one of the riskiest military maneuvers and things can go bad suddenly and drastically. Many people are aware of this and it is politically stupid to ignore that people are aware, and just as stupid to ignore that his opponent is trying to make political hay out of military inexperience.

Ignorance of legislative politics leads to unrealistic and rigid expectations. The FISA bill that has people in an uproar was decided some time ago, like virtually all bills. The speeches on the floor are window dressing, all for looks, the positions were fixed long before all the public relations talk on the floor. Supporters were courted and counted, amendments offered and accepted or rebuffed long before you see it. Political calculations were made by both Parties and individuals regarding votes. Many of the "maverick" votes you see were Party approved to allow a legislator to appeal to home voters without damaging the vote outcome. On odd occasions a Party will deliberately sabotage a vote or an amendment, there are costs involved that make this rare. Even more rarely a legislator will cross the Party position when his vote matters. People see the show and think it is the reality, it is not and cannot be. You may hear explanations on the floor or partisan attacks but this is for the show not the action. Read Obama's explanations and forget the media's and Republicans' and the web's nonsense.

I am entirely unsure now and in the past how people expected Obama to achieve consensus and bipartisan accomplishments from a hard left position. If you are actually left and you actually expect to elect a politician from that point of view, I would assert that your home is LaLaLand. Wishful thinking regarding leftism is silliness, the country is not left, it may be drifting more left than in recent years but the starting point for that drift is what counts. This country is centered much more right now than when RMN was President, so much that he now would be considered left of center. Any drift that is talked about today is encouraging but it is not what many seem to think it is. Obama's home districts both in the Illinois legislature and Congress are fairly liberal in outlook compared to the nation in general and even there he has been pretty measured in his politics, this isn't new. Buyer's remorse is not reasonable nor sensible and feeding the media and Republicans attack material is not a good idea nor based on facts.

Regarding Telecom Immunity

I've been thinking about the issue of telecom immunity and I'm less sold on the idea that it is a really big deal. There is this piece, the President of the United States told managers that what he wanted was legal and important (or that he would cover them). The important piece of this reasoning is that it was not their independent decision arrived at for their interests, it was solicited or instigated by a law enforcement arm of the US government.

The upshot of civil lawsuits would be losses to the telecoms and depending on the damages and punitive judgements the losses could be significant. Those losses are not suffered by some single individual or some in isolation, the damage spreads through the company, stockholders, employees and finally customers. One thing that must be understood about businesses is that they do not suffer alone, increased costs result in added charges or less service or combinations of this. A business has two choices, survive or not, and because there are few places to go for recovery of costs, those few places will pay.

What I do not like about this is the message it sends that responsibility is abrogated to government for legality of behavior by companies. Companies are expected to follow the law, they are expected to know the applicable laws concerning their business. There is almost no chance that a competent lawyer in telecommunications would have assumed that wiretaps without warrants were legal. Something in the ordinary expectation of behavior went south and the government was involved. This exception to behavior is dangerous. It is absolutely the business of the individual to resist abrogation of rights and power by government but whether it is or should be a legal responsibility may be quite questionable.

There is little impetus for these companies to engage in this behavior on their own. I am not particularly worried about them. I don't like what they've done and it is dangerous and I am ashamed of our country for this, but I also don't know that it merits their serious harm.

What I find really troubling are the actions taken by BushCo. The trampling of civil liberties by this crew in the name of security are horrific and must carry a cost. There is little chance that orange jumpsuits and manacles are in their future, but they must be made to pay in a coin that discourages such behavior in the future. In all probability the only payment available is political. If that is the case the behavior must be exposed and denigrated and made politically impossible. The conditions of the world will not become suddenly paradisaical in the future, it will continue to be a dangerous and confusing place. There will continue to be threats and uncertainties that encourage the loss of civil liberty for perceived security, this tendency must be resisted.

I suppose that I am somewhat disappointed that Obama changed his stance on telecom immunity, more by the fact of the change without clear rationals than the effect. What I do want to hear is a clear denunciation of the behaviors of BushCo and its exposure. I want this crap stopped in its tracks and rolled back. I want this dangerous.

Fisa Capitulation

I can't even begin to write about this, spit is bad for a laptop and worse for it is airborne travel across the room so you'll have to be content with mcjoan over at DKos. Make the calls and write the emails, this has to stop. goddam it

Duh Moments

John McSame cannot get straight who Al Qaeda is regarding Shia, Sunnis, and Iran and is insistent that Iran is our enemy. We are going to win or lose the war in Iraq and the Democrats will assure our defeat with reckless lack of responsible leadership. Hey John, Al Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shia, Iraq is majority Shia and by the way, we won this thing 4 years ago. Try to pull your senile old mind together, Iraqi army destroyed, no WMDs, Saddam toppled, all BushCo's military agendas accomplished, four years ago. Now the fact that you keep moving the goal posts has nothing to do with what you said was the goal at the time. YOU said, old man.

More duhs, mine this time. I was getting ready for some business meetings when the Petraeus hearings were going on, I had time for a bit of it and I did get to see Hillary ask intelligent questions make important points and, of course, see John McSame kiss butts. What got me stuck for awhile was Sen. Norm Coleman confusing me with a series of questions that left me wondering what was going on. My memory at the moment was stuck on this guy being one of the real hawks at the outset of George II's inclinations to invade Iraq. The questions seemed to be a pleading for some happy answers and not getting them. I was stuck, what is this? Later, thanks to Dan Abhams, the light, named Al Franken. Norm is running against Al, funny guy politico turned serious Senatorial candidate. Norm was looking for something to take home to Minnesota and wasn't getting it. Stay the course wasn't what he wanted, but it sure was what he got.

The real duh moment belongs to the media. What gave these people the idea that Senatorial hearings were moments to be Presidential? The answers were predictable and predictably evasive and those questioned were a 4 star General and a ranking Ambassador. Using these two as political targets is incredibly dangerous - that is why they're there and not George II who belongs there. He gets to hide behind someone's uniform and service. The only candidate able to use this to any advantage was John McSame who kissed butt adequately. If that is an advantage with anyone sane...

More King George II

The Constitution sets out certain responsibilities in government, and one of those is that the Senate ratifies treaties. Well it thought it did up until GeorgeII set them straight. He does exactly as he pleases in regard to Iraq because he's got the Authorization to Use Force. This is sort of like the CiC position, he can do as he damn well pleases because we're at war. Let's ask some of those Senators who voted for that piece of unmitigated junk if they're real happy right now. Hillary is, this was a negotiating tool, she says so.

WaPo notes:

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

Congress has the nerve to act surprised. They've let this bunch of incompetent crooks get away with this same behavior for 7 years and at this late date they expect something else? It's really hard to believe that it is going to be 11 months until we're rid of this cretin and his cohorts and patience is the only recourse.

IL 14th CD, The Story Is, There's A Story

Denny Hastert's retirement left open this seat, a traditional Republican stronghold, he's held since 1987. Incumbency is always a strong factor in winning elections and may have helped Denny hold the seat for all these years, but nobody has seriously threatened him. Dennis was no model of moderate Republicanism. Running under his Party's banner is James D Oberweis. Oberweis has run twice for Senate and once for Governor, the RNC has thrown $1.5 million into holding this seat. A measure of their interest is the fact that it is 1/5th of their money. Oberweis is a dairy owner and founder of financial companies, apparently wealthy enough to pretty much self finance his campaign.

Opposing Oberweis is political novice Bill Foster, a particle physicist and founder of a theatrical lighting company in his younger years. Foster is also wealthy enough to essentially self finance his campaign, the DCCC has thrown $600,000 into the mix. Foster has taken a position as a candidate of change, stressing national health care, end to the Iraq war, and a revision of energy policy. Foster's drawbacks seem to be his campaign style, he is neither electric nor apparently presenting an affable personality.

The special election is conducted Saturday to fill the remainder of Hassert's term which as a Rep's seat to also be contested in November. Both candidates are their Party's nominees for that election. Cook Political Report has this race as a toss-up, that's right, the ex-Speaker of the House Republican seat is up for grabs. There has been a shift in demographics but there also is a wave of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. This is a story that may have some real national relevance to other races. While the 06 races were seen as a referendum on BushCo, the results were entirely too mixed to show any Party dominance, note the repeated stalemates in the Senate.

These kinds of stories should place right in front of voters the question of Presidential candidate coattails. The campaign for the Presidency gets the national attention, the press coverage and the money. Voters' eyes are on that prize and enthusiasm for a candidate carry over to the Congressional races. Who is it that will carry seats with them. The latest WaPo/ABC poll shows Clinton beating McCain by 6 points and Obama beating him by 12. Polls have lately proved to be of questionable value and their impact on voters limited. If such polls had much meaning to voters John Edwards would have had a much larger impact, since he led by a wide margin in beating Republicans. The fact that this race is a toss-up in a long time Republican district is a story should speak loudly to Democrats, candidates and voters.

Why the Revolution Isn't Happening

My apologies to regular readers who've been wondering what happened to posting on a regular basis; I've been ill. It is actually a bit more than illness, it also has a bit to do with my having a temper. By the time I had finished watching our Senate hand George II another piece of our rights and our protection from corporate misdeeds I was furious. The fact that the House let the FISA mess expire didn't assuage the boil over. I am ordinarily quite capable of expressing my outrage without losing my mind but the combination of a rather rude flu bug and the steady Congressionally approved erosion of American liberty finally short-circuited my thinking processes. I found myself looking at the screen and keyboard with disbelief, amazement, and fury; and no words. Just stalled and stuck in place.

It might have been mitigated if either Democratic candidate had gotten up on their hind legs and said something...anything, really. It didn't help in the least that friends I like were also losing their minds, it isn't the least calming to hear, "I guess we'll just have to meet on the village green." As furious as I am, this one just pokes all the wrong buttons. As an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment I have looked carefully at the intentions behind it and the current societal conditions and the results are not calming.

While there are side benefits to hunting and other sporting activities involved in the Second Amendment, and noted at the time of the framing debate, the purposes are the defense of a "free state." The expression "free state" was a deliberate usage, it is a universal concept rather than the narrow one of, for example, 'the United States' or 'the nation' or 'the free states.' In this usage "state" is not a geographical concept but rather one of condition, the condition of all people though most particularly the citizens of the US. That there could even be discussion of this concept, much less heated debate, makes rather definite statement about the state of the American citizenry. We all abhor the pointless lawless violence the is perpetrated in our schools, malls, streets, and homes; but a large percentage of the population seems to have forgotten that life is a very risky proposition and liberty increases the risks.

Murder and mayhem are scarcely new phenomenons in this country, for a large portion of our history it was the everyday norm for many. The frontier history is more recent for those of us in the West, but the frontier started at the Atlantic Ocean at one point. The states of Ohio and Kentucky were scenes of incredibly brutal violence, primarily between settlers and Native Americans but also including the French, later the British, and even between the settlers themselves. These conditions played out in varied degrees from ocean to ocean and the institution of law enforcement (civil or military) did not cause a cessation. Being on the leading edge of human condition is an incredibly dangerous situation.

The mistake people make is in thinking that law was and is the operative concept, it is human behavior that is in operation. Giving human beings liberty is not a safe sort of thing to do, humans are incredibly variable in behavior as a species. They are given to all kinds of extremes and law does no more than punish the behaviors. Laws do not stop behaviors, moral and ethical judgements do. The judgement may come down to no more than a weighing of possible consequences, but legal sanctions are only an add on, not the determinant. Committing robbery, for example, has always had possible negative consequences which may in fact have been more serious and more sure in the absence of law. It is a fallacy to believe that the law stops people who are willing to ignore consequences. The Framers decided that the benefits to the citizenry far outweighed the risks, risks they were fully aware of.

Today, many believe that we are or should be much more secure and safe now than then. Why people believe that armed bands of depredation have disappeared or would disappear simply in the face of Law is an odd question. Behavior is linked to much more than simple legal consequences, those considerations are really at the end of the line of behavioral determinants. This attitude of safeness leads to considerable outrage when it is proven unfounded. Certainly we would rather be safe than at risk, but druthers have little to do with reality, and this is aggravated by our Founders ideas.

The Constitution sets out a framework of how to govern, the Bill of Rights sets out specified human conditions that government is not allowed to trespass on, specifically prohibited governmental behaviors because these states of being are assumed to be precedent to government. Not allowing the government to attempt to interfere in these areas was at the time the leading edge of political science, it was essentially untried and acknowledged as dangerous. It is still the leading edge of political science, there is no government on the face of the earth with stronger prohibitions of interference with human rights. There is a reason this is true, it is damned dangerous. And we're throwing it away in search of illusionary security.

This is the populace of today, the one that is willing to ignore the simple language of the Bill of Rights in order to secure the non-existent safety promised by political organizations. Contrast that desire with the at any cost defense of liberty and see which is most prevalent. The idea that Revolution could now occur on the basis of the intangibles of the Bill of Rights is awfully optimistic. The simple reason the Second Amendment is within the Bill of Rights is the ability to secure a free state of being, the ability to withstand foreign or domestic assaults on that state of being. In the face of a national military, the final ends are personal security from others and citizen security from our own government's depredations.

Inherent in the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitutional document is the acknowledgement of governmental inclination to abridge the natural rights of citizens and its final dissuasion is the right to keep and bear arms. You have to look at the entire document to understand that it is essentially a blueprint for Revolution. Freedom of religion, speech, and press allow the breeding of and dissemination of Revolutionary thought. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure allows the infrastructure of Revolution. The keeping and bearing of arms allows the physical means of Revolution. Follow on through the Bill of Rights with this state of reasoning and each will reveal a tool of rebellion, and why not? These were the instigators of a Rebellion against a lawfully constituted government to whom they had historical and societal ties, deep ties. We were given all the tools needed to physically "throw the rascals out."

This is what the government is in the process of dismantling to limited citizen outcry. There is good reason why the outcry is limited, it is natural to crave security and materialistic success. Those cravings are exactly what is at risk with the form of Liberty the Framers envisioned and we are so far from the obvious frontier requirements of personal responsibility and risk that the depredation of Liberty goes almost unnoticed. This is the citizenry that we could expect to hold responsible for their own Liberty? One of the reasons guns become such a flash point is that they are an actual physical and materialistic expression of liberty, it is easier to hold in your hands a Colt than it is to wrap your mind around governmental snooping, or the funding of chosen religions. The immediate bark of a Winchester is more obvious than the whimper of corporate media in the face of governmental misdeeds. But that does not a Revolution make.

The American people sat on their hands when RICO was passed, it was not a matter of their house payments or grocery bill, even though the depredation on the Fourth Amendment was clear. It was touted as a tool applicable to the Mafia, a feared and despised minority. The problem is that however feared and despised and nastily criminal the Mafia is, they are also by definition, us. What is applicable to the Mafia is equally applicable to ordinary citizens, if the government doesn't like what you and some associates are up to you can easily find yourselves designated a criminal conspiracy and subject to some truly draconian outcomes. All it takes is a few more little baby steps like The Patriot Act or Military Commission Act to make it so. In the time of the Framers, instigators of actions allowed by RICO would have found themselves at best tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, and today almost nobody notices. This is the bunch somebody expects to build a Revolution on?

The political appellation of authoritarianism is not Party determined, it is an outlook and desire for a type of political action. The mindset seems more prevalent in the Republican Party, but that is, perhaps, due to the more heated rhetoric of the extremes of the Party and the out of control just past Republican Congress. RICO was passed by a Democratic Congress, and the more egregious offenses on the Second have been at the hands of primarily Democrats. The current Democratic Presidential candidates are both notorious gun banners and supporters of blatantly un-Constitutional gun activities. It is not a Party affiliation that is dangerous to this nation's Liberty, it is the mindset of those we elect and our refusal to hold them accountable. Authoritarians should be opposed at every pass, at every opportunity, whether their stated ends match our own or not. That is not the case, not for the ordinary gun owners, press, religions, or even speech advocates, they ignore what does not impact their pet idea. This is what Revolutionary thought has to contend with, figure a considerably larger chance if the issue was economic and materialistic. Short of another Great Depression or the grinding plutocracy of the Robber Barons expect more of the same. Toilet paper and the Constitution's parts respecting Liberty have a lot in common, in DC, Statehouses, and your houses.