One thing I love about Eastern Europeans is that they already lived through all of the BS were are heading toward. The 2nd page is better, I think it was translated from Russian it’s so a little choppy.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

(I felt my response was worth republishing, so I’ve edited it into a more appropriate format for this site, and is as follows):

Ah, Pravda… once the official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, now the Russian equivalent of the National Enquirer, with hard-hitting stories like this one: http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/19-02-2008/104119-nether_world-0 … even after the fall of Communism, they’ve long been a reliable bastion of sensationalism and anti-Americanism (and pictures of Russian supermodel tits).

I won’t bother pointing out the several blatant errors and mischaracterizations the author made… check out his blog if you want a clearer understanding of his weird Russian-Nationalist/Christian-Mercantilist perspectives…

I will say I agree the old Soviet bloc countries have a unique perspective on socialism, but then so do the Swedes… of course the socialism of Sweden bears very little resemblance to that of the USSR, just as British and American socialism don’t have a whole lot in common with either the Swedish or Soviet versions.

I’d argue this isn’t something we’re “heading toward” on a couple levels – first, and probably most importantly, we’re already there. Second, the “socialism” we’re experiencing in America is a schizophrenic sort… as we’ve discussed before, we “socialize the losses, and privatize the profits” – it’s often more like Mussolini’s Fascism than Marx’s Socialism.

Interestingly, on the author’s blog in another post he’s discussing Marx’s opinion of international “Free Trade” and globalization — essentially Marx said he supports it, not because he believed in it, but simply because it exacerbates the pre-existing tension between the proletariat and the bourgeois and so increases the potential for revolution — I’m not sure that makes us socialists, but it provides an intriguing perspective; if Marx supported the fullest extent of international laissez-faire markets purely as a means of making people’s lives miserable and inciting revolution, does that make American hyper-capitalists and proponents of global free trade into Marxists?

Honestly, I wish the GOP had succeeded with their hare-brained attempt to rebrand the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Socialist Party” – maybe then we would get over the ridiculous obsession we have in this country with the word “socialism”. Plus, it’d give the Democrats an opportunity to rebrand the Republican Party as the “Christian National Fascist Party,” and we could all totally devolve into name-calling…

But seriously, we as a nation have to start having a serious discussion about the merits and flaws of socialism, stripping out the bogeymen of Bolshevism and other authoritarian states that tried to apply Marxist doctrine. Most people in this country enjoy our socialized roads, highways and bridges, socialized police, fire, military and emergency response, socialized schools and libraries, etc. They enjoy having an SEC, FDIC, FDA, USDA and other methods of “state control over the means of production and distribution,” the very definition of socialism.

Now, most of those same people couldn’t accurately tell you in 20 words or less what Socialism is, they’ve never read any of Marx’s work or any scholarly refutation of Marx/Socialism, but they can sure as hell tell you why it won’t work/hasn’t ever worked and that anyone who believes in it is evil. I think we have a serious problem there.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m not an apologist for Marx or capital-’S’ Socialism, but I’m intrigued by the state of debate in this country vis-a-vis socialism — it seems for the most part, the more frequently someone says the word, the less they actually understand about it. I think plenty of self-described Libertarians might find their head exploding when presented with the notion of Libertarian Socialism (a term considered redundant outside the US, interestingly enough)…

We’ve been trained to believe that Capitalism = Democracy = Individual Liberty, and conversely that Socialism = Authoritarianism = Statism, but in reality we’re talking about 6 very different things, none of which are particularly exclusive (except of course for Authoritarianism and Liberty).

I found it hilarious how much Palin was going on about socialism during the campaign… she’s governor of Alaska, for shit sakes… the state where the people own the resources (oil and gas) and everyone who lives there gets cut a check every year for their share of the profits… that’s socialism, plain and simple…

Check out some of Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on YouTube or something… he’s a self-described “socialist” – I’m willing to bet you find yourself agreeing with him more often than not.

This wound up being a really long response, but I hope I’ve made clear I’m not really an advocate of Socialism, I just think we need to be a lot clearer about what small-’s’ socialism really is and isn’t, so we can appropriately and rationally address the negative aspects of what we are dealing with – corporate welfare, unions with more interest in the power of the organization than the well-being of the worker, and a bought-off government…

America has long been a country with socialist institutions and tendencies.  It’s time for Americans to wake up, stop being afraid of a word, and start attacking the real issues.

You see, we really do care about you.  You’re our brothers and sisters, and while we may fight sometimes, we’re all Americans and we’re all in this together.  And frankly, some of us over here are starting to get a little worried about you.

As a, uh – well, “liberal” isn’t the first term I’d use to describe myself, but from your perspective that’s probably the easiest label to apply – as a liberal who has spent many years sparring with you and your friends in the marketplace of ideas, I must admit no small amount of pleasure at seeing your team lose a little ground in the last year or two.  It’s nothing personal, I just don’t agree with some of your intentions.  But that hardly means I want to see you go away.

This includes all the sudden and alarming calls for secession and revolution, which really need to stop before some dangerous idiot starts to take the rhetoric to heart.  You do not get to overthrow the republic after 230 years just because you lost a couple of elections, and America must never again go to war against itself.  The terrible stain on our history known to some as the Civil War and others as the War of Northern Aggression was a savage and brutal testament to what happens when our political debates lead to dehumanization and denial of our essential brotherhood.

But it’s not just about that.  The one paranoid talking point that might actually have some basis in reality is the risk of America drifting towards “one party rule.”  In fairness, I don’t mean the kind of one party rule that Karl Rove masterminded from 2001-2007; the kind that bed-wetters like Glenn Beck weep and blubber about when they imagine the Obama administration could or would attempt to replicate such lock-step control.

I mean the very real eventuality of the GOP going the way of the Whig.

Now, I understand the difference between the establishment conservatism of the Republican Party and the movement conservatism of the self-proclaimed independents who vote largely Republican with the occasional political statement of a vote for a Libertarian, Reform or Constitution Party candidate, or some other “third” party I’ve never heard of, or perhaps even a few quiet Democratic votes.

Believe me, I really do understand.  I am not a fan of the de facto two-party system in this country.  I suppose I generally view the Democratic Party as the “lesser of two evils,” but I’ve long been a supporter of the Libertarian Party – not because I agree with their platform any more than I do the Democratic one, but because I believe they represent a healthy counterbalance to the current elephant-and-donkey-show.

I would like to see the two parties split up into more recognizable and targeted coalitions, 5 or 6 total would probably be ideal… but that’s another discussion.  Within our current system, we need 2 parties to be healthy.  It’s either going to be the GOP, or perhaps the Libertarians… maybe the Greens.

I’ve already stipulated you can call me a liberal for sake of argument, so I’ll stipulate as well that you can say I’m a Democrat – I’ll trust you can understand why, for now, I’m assuming for sake of argument you’re a Republican.

The most recent Post/ABC poll has 21% of Americans identifying as Republicans, the lowest in that poll since 1983.  It’s no secret the party is shrinking, and so far the time in the wilderness has not been well spent.  Michael Steele has been a disaster as chairman of the RNC, and every attempt at a comeback has been a gimmick with no real substance.  The party leaders don’t understand the difference between soul-searching and rebranding, or grassroots and astroturf.

Newt Gingrich is on Twitter.  Need I say more?  I don’t think creating a video game called Todd Palin’s Extreme Snowmachine 2012 is the solution to finding the youth vote.

Arlen Specter’s recent defection to the Democratic Party, and Olympia Snowe’s response, should highlight the basic problem within the GOP.  I’m not just trying to rub your face in it, but this is going to continue if things don’t drastically change. Snowe and Collins have insisted they are staying in the Republican party, but only time will tell how that plays out.  The GOP is poised to lose even more seats in Congress in 2010 as McConnell and Boehner’s obstructionist act backfires on them.

The fact that conservatives didn’t speak out en masse against Rush Limbaugh for his treatment of Colin Powell (following his endorsement of Barack Obama for president) should shame anyone who calls themselves a conservative or is a fan of Limbaugh.  Christian conservatives speaking out against healing the sick and making excuses for torture in the name of party loyalty is nothing short of disgusting.  The answer to regaining political relevance is not to become more ideologically pure, to step up the anti-liberal rhetoric and rally the base, all while throwing any critics and dissenters under the bus.  This sort of thing only turns off moderates, and marginalizes your agenda.

Right now, my friend, we need to concentrate on you.  Did you get that beer I suggested earlier?  You really need to relax.

As someone who agrees with Justice David Souter that Bush v. Gore was an absolute travesty of justice and a failure of democracy, the years 2001 through 2009 were pretty rough for me.  I know how you feel right now.  It’s hard being in the minority, but I can share a few things with you that I have learned:

Patience is a virtue.
The world of politics moves at a snail’s pace.  You still have 18 months until the next mid-term election, and 3 and a half years until the next presidential election.  You should pace yourself a bit, and relax… you’ll have your chances at the polls again.

History is your ally, and education is key.
If you don’t know your facts, we aren’t going to take you seriously.  When you fall back on teabag gimmicks and calling people a “socialist” without really understanding what it means, you do your cause a great disservice.  They called FDR a socialist, well before he got elected… I hope you already know this, but he got elected 4 times.

Turn off your TV.
Edward R. Murrow said it best:

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

Murrow could just as easily have been talking about the Internet… both offer access to volumes of information unprecedented in human history – they also offer a lot of stupid, pointless crap and factually incorrect nonsense.  Consider the fact that television media is the single greatest financial benefactor of political campaigns.  Choose your media intake wisely.  Read more books.

The wilderness is for soul-searching.
Now is the time for an agonizing reappraisal, a reevaluation, and a reassessment of your values and priorities.  Don’t be so concerned with towing the party line.  Distance yourself from the bigoted and the corrupted.   Spend time finding the root of your beliefs – why are you for or against something?  For example, if you are against abortion, I’d be willing to say you believe in the sanctity of life and believe all children should be loved.  Focus on those values, not the hot-button issue.

Perhaps most importantly…

Moderate, moderate, moderate.
Decide what you are willing to compromise on – recognizing that fact that compromise is the best you are going to get, for at least the next 4 years.  Probably the next 8.  With your goals and values clearly in mind, decide how to approach the situation with a clear understanding that you are in a minority that must convince the majority you have ideas worth listening to.  You will accomplish a lot more by working to create programs that reduce unwanted pregnancy and teach responsible family planning than you will worrying about Roe v. Wade over the next several years.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but if nothing else I hope I have expressed that we need an open dialogue in the coming years.  If you draw inward and move further to the right, you will do everyone a great disservice – not least of which, yourself.

I hope it has been clear that I say these things in earnest while extending a hand in good faith.  I will by no means stop fighting for my cause, and I expect no less of you – but I pray we can fight as sparring brothers, not warring enemies.

The problem continues… pirates brazenly attacked another U.S. ship just days after Captain Phillips’ rescue, and many other ships continue to be hijacked with every passing day.

Last year, Somali pirates carried out over 100 attacks on ships traveling around the Horn of Africa.  Currently, there are 17 captured ships and more than 250 hostages awaiting ransom, not afforded the kind of spectacular rescue that saved Captain Phillips’ life – or the tragic one that left Florent Lemaçon dead.  Captured ships have included massive oils tankers, and ships carrying caches of expensive weapons and ammo.

Unveiling a four-point plan last week, Secretary of State Clinton announced she is bringing together the State Department, Defense Department, Justice Department and intelligence community members “to consider recent events and potential responses,” and is calling for prosecution of pirates (the teenage ringleader of the attack on the Marsk, captured by US Navy forces, will be facing trial in a New York court) and the largely symbolic act of “freezing” pirates’ assets – a very difficult thing to do, since the pirates operate in an unregulated economy in a country that hasn’t had a stable government in nearly two decades.

Clinton said the administration will send an envoy to an April 23 Somali donors’ conference in Brussels.  With no effective central government since 1991, the country has become a safe haven for pirates, with no functional police force and easily bribed officials.  In the face of rampant poverty and few viable options for making a living, too many young Somalis are turning to piracy, and the Brussels conference intends to address all these root causes.

“The solution to Somali piracy includes improved Somali capacity to police their own territory,” she said, adding that the United States “does not make concessions or ransom payments to pirates.”

The reality however is that these ransom demands, sometimes as high as $3 million, are generally paid by U.S. shipping companies and considered a part of the cost of doing business in the region.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that the continued willingness to pay these ransoms is hurting our ability to fight the Somali pirates.

Clinton spoke last week of “hot pursuit,” referencing a policy authorized by the U.N. last December but largely undiscussed in America – going after pirate bases in Somalia.  But after President Bill Clinton’s failed attempt at nation-building in 1993 which left 19 Americans and over 1,000 Somalis dead, and the horrors of the U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion in 2006, Americans have little desire for another fight for Mogadishu.

Not surprisingly, Gates has recommended a civilian plan focused on restoring stability in concert with any military action.  He was adamant that until the situation is Somalia is improved, “we can put a lot in jail, and we can kill a lot, but there’ll still be more.”  Further, Gates is advocating a more flexible, lightweight military approach to the pirate problem; “As we saw last week, you don’t necessarily need a billion-dollar ship to chase down a bunch of teenage pirates.”

Somalia has the longest coastline in Africa, covered with tiny villages and ports, making naval control a near impossibility.  But while the solution obviously cannot be purely military, this is a real and growing problem that will require intervention from the U.S. as well as the international community.  Perhaps we can encourage China to use its growing navy to spend more time fighting piracy and less time harassing our ships.

But we should make no bones about it – piracy is terrorism.  Despite the lack of religious extremism on the part of the criminals,  the problem is the same.  Exploitative chicken-hawks use and abuse impoverished youths for their own twisted benefit, and we often pay the price.

Thomas Jefferson understood we cannot tolerate piracy, and so must Barack Obama.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, apparently unaware the bill passed, applauded what he called a “bipartisan rejection of a partisan bill,” echoing the GOP line from when they last failed to matter with zero votes, after passage of the stimulus bill in February.

McConnell conveniently overlooks the fact that 38 Republican representatives voted against Congressman Paul Ryan’s over-hyped and under-delivered alternative GOP budget, compared to the 20 Democrats who voted against the Obama plan.  He also overlooks the fact that no budget in the last decade has received as many “yes” votes in the House as this one did on Thursday night.

But the reality of the matter has long since stopped being an issue to McConnell and his ilk.  Their strategic decision was made months ago, and it’s a very tough one to back out of – the GOP is betting on failure, or at least a slower than anticipated recovery.  The one and only hope of the Republican party right now is that things do not improve, or – even better – that things get worse!

This is not a simple matter of wanting policies to fail because of ideological differences, and it’s not just a political Hail Mary pass.  These Senators and Representatives who have unanimously said “no” every step of the way have created a profound conflict of interest.  When giving people what they voted for is ridiculed as buying off voters, the Republicans in Congress have no choice but to ignore their constituents’ needs if this plan is to work out.

We still have over a year and a half until the midterm elections, and during that time the GOP’s elected officials have no incentive – in fact, have a strong disincentive – to allow any legislation to pass that will improve the lives of the voters.  If things get better, they won’t be able to run their “I told you so” ads in 2010.

In this light, the attempts of several Republican governors to refuse stimulus money for their states could appear sinister.  Starve and abuse your people, and blame their suffering on the evil American government… it’s a time-tested method of tin-pot tyrants for staying in power while providing no actual benefits to your people.

As if betting on the failure of the nation wasn’t bad enough, some in the GOP appear to be betting on the failure of the party itself.  Newt Gingrich, in the latest in a string of great “new ideas,” is predicting the formation of a new, more conservative, third party.

Coleman said at the Capitol last week, “I think Minnesotans deserve to know each and every vote was counted fairly — that there’s a uniform standard. If that can be done at a trial level, that’s great. If it takes an appellate level to do that, then, you know, we have to look at that.”

In February, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty insisted to CSPAN that  “it has put Minnesota at a disadvantage when there’s only 100 senators total and you are missing one.”  Now, however, his office is remaining noncommittal regarding certification in the wake of the upcoming Minnesota Supreme Court decision; “if one of the parties appeals to a federal court, a question will arise whether the federal court might stay the issuance of a certificate. ”

Both sides recognize such an appeal could take “years”, depriving Minnesota of one of its constitutionally-appointed representatives while the matter makes its way through the federal court.

“Whatever the state Supreme Court decides, as I understand it, the law requires it to be certified,” says Senator Chuck Schumer, head of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.  Democrats are expected to push for Franken to be seated once the state Supreme Court case is presumably decided in his favor.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has promised “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Franken before Coleman has exhausted every last option available to him.

Cornyn’s statement is remiscient of the “nuclear option,” Bill Frist’s and Trent Lott’s 2005 threat to utterly steamroll the minority in the Senate by effectively ending the filibuster – a political tool intended to prevent tyranny of the majority, severely abused by the Republicans during their years in the minority under Clinton, and once again elevated to sacramental status among the Republicans who now find themselves back in the minority and facing a popular Democratic president with a bold agenda.  Further, the Republican ability to filibuster will be further weakened with the seating of Al Franken as junior senator from Minnesota.

But nevermind the hypocrisy of threatening to eliminate the filibuster in one session of Congress, while fighting tooth and nail for it in another… nevermind the insanity of the party who fought so vehemently against recounts in Florida in 2000 now seeking every last possible loophole or avenue of obstruction… nevermind that Minnesota is being deprived one of its two senators – that the entire United States is being deprived 1 of its 100 senators…

This brings up a subject I’ve been putting off discussing for several weeks now.

• Democrats want to filibuster the nomination of Bush’s extremely conservative judicial appointments?  The Nuclear Option.

• Democrats want to seat the senatorial candidate with the most votes?  World War Three.

• Obama signs the stimulus bill?  The chimp cartoon.

• Democrats want cap-and-trade laws?  Michelle Bachmann chimes in, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back.”

• Alan Keyes on Obama, “He is going to destroy this country, and we’re either going to stop him, or the Unites States of America is going to cease to exist.”
  

• Rush Limbaugh agrees the Democrats “must be stopped,” as one would stop a murderer or a rapist.
  

• “I see this as the Alamo. If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we’d be fine.” – Roger Ailes, president of Fox News.

• Sean Hannity allowed a discussion on his own website to go on for days, unchecked, complete with voting on what type of overthrow of the U.S. government his fans would prefer.  Eventually the post was prudently removed, with no condemnation of its participants coming from Mr. Hannity.

• The list goes on…

I’m a fierce advocate of Free Speech, but I’m afraid this begs the question; at what point does political theater become “shouting fire in a crowded theater?”

A conservative friend of mine has quipped that these are the same sorts of statements made by liberals about George W. Bush, and there may be some validity to that… and yet, after 8 full years of the Bush presidency and all its foibles, Google returns less than 1,700 results for “Bush must be stopped.”

And after only 70 days in office as one of the most popular new presidents in American history, there are nearly 10,000 results for “Obama must be stopped”.  Most of the rhetoric on these blogs and the anonymous comments far surpasses the veiled bellicosity of the talking heads on airwaves and the elected representatives who merely foment rebellion with carefully chosen code words.

It has been reported that Obama has received more death threats than any other president in his short time in office, and yet the violent rhetoric continues unabated, potentially bordering on treason.

I recognize this sort of thing is nearly impossible, and arguably very dangerous, to attempt to control or legislate.  But perhaps it is time the Democratic party collectively grows a pair, and gives the Republicans something to cry about.

If the Democrats were to do half of what the Republicans are accusing them of – or a quarter of what the Republicans did when they had power – we wouldn’t be having these ridiculous arguments about Minnesota Senate seats, stimulus earmarks, budget numbers or health care… we’d simply be getting the policies, and the senators, for which we voted.

After Rick Santelli’s now-famous rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange where he called for a new tea party, a small group of people with nothing better to do have taken the ball and are running with it. As Cesca points out, they’re running right into a brick wall.

Protesting the tyrannical Comrade Obama with his “flawed” stimulus and “pork-filled” budget, the new tea party crowd eschews giving the largest middle-class tax cut in history in exchange for allowing Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire.

What they seemed to have missed in high school history is the fact that the Boston Tea Party was not a revolt against increased taxation, it was a revolt against a tax cut for the most notorious “too big to fail” multi-national corporation of the day, the East India Trading Company – favoring tax cuts for the rich deeply hurt the entrepeneurs and middle class Americans who couldn’t compete, so they displayed a little righteous anger.

The folks over at taxdayteaparty.com insist “Silent Majority No More!“  Let’s take a look at how the silent majority is doing with this new movement.

The blue line is the “Online HQ for the April 15th Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party Rallies.”  The red line?  That’s the largest white supremacist site, Stormfront.

And the yellow one; I can has cheezburger?

Congratulations to the “silent majority,” with 1/3rd of the cultural relevance of modern nazis, and 1/6th of LOLcats.  Good luck on that tea party thing.

Want to not look like a total idiot?  I suggest reading a few books now and again, perhaps Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States or Kenneth Davis’ Don’t Know Much About History.

Online, check out My History Can Beat Up Your Politics.

So what was the Obama administration so keen to see disappear in the news cycle?  The fact that it was abandoning the Bush-era term “enemy combatants“  which was used by the Bush administration to justify powers not applicable to traditional “prisoners of war”, and a pledge to return to the rule of law as determined by Congress and international laws such as the Geneva Conventions.  This is the sort of thing the White House would want extensive press coverage of, right?

Digging deeper, it’s not so simple.  Former constitutional law and civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald has some disturbing facts in his recent article over at Salon.

“After many years of anger and complaint and outrage directed at the Bush administration for its civil liberties assaults and executive power abuses, the last thing most people want to do is conclude that the Obama administration is continuing the core of that extremism.  That was why the flurry of executive orders in the first week produced such praise:  those who are devoted to civil liberties were, from the start, eager to believe that things would be different, and most want to do everything but conclude that the only improvements that will be made by Obama will be cosmetic ones.

But it’s becoming increasingly difficult for honest commentators to do anything else but conclude that.  After all, these are the exact policies which, when embraced by Bush, produced such intense protest over the last eight years.  Nobody is complaining because the Obama administration is acting too slowly in renouncing these policies.  The opposite is true:   they are rushing to actively embrace them.  And while there are still opportunities to meaningfully depart from the extremism of the last eight years, the evidence appears more and more compelling that, at least in these areas, there is little or no intent on the part of the Obama administration to do so.”

Despite several reversals of Bush administration policies regarding the War on Terror, which former Vice President Dick Cheney believes will “raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” on many fronts it appears the Obama administration is quietly adopting cosmetically-modified versions of these policies while denouncing their original authors.

The “new” Obama policy on suspected terrorist detainees is nuanced, and great efforts have been made to distance it from the Bush version, but at the end of the day the result is essentially the same.   Some have argued that “it’s too early to tell” how Obama will use the powers he is retaining from the Bush administration, while others have tried to paint the two presidents as identical on these issues.

The truth is likely somewhere in the middle, but we know at least this much so far:

• In a recent confirmation hearing, Obama’s nominee for solicitor general endorsed continuing the CIA program of rendition and indefinite detention for individuals suspected of financing terrorism – even if they are arrested far from an actual war zone.
• The Obama Justice Department has sided with legal arguments from the Bush-era, stating that a lawsuit by former CIA detainees should be dismissed on the basis of “state secrets.”
• Despite a call for increased transparency, the Obama administration has echoed his predecessor when rejecting FOIA requests on the basis of “national security,” even when there is obviously no national security concern involved – such as with the proposed ACTA legislation.
• In early February, a British court claimed the United States was exerting pressure in order to prevent the release of information regarding the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody.  The Obama administration has since thanked the British government for its “continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”
• While CIA Director Leon Panetta has said that waterboarding is torture, and CIA interrogators have been ordered to abide by the Army Field Manual’s rules for interrogations, Panetta has further stated that if the approved techniques were “not sufficient” in the case of a detainee with alleged knowledge of an imminent attack, he would ask for “additional authority.”
• The Obama administration has yet to order any change in the illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

Some of these facts may represent the careful actions of a new administration, now faced with the ugly reality of the war on terror.  Others may reflect the glacial pace of government action, especially when it comes to reform, even moreso in the face of a President moving to enact sweeping change on a broad platform of issues.

A few, unfortunately, may only serve to communicate an uncomfortable lesson to us; the American people must always remain steadfast, no matter who is in office, against sweeping and unprecedented expansions of authority within the presidency – because once they’ve got it, it’s nearly impossible to take it away.  To those Democrats who are saying, “it’s okay, Obama won’t abuse these powers the way Bush did,” I ask you this: do you want the next Republican president to inherit these rights?

White House counsel Gregory Craig has maintained that the Obama administration has decided “not to change the status quo immediately.”  It remains to be seen if there will be any substantial changes at all, especially if the civil libertarians choose to give President Obama a pass on this one instead of holding his feet to the same proverbial fire they had Bush’s in for so long.

When a political party nominates a election loser, they spend a little time reflecting.  When a political party nominates an election winner who turns out to be an epic failure, they whitewash history.

The 33% of Americans who still approve of George W. Bush insist that history will be kinder to him than those of us in the other 67%.  At this point, I think they’d be happy if he just eventually ranks higher than Hoover again.

In the wake of Bush’s failure to slow the economic tail-spin, more and more Americans are homeless, and living in tent cities.  We used to call them “Hoovervilles,” in the future they will likely be known as Bushvilles.

In the spirit of little orphan Annie, I’d like to personally thank Mr. Bush.

Thank you, George W. Bush, for teaching me that even a constitutionally-limited democratic republic – with built-in checks and balances that show the wisest prescience – does not function properly unless We, the People, recognize our duty to stand up to tyranny and oppression.

“We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.” – Scott Horton, international human rights attorney

If you would like to personally thank Mr. Bush, someone in that 33% has set up a non-ironic website giving you the opportunity to do so: www.thankyoupresidentgeorgewbush.com

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”

Call it “gotcha journalism,” but author Bill Sammon does have a point here.  James Carville, the legendary Democratic strategist, alongside Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg openly stated they hoped the president would “fail”.  The idea in the world of Murdoch appears to be that this somehow washes radio host Rush Limbaugh clean after his recent and repeated comments that he hopes President Obama fails.

Rush has backpedaled a bit since his initial statements and is now repeating a more acceptable version, “I hope his policies fail.”  If we are to allow Limbaugh this clarification, we can allow it to Carville as well.

Limbaugh comments on the report:

“I deal in principles, not polls. Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It’s not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?”

Let’s be honest here.  Both Carville and Limbaugh passionately advocate their political worldview, and both were coming from the same place in wanting a president who subscribed to the opposing ideology to “fail” because they want the well-being and survival of our nation.

But there’s still a big difference, besides the fact that Carville is out there working for political campaigns while Limbaugh complains from a leather chair behind a golden microphone.  Carville, no matter how nasty his statements may have been, had the wisdom and the patriotism to immediately proclaim “I don’t mean that. Whatever I said disregard it. It’s inoperative,” when he learned of the attacks.  He knew that ideology and political affiliation meant nothing in the face of such a crisis.  The Chicago Tribune has more details on Carville’s response today.

I know of no one – Democratic, Republican or independent – who wanted Bush to fail in the wake of 9/11.  We all supported the president as our nation’s heroes picked through the rubble, and well into the months and years that followed, as did most of our international neighbors.  George W. Bush had the support and trust of nearly the entire world after those cowardly attacks… it’s not our fault that he squandered it all in the remainder of his presidency.

Many on the  far right, however, have not shown the kind of support for our president during the current crises that was afforded to Bush early on.  The litany of epithets and anger has not ceased or even slown down in the aftermath of a tense election as it usually does.  There are repeated cries of “socialist,” warnings of the downfall of the republic, conspiracy theories about Obama’s supposed ineligibility to be president, and deluded talk of impeachment in the face of a 72% approval rating – all while the nation is facing its most dire circumstances in decades.

It’s been implied or half-stated now by the wiser pundits and politicians from the right, left and center, and I’ll say it here today; if you want the president – and our nation by extension – to fail; you are foolish, unpatriotic and too small to see beyond your sad little reality-tunnel.  That goes for James Carville as much as it goes for Rush Limbaugh – and it goes for you, America.

“We’re going to wander around there for a little while before coming back stronger than ever,” Ayres continues.

For my part, I’m not so sure about that “stronger than ever” bit.  Apparently, neither is anyone else.  A reader poll attached to the article concludes that 55% believe the Republicans will lose more Senate seats in the 2010 election, with 38% believing they will gain seats and 7% predicting no change.

In the wake of a damning failure on the part of the new RNC Chairman Michael Steele to apply the party’s principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings” with an “off the hook” public relations campaign, several have moved to become the face of the Republican party.  Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s response to President Obama’s joint address to Congress was widely panned as reminiscent of 30 Rock’s Kenneth the Page, and despite their best efforts John Boehner and Eric Cantor have not succeeded in positioning themselves as anything besides obstructionists in the public eye.

Filling the abysmal leadership void, radio host Rush Limbaugh has been elevated by many on both the right and the left as the de facto head of the conservative movement, if not the Republican party.  Michael Steele is just the latest in a string of Republican party members who have rapidly issued public apologies and retractions after make statements critical of Limbaugh.  Democratic strategists have seized the opportunity to call out Mr. Limbaugh publicly, drawing public attention to repeated statements that he hopes President Obama will fail and painting Rush as the party’s intellectual leader.

Cue Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House who was removed from power 15 years ago in the wake of a widely unpopular attempt to remove President Clinton from office.  Not having served in public office for over a decade hasn’t stopped Gingrich from trying to position himself as the intellectual head of the party, and speculating about a run for the presidency in 2012.  Gingrich’s Republican Revolution and Contract with America are seen by some as the framework on which to build an opposition to Obama.  It remains to be seen if the same ideas and strategies used by the face of the Republican opposition in the 1990’s will gain any traction in 2010 or 2012, but early indicators are not good.

While both parties in Congress have seen substantial improvements in their approval numbers since late February, the Republicans in the House and Senate find themselves opposing a president whose numbers continue to rise.  Newsweek’s latest poll shows Obama’s approval rating at 72%, while 58% of all respondents say they do not have the “impression that Republicans who have opposed Barack Obama’s economic proposals have a plan of their own for turning the economy around”, with even 42% of the Republican respondents saying the opposition has no plan of its own.

As the GOP fights to regain intellectual legitimacy and groom a strong 2012 contender, Sarah Palin is rearing her head and coming into the air space over the lower 48, attracting what remains of the GOP’s base.

I hope these guys brought knapsacks, because it looks like they’re going to be wandering the wilderness for a long, long time to come.