March 2006

People DO want to hang on to that "parent" concept of government, IMHO.  Just think about the people you know, and what they think.  At this point, we no longer discuss the government's right to be there in the first place; instead, we discuss which way the government should decide the issue.  We need a Dad.

Remember, we got to IMPEACHMENT with the last guy about all kinds of "rule of law" arguments about extramarital blow jobs. 

Censure?  Premature.  Another nice piece of work by Digby.

Sent via e-mail:

Thank you for the best and most intelligent response I've ever seen from a public official re: a message I have sent.  We disagree fundamentally only on the power and trust issues of this issue, and, yes, well, the legality too.  Still. 

Nobody knows what/who has been spied on.  That can be exploited. 

I think Senator Obama is terrific, but a little behind the curve. wrote:

Dear John:

Thank you for writing about Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure President Bush. I understand your strong feelings on this issue. While I share your frustration and anger, I do not think censure is justified at this time.

I agree with Senator Feingold that the Administration's attitude toward congressional oversight and the FISA law has been cavalier and arrogant. We are a nation of laws, and those laws should be applied to all of us, from humblest citizen to the president of the United States. No president should be allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program. The justifications offered – that the president possesses inherent presidential authority under Article II, or was granted that authority in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force — seem to contradict prior precedent and our constitutional design.

But my and Senator Feingold’s view is not unanimous. Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president’s argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.

Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job. In order to do that, Congress must reassert its constitutional role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program. And it should bring the warrantless wiretapping program back under the authority of the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Therefore, my focus is on crafting an effective surveillance program that both combats terrorism and contains meaningful judicial review of wiretapping, which is the most effective way to restore balance between the battle against terrorism and the rule of law.

Again, thank you for writing. I will closely follow the hearing on Senator Feingold’s bill taking place in the Judiciary Committee this week to see if any further information surfaces that might impact my decision.


Barack Obama
United States Senator

P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website:

Stay up to date with Barack's work in the Senate and on issues of importance to Illinois. Subscribe to the weekly podcast here:

…this is probably a very good investment in your financial future.  Save it as a favorite.

I have donated to Ned Lamont's primary challenge in CT, against the GOP's favorite Democrat George Bush dick-sucker, and I like Joe L. (honest, my Congress vote in the fall will be for an official ex-Joe guy, IL 10th, Seals, whom I voted for in the primary after 20 minutes of 1 on 1 face-time with each candidate), but Joe is the perfect example of the clueless Dem. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I have electronically proposed to Jane, though believe she is married, and the above links also contain a bonus excerpt from the brilliant Digby.  (Don't pay attention to their handles, trust me.)

I'm telling you, it's a good investment.  They would get excited and be grateful for $20.

Why doesn't the now WELL ESTABLISHED FACT that your government lied you into supporting or being at least indifferent or disconnected from a horribly destructive WAR, costing by any reasonable and conservative 100,000 LIVES, you know, like yours, and yet half the electorate still shrugs and says, "It's out of my control and my sphere of care."

My God gave us the means to Handle It. 

So says our Secretary of State, while still defending the overall "strategy."

It's a strange case to make.  If your strategy is right, how can you make thousands of "tactical" mistakes?  Doesn't that imply that whatever your strategy was, your tactics for implementing the strategy didn't at all match the strategy itself?

And then, at how many "tactical" mistakes do we declare the "strategy" a failure?  5,000?  10,000?  1,000,000?

We are being governed by some silly people.

I’ll bet most of you don’t know that Babs donated some Katrina money to her ne’er-do-well son, Neil.

Folllow the links, and judge for yourself.

Next Page »