It was near the end of June in the summer of 1973, about 3 weeks after my 15th birthday. Summers were hot in Oklahoma. In the air-conditioned comfort of our family room that summer, my political consciousness was born.
A little while ago on Countdown (11 PM West Coast airing), Keith Olbermann interviewed John Dean about his new book on Barry Goldwater, co-authored with Barry Jr. I think it was the first time I've actually seen Dean since that June that began it all for me. I was struck with an overwhelming urge to write this diary.
A call from the Clinton campaign interrupted my Countdown viewing! I let them know in no uncertain term that my house is a Sentor Obama house, and I didn't cuss or anything. When the "nice" lady asked if I'd read much about Senator Obama, I said, "I've read about ALL the candidates - especially yours!" Cursed educated bitter me...
Today has not been a good day for "Hoosiers" in the news! Evan Bayh, Tony Zirkle, but I don't think David Letterman meant anything snarky by calling Keith "enormous". OK..."Hoosiers" to be proud of... "Hoosiers" to be proud of... Um... Cole Porter! Ernie Pyle! Poet James Whitcomb Riley! Tavis Smiley! John Dillinger! Well, maybe not "pride," really, but he made life interesting. And, me, for not going ape $hit to the Clinton person who interrupted Countdown! OK, here we go!
Thank you all for a wonderfully successful and high-spirited week of Countdown diaries! I hope you all have a great weekend, and I'll be back in the diaries on Monday with more discussion, fun, and frivolity 'cause we all need as much of especially the last 2 that we can get these days!
Well, okay, maybe I am. I will freely confess that I value intelligence above all other human characteristics, and that I think I can concoct at least a semblance of an argument that it is our intelligence which distinguishes us from primates -- who have been observed demonstrating the same compassion, jealousy, tenderness, anger, etc. that all of us do. So I suppose I find this essay particularly striking because it aligns with many of my own views -- like everyone, I have my biases and I'm not immune to influence from them.
I wonder as I see the venom being thrown about here and on other 'Democratic' web sites how we could possibly have forgotten what a nasty campaign commercial is. If you have forgotten, here are some reminders of days past.
Warning: Video intensive over the flip. Dial ups, beware.
John Dean on Countdown last Friday (click on image to see video):
KO: Tuesday we have the FISA vote. If the Democrats cave in, and they create a shield for the telecomms from lawsuits filed by Americans, never mind any prosecution, but just the civil action, does that mean the end of possibly any inquiry in any way, shape, or form into that illegal wiretapping and whatever the next stage might be of monitoring of Internet and phone communications?
JD: Well, it would certainly end the civil pursuit of that inquiry, if they do cave. And if they do cave, it's not likely they're going to be inclined to pick up a Congressional investigation which should indeed be digging into these issues and they've been very reluctant to do it so far. So this may be the end of the story we're seeing, and I think it's to the chagrin of a lot of people who thought that the law meant something and that they, indeed, were supposed to follow it.
The votes are tomorrow. Given the votes on Feingold's amendments last week (here and here), we can pretty much count on Rockefeller, Johnson, Lincoln, Bayh, Feinstein and Landrieu to vote to protect the telcos. Joining them will definitely be Mikulski, and probably Ben Nelson, at the least.
However, that doesn't mean they should get off the hook without feeling the heat from angry constituents for the votes they took last week. The next 24 hours before the amnesty votes as well as the remaining FISA votes should be painful for them (but not their staff, be polite, please). And, as always, contact your own Senators and tell them to vote no on telco amnesty tomorrow. Becuase the law does still mean something.
Two weeks ago, John Dean wrote an article about the republican parties dwindling support among businesses. I wrote about that article here. Yesterday, he concluded his two part article here, by examining the economy as a whole. his conclusions are well known around here, but it's always good to repeat them.
In his article, he takes a lot of information from Pete Peterson's latest book Running On Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It.
John Dean's latest post steps away from the legal and constitutional problems of the Bush administration and examines business and the economy under republicans. Not surprisingly, he finds that republicans can't manage their way out of a paper bag.
First he notes that every one of the last 7 recessions since WWII started under a republican president. The recession immediately before them came under Truman, but with a republican congress.
Okay, okay, I love the kos-race just as much as anyone. I've been reading blogs all day and discussing politics all day with my thankfully politics-obsessed BF. We've have tons of fun. We have fun here, especially reading about why Ron Paul is a kooklamatz and when people artfully skewer the traditional media and other beltway hacks.
But as we get closer to the Iowa caucuses, you guys seem (-sweeping generalization alert-) just go completely apesh*t and take it to an alternate universe of paranoia.
Waterboarding is like Swimming... Freestyle, Backstroke.
Are you freaking kidding me?
Apparently not, because Congressman Duncan Hunter on O'Reilly claimed those who oppose Waterboarding..
Are part of the "Blame America First Crowd"
This all besides the fact that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 specifically prohibits any interrogation techniques not included in Army Field Manual. And the Army Field Manual specifically prohibits Waterboarding.
Over the past two days Randi Rhodes has interviewed several constitutional scholars, lawyers and/or people with extensive knowledge of the constitution; Edwin Chermerinsky, Jonathan Turley, Bruce Fein, and John Dean.
I ran into this quote on the TPM site this evening. It is from John Dean and he should know! He goes on to talk about Nixonian parallels and such relating to the current AG nominee, but it got me to thinking, when did the chill first go down MY (and YOUR) spine?
Plenty of angst to spill over Mukasey's impending confirmation by the judiciary committee. Time to move on to what to do next. TalkingPointsMemo has a note from John Dean about one last chance to get what the nation needs:
A Last Thought Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Confirms Judge Mukasey
By John W. Dean
As the Senate Democrats complete another sad concession to President Bush, and confirms a nominee who refuses to declare "water-boarding" torture, allow me to offer a brief historical reminder: the Senate Judiciary Committee has conspicuously forgotten that there are direct situational and historical parallels with Judge Mukasey’s nomination to be Attorney General and that of President Richard Nixon nominating Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General during Watergate.
Our next installment of the Virtually Speaking interview series takes place tonight, at 6pm Pacific/9 pm Eastern, when John Dean comes by to discuss the latest entry in what has become a trilogy on the damage the last seven years have done to our Constitutional democracy.
Our next installment of the Virtually Speaking interview series takes place tonight, at 6pm Pacific/9 pm Eastern, when John Dean comes by to discuss the latest entry in what has become a trilogy on the damage the last seven years have done to our Constitutional democracy.
I had the privilege to participate in the book talk with John Dean on Firedoglake yesterday and he gave me an answer to my burning question that is giving me much food for thought. I also read Mr Feldman's diary this morning and feel he has some points about our need for finding ways to be passionate about our positions without creating enmity. I think John Dean had some very pertinent answers for Mr Feldman and all of us.
This diary corrects a material omission on a front-page diary that neglects to mention the contribution made by John Dean to the scholarship on the subject of 'Authoritarianism' as applied to the current groups of Republicans in the White House and elsewhere.
Immediately upon ascending to the role of Speaker, Nancy Pelosi took Impeachment off the table. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The operant term here is "shall be removed" – not "may be removed," as the Speaker seems to suggest by her stubborn refusal to do her Constitutional duty. She and others cite two primary reasons for not pursing Impeachment:
The process would interfere with the ability of Congress to pursue other important work.
There would be an insufficient number of votes and too little time to achieve the intended result.
