The GOP "loves" America so much that they have used the Constitution as a ready-made wedge issue for the last 30-years or so.  Gun ownership.  Marriage protection amendments.  God in the classroom.  You get the drift.  The latest wedge issue, the Fourth Amendment attack in the FISA "compromise" bill has worked like a charm.  Nothing brings the progressive netroots community to such a fevered debate as killing constitutional rights.  I had hoped we would be wise enough to avoid this; but with Zell Miller Hoyer and company--this latest attack came from within the party.  As evidenced by the war of words by two progressives I love--Olbermann and Greenwald--it is clear we must step back a tad and remove the red meat from the grizzly pit we have created here.
Update:  When did defending the Constitution become a loser issue for us?  When the corporate media ignores the truth and attacks the security angle 24-7.  The story becomes one of in-fighting and cynical calculation.  

In a belated epiphany, the Supreme Court's Habeas Corpus decision of 12 June  is recognition of what was the Bush Administration's greatest fraud:  terrorists were everywhere, and they were dealing with them.  

Note:  this was published near Super Tuesday.  I felt that there was a danger to the whole netroots movement by the counter-attacking old media and their poster child Hillary Clinton.  I also felt that a loss by Obama would doom the vitality of the Democratic Party as young people moved to disengage again as in 1968--or worse, fragmented into a truly Third Class political movement.  In sum, we did rally. And Obama's strength came in his numbers of donors more than our meager offerings.  As well, I did not create a tip jar.  And this quickly evaporated into ether(!):   In spite of all the punditry loosed forth from the great bowel that is Mainstream Media and conventional wisdom--namely, that this extended and divisive primary fight is between two people of incredibly similar agendas and possibilities--the fight between Obama and Clinton is actually a generational one.  It is a false conflict between some Boomers and their prejudices and petty selfish impulses; the frightened and mostly still contented versus the instruments of change.  In this respect, 2008 is not so unlike other times.  The main difference is that, while fortune favors the bold, demographics favor the old.  Older voters must embrace change and extend their hands, not their twisted metaphors.

Welcome to the world of wedge issues.  The passage of the law circumventing the FISA court (for no reason at all I might add), was classic Karl Rove.  With no real terrorist stupid enough to still employ the techniques this act sought "desperately" to circumvent--what just happened?  The only thing the new law seems to have effectively done was cause a Machiavellian civil war in the Democratic party, while jabbing at the heart of our Constitution (its defenders get soooo emotional, don't they?)  What kind of leadership would have allowed this issue to be have been framed so effectively, or could so misread the mood of America?  I'll answer that one . . . weak leadership.  There was never any effective communication of what the old law provided, why it remained effective, and why the Constitutional protections were put into place.    

 

As the administration's popularity sinks to the lowest ebb in American history, it is important to mark a milestone that should sink any presidency--75% dissatisfaction--a mark Bush will soon pass in all likelihood.  That number would be an extraordinary milestone necessitating extraordinary action on the part of Congress.  

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? ... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."  James Wilson, 1787
Update
I should add that I selected the process of amendment as a means to start real dialogue; and because it does bypass the whole attainder issue, though one poster seemed to obsess on that aspect without seeing the subtlety of changing the Constitution to allow for an alternate means of removal of the President and to compell Congress to investigate.  Bill Clinton was investigated, castigated and Attainted far in excess of the law without amendment.  Anyway, the great part of the Kos community is the ability to throw out ideas, vent, and work for positive change.

Thanks!

Barack Obama 2008

The GOP finally found an issue that matters to their netroots champions living in their parent's basements:  Play Station III.  

Edwards and his populist message must be very disconcerting to the GOP.  Their fear of further red state erosion has caused them to continue the full frontal ad hominem attack against Edwards on a singular bit of triviality that may or may not have involved a staffer.  It managed to find its way onto NPR's "Marketplace" and other MSM "news."  Kind of a new low, for what remains of our media.  

On its face it was a complete irrelevance of no interest to anyone--but it was actually a shot across the bow--the dirty tricks have started pretty damned early and will escalate.  Time to change laws on robocalls, racist  attack adds, and corporate "advocacy" adds.  And also maybe time for the GOP to recruit thinking adults, and turn off the "Left Behind" video game.