Campaign Commercial Corner: As Minnesotan as Lutefisk, Dontchaknow?

Although I hope Al Franken kicks Norm Coleman out of his Senate seat, I do have to give his campaign credit for this. It is pretty funny, although possibly not in the way they intended.

(BTW, this ad is in response to the speculation about the digital insertion of Norm's wife in this ad.)

Of course, the biggest thing I get from both that ad, and this ad by Gordon Smith:



Is that it certainly isn't cool to stand by President Bush this year. In fact, it is pretty crazy that Smith would have an ad touting his ability to work with Senator Obama. I guess John McCain really is a maverick for sticking by all those policies that Bush has supported.

Anonymous No More

In the interest of fairness and to show that I stand by my words, I have decided to remove my anonymity. All of my posts, on this and my other blogs, will now have my name as the author.

There isn't anything wrong with anonymity, especially in regards to political debate. Keeping the parties anonymous allows for their statements to be taken at face value, rather than filtered through the skewed perspective of preconceived notions about the author. Whether it was Mrs. Silence Dogood and Richard Saunders, or Publius, or even Anonymous, anonymity has helped better inform our country.

However, I want to make sure that the words I write represent what I believe in. When you see a post from Andrew C. Tate, you know that it from me. This will force me to be better at giving my arguments, prevent me from resorting to cheap attacks, and help me become a better writer.

I stand by what I write here, and will be glad to discuss it with anybody who disagrees with me. That is why we have comments open on this blog, and that is why I have made my email address available. If you wish to remain anonymous, that is your prerogative. However, feel free to drop that anonymity at any time.

FISA Revisited

I must admit that I was not feeling especially cheerful yesterday, and the result was a barely coherent screed about the FISA "compromise", specifically the immunity part.

Since then, Senator Obama has released his statement, one that while not exactly praising the bill, isn't a fierce "pure" indictment that many progressives wish he would give. 

I must say I am mildly disappointed in Senator Obama, and disagree with his supporting this weak-ass compromise. However, it's not going to stop me from supporting his campaign, and shouldn't stop any person truly committed to changing the system in Washington.

Sometimes compromise means swallowing a bad pill. While the new FISA bill isn't perfect, it does have some provisions that might restore the rule of law over the executive branch. In fact, if the damn thing didn't include retroactive immunity for giant telecoms, I doubt few people would be getting in a tizzy over this.

Although there is certainly an issue regarding privacy and civil rights, the biggest issue is the excusing of corporate complicity with illegal acts. What makes them so certain that excusing AT&T and Verizon this time won't result in the companies over-stretching  the boundaries of law next time?

I know there are some political issues here, and that sometimes you have to make a bad choice. The Democrats clearly felt threatened by the potential issue the Republicans might make Obama has certainly done enough during the primaries to gain some trust, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. After all, the Senate hasn't even voted yet, and maybe he has something up his sleeve.

If one expects purity in a decision made by the government of a pluralistic republic, one will most often be disappointed. Compromise is the nature of a republic, and the pursuit of the good cannot be scrapped in favor of chasing the perfect.

I just wish I could feel more confident that Obama was on the right side here.

UPDATE: Here is a comment from Wonkette that is as good of an analogy as I can see for this situation.

All Hail AT&T, our glorious leader of Congress

Not surprisingly, the Democratic leadership is showing their true colors on the calamity that is the FISA renewal bill. As the August deadline looms, Steny Hoyer and the rest of the chicken-shit democratic leadership will roll over once again to the White House, fix a few typos in the bill, and call it a "compromise".

You know, there was a time when balance of power, checks and balances, and party leadership in Congress meant something. But apparently that is no longer true. Steny Hoyer and Pelosi act like they are still in the minority, allowing President Bush and his gang of incompetent tools to run roughshod over our constitution. I'd blame the cowardly Blue Dog Democrats (why are you even Democrats anymore?), but its the job of leadership to get them to fall in line.

Lyndon Johnson wouldn't let Congress turn into mewling kitten afraid of the wrath of Mr. 30%. Neither would Congressional legends from the other side of the aisle. At one time, Congress actually believed that it was equal to the White House, like the Constitution proclaims.
Not any more.

Although there are many problems with the bill, letting a compromise through that gives telecommunication giants even an iota of retroactive protection for screwing with our civil liberties is irresponsible. It doesn't erase 9/11, and does nothing to prevent another tragedy of that magnitude. All it does it help out Ma Bell and prevent justice from ever being served.

I'm sure those checks from San Antonio are really nice, aren't they Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer?

(Note: Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats deserve some blame as well. However, given their majority is built only when Joe Lieberman is part of the caucus, it is understandable why they can't get anything done. It doesn't excuse their cowardice in the face of more cowardly Democrats, but it does save them from my harsh invective.)

An Open Letter to Mr. Fred Hobbs, Round Two

Dear Mr. Hobbs,

After reading about your apology for your comments you made regarding Presumptive Democratic Nominee Obama, I have just one simple piece of advice. It's a simple piece of information that all intelligent people seem to have taken to heart by now. Ok, here it is:

UNLESS IT RELATES TO SOME STUPID DRUGGED-UP HOTEL HEIRESS, DON'T USE FAUX NOISE AS YOUR SOURCE OF FACTS!!!

Faux Noise is nothing but the WWE of news. It isn't even really infotainment, its pure spectacle masquerading as infotainment. It is full of nothing but assholes like Hannity and O'Reilly who are hired to make old white people feel good about themselves, and pass the blame off to them Commie pinko islamoterrocommunohomofascist sympathizers known as lih-bur-ulls. The few "balanced" commentators that they do have are some of the worse straw-men ever to come out of the Democratic party (See Colmes, Alan and new hire Davis, Lanny).

If you like watching Bush propaganda and neo-cons strutting around laughing at such petty things such as "facts" and "The Constitution", Faux Noise is for you. If your idea of hard hitting news is hypocritical reports on Spring Break (How dare these kids wear revealing clothing. We are sooo mad, we'll show pictures of these kids next to our outraged faces), or keeping up with the latest trainwreck of a starlet, than this is your network. If you want real news that speaks truth to power, and respects the responsibility of informing our nation's citizens, look elsewhere. (A Hint: CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC aren't really the answers either)

It's nice to hear that you finally realized that maybe you should verify facts before spouting your mouth off next time, and I hope that this is the start on the road to recovery. Maybe next week you'll realize that the nice man on the AOL from Nigeria is trying to scam you.

Sincerely,

Augustprairie

The Field Eruption Explained

Al Giordano has put up an explanation of what went down with his hasty departure from Rural Votes. As I suspected, it was a combination of an over-reaction by a advocacy group about a non-issue post and an absolutist who felt hurt and betrayed by the censoring of his written piece.

I must preface my opinion with the note that I really am not sure who Saul Alinsky was. The post that caused the level 3 crap-storm doesn't seem too out of the ordinary in my opinion, and does seem to touch on some good points about the grassroots movement that Obama has used so well.

I'm not sure who those so-called donors are that get so panicked about some blog post that mentions Saul Alinsky. Apparently the brave way of handling political hot potatoes is censorship and conceding to Faux Noise talking points, instead of hitting them head-on.

It would be one thing if Al Giordano had proposed blowing up dams, or leading violent protests at meetings of international leaders. Had he advocated following the rules set forth in Mao's Little Red Book, I would have left immediately. But the rules he set forth in that post, as radical as they may have been in 1970, sure as shit weren't too radical these days. Hell, I recognize a bunch of them being used by sleaze such as Karl Rove or Mark Penn, not exactly known as radical leftist activists.

Deb at Rural Votes biggest mistake was panicking without waiting for a reply from the author. Its too bad that she seemed to place rich donors ahead of those who gave in small amounts (including yours truly), most of whom apparently had no issue with this non-starter of a controversy.

By jumping the gun and getting nervous, she set forth a path of ruin that lost her site a popular writer, sullied the name of a group that is truly trying to do something important, and made sure many previously loyal supporters will do otherwise. Not exactly the best model of successful advocacy, is it?

Offshore Drilling is not the Solution

This morning, President Bush laid out his argument that we should lift the ban on offshore drilling. He will argue that this will assist in making our nation energy independent, and help alleviate the pressure at the gas pumps. Obviously, as this is the Bush administration, neither will likely happen.

First off, opening offshore drilling won't mean that oil will be available immediately. It takes time and considerable investment to set up the offshore oil platforms. It is unlikely any appreciable amount of oil would be obtained until around the next Presidential election. Although that might be nice to have four or five years from now, it does little to solve the current issue.

Second, it wouldn't be a viable long term strategy. If we sucked the shelf dry of the oil we could reach (without it rising to some ungodly level like $500/barrel), it still would only supply us for a few years. After that we would still be looking towards more expensive and more risky ventures, or look into nasty "solutions" such as oil shale.

I know that the argument goes that we should drill offshore (and in Anwar) as a short term solution, while we work on alternative fuel solutions. However, I've yet to see Bush, Cheney, McCain, and his oil business cronies put forth a plan for a true alternative fuel plan. The way this administration has run itself, and their buddies have run their companies, requires me to take a "show me" attitude.

We have a moment here, a point where we can rise above the mediocrity of years past. Why not call for a Apollo Program to solve our energy issue? It would be good for our economy, great for our environment, and gives the boomers a shot at leaving one true legacy before they head off to snowbird country.

Sure alternative fuels as they exist today have their downsides. The cost of using them may be too prohibitive given the benefit, and the technology may be unreliable. As anyone who has bought a computer or HDTV knows, that is the case with all technology. Given time, resources, and ingenuity, all of these problems can be fixed.

Like all things in life, the government should not be in alone in leading this effort. Its best role is in pooling resources and connecting the various wings of our society with each other to maximize our potential. Although there will certainly be government based researchers involved in solving this issue, most of the work will come from our vast network of universities, not-for-profit organizations, and companies. Even those of us who are not engineers, chemists, or researchers will play a role, doing our part to use energy efficiently and offering our own ideas to those who will listen.

I understand the desire to lower gas prices. Gas prices this high are terribly inconvenient, and in some cases can ruin the livelihood of some people. However, that is just a sign that something should be done, and the sooner the better. But if we are going to fix this, it is best to fix it right. That way we won't have to come back 20 years from now and start again at the same place.