Blacknell.net

Jim Webb, Collaborator

Oh my.  I think McCain will come to regret taking on Jim Webb in this arena.

Wes Clark Stands His Ground

Obama should take notes from this:

Log Cabin Republicans v. National Black Republican Assoc.

Who do you think has to suffer more for their work?  The Log Cabin Republicans trying to make a case for John McCain as a friend or the National Black Republican Association attacking Obama’s racist party?

Who’s Protecting Marriage?

Senators Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and David “Dollars for Diapers” Vitter, that’s who!

Creigh Deeds’ Mailing Lists - Where Are They Coming From?

I received an email today from the Deeds campaign (the Mary Margaret Whipple endorsement).  Actually, I received two.  Getting multiple copies of the same message from politicians is nothing new for me, but since I’ve never signed up for any Deeds info (or contributed to him), I was curious to see what address they’d used.  Well, it seems they’ve gotten ahold of a unique email address I’ve only used once in my life - on a contribution to the Commonwealth Coalition (a now - as best I can tell - defunct organization that tried to fight the anti-gay marriage amendment in Virginia two years ago).

Now, as a matter of principle and email management, every time I ever give an email address to anyone, I opt-out of any sharing.  So I’m sure I did that with the Commonwealth Coalition.  Further, the Commonwealth Coalition - by the nature of its advocacy issues - would surely have had some appreciation of the confidential nature of its contributor lists.   And yet here we are, with Creigh Deeds magically ending up with that email address (those who are familiar with Deeds’ “support” of the Commonwealth Coalition’s position will enjoy the irony, here).   But what really makes me wonder, here, is the fact that this is the *second* time a unique email address specific to an organization with a similar agenda has been used by the Deeds campaign.  When contacted about this, the director of that second organization assured me that they do not ever share email lists.

So.  Where’s Deeds getting his email lists from?

Update: Apparently this needs to be said - I’m not posting this as a personal criticism of Creigh Deeds.  I *am* posting it because I’m interested in an actual answer here.  In case anyone missed it, Virginia is a state in which discrimination has been enshrined in its constitution.  And that discrimination is against exactly the people who are likely to be active supporters of the Commonwealth Coalition (but not necessarily public supporters, for reasons I hope are obvious).   Whoever is responsible for sharing these lists appears not to get the importance of the promise of privacy (among other things).  I’d like to make sure that they do.

Update II: Representatives from all three organizations - the Commonwealth Coalition, Equality Virginia, and the Deeds campaign, have all told me that they have never shared or exchanged lists.  Which means that we’ve got a bit of a mystery going, as the information was (at some point) in the custody of someone who did share the information.  I’m looking forward to finding out who that was, and I’m sure that - given their clear understanding of the importance of the confidentiality of this information - each organization will continue to be helpful in sorting this out.

Chesterfield County Voting Complaint

Sounds like Chesterfield County (just south of Richmond, VA) screwed things up badly enough in the February 12th presidential primary to draw a complaint at the Department of Justice:

The civil-rights complaint says hundreds of Chesterfield residents were deprived of the right to vote, primarily in precincts with the largest black populations. They allege that in nine of 63 precincts, county voting officials failed to provide enough Democratic ballots and told voters to cast ballots on blank scraps of paper, which weren’t counted.

A close-up view of the problem, written not long after the primary at hand, can be found here.  Providing for elections is among the core (and most predictable) functions that government can provide.  Any time a place screws it up this badly, it’s not unreasonable to wonder if it goes beyond incompetence.

Obama, Sounding Very Presidential

Today, Obama tells us that:

My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people

Oh, the “security” of the American people overrides the Constitution. Sounds a lot like a certain President, doesn’t he?

Just for fun, let’s take another look at the Oath of Office for the President of the United States:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Can someone help me find the part where it says “unless I think that the Constitution is at odds with security interests”?

Anyone?

The Importance of Democrats Criticizing Democrats

One of the few good things I’d expected to come of the Bush years was a clear understanding by Democrats that vesting their political trust and faith in a person - instead of a set of principles - was a very unwise thing to do.  Perhaps this was a bit naive of me.

The pushback against those who are willing to call Obama (and other Democrats) to account for the pending FISA bill is strong, with otherwise sensible Democrats tripping over themselves to provide excuse after excuse for these electeds selling out our basic Constitutional rights.  And the justification, time after time, is “I trust Obama and I want to win!” (and it is often, but not always, followed with the vaugely aggressive - “What, are you going to vote for McCain?”).  Glenn Greenwald calls this out for what it is:

The excuse that Obama’s support for this bill is politically shrewd is — even if accurate — neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it’s the opposite. It’s precisely because Obama is calculating that he can — without real consequence — trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it’s necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you’ll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you’ll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion — neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it — and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don’t understand it or think that it’s wrong. That’s precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it’s shifted to a new Leader.

And if Greenwald’s not enough of a thinker for you on that, let’s try some quotes by some guys who had a bit more experience in these matters (quotes suggested by commenters at Salon):

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.” - John Adams [1772].

In 1799, Thomas Jefferson echoed that: “Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence . . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions.”

I believe strongly in the rule of law, and not man.  One of the most important things Obama can do as President is restore the rule of law and bring an end to the almost unchecked lawbreaking of the Bush Administration.  Yet in supporting this FISA bill - the telecom immunity and the Constitution violating expanded surveillance powers - Obama is signaling that when it comes time to stand up for it, the rule of law isn’t really all that important to him.  The time to put an end to any such idea is now.  I’ll let Greenwald explain why:

The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he’s elected, it will transform into: “It’s vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms,” after which it will be: “It’s vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012,” at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies.

Now.

Chap Peterson on the VA Transportation Bills

Virginia State Sen. Chap Peterson concisely summarizes the options currently facing the special session down in Richmond.  Earlier this year, I’d had some resolve to better follow and understand the transportation debate.  But then I put it away after the usual GOP clowning over it made it pointless.  If I can find that resolve again (I might have thrown it out), I’ll try and post more about the special session.

So What Will It Be, Obama?

Senators Feingold and Dodd are going to filibuster the FISA bill.  You going to keep your word to support that or not?