home

Absurd But Useful

Atrios writes:

The absurdity is obvious. Dirty f---ing hippies like me were horrified at the illegal warrantless wiretapping program and general expansion of the surveillance state in part because of the potential for political abuse . . . Jane Harman and her pal Joe Klein heaped scorn on dirty f---ing hippies for such crazy views. Harman gets caught up . . . though the release of the details of it might be evidence of the kind of political abuse possible in any surveillance program. Suddenly Harman is a staunch defender the right of People Like Jane Harman to not be wiretapped.

I return to my first principle of politics - pols are pols and do what they do. When primaried by Winograd in 2006, Harman became an opponent of warrantless wiretapping. Now, for more political reasons, she is an even more vehement opponent of it. Our reaction should not be to just have fun at Harman's expense - but to USE HARMAN - to forward OUR policy goals. I do not see what is so hard to understand about this.< UPDATE - Glenn Greenwald gets the absurd, but seems unwilling to try the useful.

Speaking for me only

< Unreasonable Praise For a Bad Law | What Makes A Judicial Decision Controversial? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Are our top Democrats actually stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    I really have to have  an answer.  

    It was obvious at the start that Democratic House and Senate members were going to be a primary subject of surveillance.  
    They had no idea that they were going to be spied upon for political gain?  How gullible are they?

    They are smarter than most activists imo (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:26:56 AM EST
    Migawd, look how stupid we behave over these pols.

    Parent
    She's either thicker... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    ... than two short planks or she's a CREEP.  

    What that makes activists into gawd only knows.

    Parent

    She is a creep (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:30:51 AM EST
    They all are creeps.

    Politics makes them that way. It is a dirty business.

    Parent

    missed the reference there. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    CREEP not creep.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    I stand by my comment.

    Parent
    It's true. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    But how can knowledge be quickly communicated to the children who are wrapped up in the heroic myths about the electoral victory of 2008?

    With Specter getting back into power again, I personally think the time is short. The price he'll exact for the switch will be huge.    And the "activists" I know are popping champaign. I know I'm not being a pessimist here either. I don't think Speter can be manipulated very easily and he'll just end up manipulating the Democrats.

    Parent

    Any activist (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    popping champaign over Specter is not a real activist. A real 'informed' activist would know the political game being played by Specter. They would have also known how he would never change his pattern of voting as he as already displayed in votes since his switch. they would not be popping champaign because Specter will not be backing Public Health Care Or the Employee Free Choice Act.

    But then maybe the activists you know are the same type of dumb a**es who who sent their rent money to Obama and helped get him nominated.

    Parent

    no these activists... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    ... fund raised for Obama quite early on in St Louis.  One of them is a University dean and author, another one is an executive director of a rather large charity. These are very nice intelligent people who run stuff--but they still think Tom Friedman is a voice of reason at the NYT and that Arlen's switch was good for the Dems. They are solidly liberal in opinion.

    The only way I can justify it all in my mind is that they are to old to know any better.  The other answer is too much to bear thinking about.

    Parent

    Excuse me? Ageism? (none / 0) (#66)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 04:22:28 PM EST
    I think not.

    Parent
    This kind of thing baffles me (none / 0) (#69)
    by lambert on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    These weird blind spots.

    What's the answer?

    Parent

    Acronym intended? (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    PS  Why do I keep thinking of J. Edgar Hoover?

    Parent
    Nixon's (none / 0) (#8)
    by talesoftwokitties on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    Committee to Re-elect the President, perhaps?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:36:53 AM EST
    CREEP.  Like she had no idea about wire tapping political opponents?

    Parent
    Because the word "Hoover"... (none / 0) (#70)
    by lambert on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:15:27 PM EST
    ... makes you think of teh suck?

    Parent
    I think part of the problem is (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    that many activists take politics more personally than the pols. Sometimes we (well, to the degree "we" are activists) can be like viewers gossiping over a daytime soap opera.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    It is because I take policy so personally and understand that politics is the process by which policy is made that I think clear headed thinking about pols is absolutely necessary.

    Parent
    Citizens need to take policy personally (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    rather than the people who become politicians. Unfortunately, it seems we seem to do the exact opposite.

    Do we LIKE or LOVE this pol? Do we like the speeches he/she gives (doesn't matter that they are inconsistent and in direct opposition to their votes)? Are they kool and do we want to party or have a beer with them? Do they look the part?

     

    Parent

    BTD has commented on this subject ad nauseum (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    "Pols are Pols!" If they had their druthers, they'd go into hibernation the day after election, and not come out till the next cycle. Doing good things is anathema to them as it, by definition, involves ruffling some feathers. They will "do the right thing" only if we force them to.

    Just at look at Obama's actions vis-à-vis the torture issue. He is moving ever so slightly to the possibility of some kind of investigation only because of the noise and pressure from blogs like this one. Starting with the position of "not dwelling on the past, looking forward," he is suddenly "open to the possibility......."

    Silence, from the public and the Congress, gave us the odious bankruptcy bill, warrantless wire tapping, and "screw you homeowner" legislation.

    We may not be marching in the streets, but screaming on line does work.


    Parent

    Obama's rhetoric (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    is moving ever so slightly from "not dwelling on the past, looking forward," to "open to the possibility......."

    Will this change in rhetoric result in an actual investigation or is this slight change in current talking points just kicking the can down the road in order to quiet the voices?

    Think I'll reserve my judgement on whether screaming on line does work until I see actual results rather than talk.


    Parent

    Plus, who knows if anything sd. on a blog (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    caused his slight change in rhetoric?

    Parent
    Who knows......? (none / 0) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:09:39 PM EST
    "Will this change in rhetoric result in an actual investigation.......?

    To borrow a phrase from that Talmudic scholar, "Densa" runner-up, (missed qualifying for Mensa by >*< that little), Clairvoyant seer, and part-time Depends recycler, Donald, Rum soaked, Rumsfeld,

    " that Sir, is unknowable."

    Parent

    I should probably rephrase (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    I too take politics personally. But by that what I really mean is the policy, not the interpersonal drama that rags like the Politico and Huffpost thrive on. Harman might be evil, but I just don't care. I do care (and might take it personally) if she keeps supporting policies that I oppose.

    Parent
    Are blog commenters activists? (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:33:44 AM EST
    I thought to earn that label one had to pound the pavement or at least stuff envelopes.

    Parent
    Most commenters pay lip service to that stuff (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    I've personally done my share of envelope stuffing.

    Parent
    How do you know (none / 0) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    people who are commenting on this blog haven't stuffed envelopes or pounded pavement?

    Parent
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    Interesting question (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:38:04 AM EST
    I doubt Markos Moulitsas has ever punded a pavement or made a call to his Congressperson in his life.

    He is without a doubt "an activist." the conceit of folks like Al Giordano types (AL is a friend of mine) about this point is quite amusing. quite old fashioned if you ask me.

    Glenn Greenwald lives in Rio de Janiero, Brazil. do you think he is an "activist?"

    Parent

    I think there's more than one way (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    to be an activist.

    Parent
    Precisely (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:39:44 AM EST
    getting back on topic. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    It's quite clear that ordinary people who are openly discuss politics in a public forum and push an agenda are basically activist.  

    I think BTD is referring to the delusions that many people (note Dkos and perhaps a few of your liberal friends in real life) have about the personae of our new set of heroic Democratic politicians.

    Specter is no hero but i've heard some clueless liberal dolts around town toasting his switch.  Specter vote is more trouble than his TV hogging performances are worth.

    Parent

    The fellow my activist friends (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:48:49 AM EST
    worked so hard for in Akron has publicly embraced Specter's switcheroo and promised to campaign for him if asked.  

    Parent
    How's that making you feel? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    I can only hope Specter is used by the real Dems and that he cannot use the party to his own ideological ends.

    Parent
    It's making me feel Obama was duped. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    But I doubt my friends will criticize Obama re this.

    Parent
    Interesting factoid. Yes, I do (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:41:14 AM EST
    think he is an "activist," as are you.  I referred to people, such as moi, who comment on blogs.  I have friends who pounded the pavement in Akron for Obama on election day after going to Camp Obama.  They don't comment on blogs.  I think they are activits.  

    Parent
    What do they get for their support? (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    Do they get anything for their support beyond donuts and coffee? (At least in Philly they tend to pay street money.)

    Parent
    They pd. all their own expenses. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:46:14 AM EST
    Driving down the cost (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    of political labor!

    Parent
    If Philly has to buy support (none / 0) (#52)
    by ChiTownMike on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    then they are not getting pure support. Do they pay for votes also?

    Parent
    Street money is not that evil (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    I think if you're asking people to take a day off from work to round up votes and man the polls, it's reasonable to pay a little bit for it.

    The only people in Philly who scoff at street money are partisan Republicans who hate that Democrats always win and prissy white liberals who love the hair shirt of volunteering.

    Parent

    You are an activist (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:44:04 AM EST
    in your own way.

    Your comments mught reach less people, but they reach somebody.

    Consider it knocking on a few doors.

    Parent

    Some of the Obama hagiographers... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:39:08 AM EST
    ... on Dkos were clearly professional activists.  Couldn't you tell?

    Parent
    Well, professional... (none / 0) (#71)
    by lambert on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:17:35 PM EST
    somethings, anyhow.

    Parent
    Sometimes commenters on blogs (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:08:12 AM EST
    do provide activist input.  Anybody remember the stat numbers on blog readers vs. blog commenters vs. diary writers?  Most people read but don't care to comment.  Commenters often provide further clarifications or even links to other facts and information.  I often learn as much from commenters as I do the diary writer in many diaries.

    Parent
    So Harman had a "Come to Jesus" moment (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by talesoftwokitties on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:39:05 AM EST
    It's like all of those right wing loons condemning stem cells, only to see the light when one of their family members could benefit from them. Absurd? Maybe. Hypocritical? You betcha! But if it gets policies and view points turned around, that's the point, right? Right!

    Right!! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    good luck! (none / 0) (#28)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    The victory as expressed by her switch to oppose wiretapping is a bit small and esoteric.  

    Parent
    We can make it more important (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    than that.

    Parent
    hope so. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:55:26 AM EST
    I'm as optimistic as you, but I have a REALLY bad feeling about Specter.

    Parent
    Sestak (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:57:07 AM EST
    is what we need on Specter.

    I think he has taken a great approach on the issue. I have no illusions that the fortunes of Joe Sestak are uppermost in his mind of course.

    Parent

    Sestak is not a bad opponent (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    Part of the problem is that the Pennsylvania Democratic tent is actually quite large.

    Parent
    Would Sestak run (none / 0) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    knowing that the power structure he is a part of presently supports Specter? I honestly believe that Specter needs to be primaried.

    Parent
    I couldn't agree more that it's great (none / 0) (#37)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:00:11 AM EST
    that Harman is now concerned about privacy, whatever her (self-serving) motivation.

    But after watching the Democrats in 1994 and Republicans over the last eight-plus years, pols "do[ing] what they do" could mean the current majority gets hit with scandal after scandal.  Harman's actions seem shady.  Oh, and there's Murtha.  And how many more?

    I'd like to see Pelosi push for some ethics investigations.

    I can tell you one thing (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:02:25 AM EST
    Murtha's constituents know what he does, and that's what they like about him!

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:04:28 AM EST
    I don't care about his constituents. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:07:40 AM EST
    I care about keeping the majority, which is what Speaker Pelosi should be concerned with.

    I have no doubt Rostenkowski's constituents knew what he was capable of doing, and loved him for it.

    Parent

    In all probability (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:13:18 AM EST
    Murtha isn't really on the take himself. He just does everything he can to inject money into Johnstown. Earmarks ≠ corrupt.

    Parent
    I keep seeing snippets of information (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:24:36 AM EST
    from the Wall Street Journal and Roll Call (there was a reporter on C-Span this morning talking about it as I made coffee) about questionable contributions to Murtha and other issues.

    To be fair, I have not sat down and done searches yet to read all of these articles myself, so maybe there is not much there there.  


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    Murtha is Murtha. I'll leave it at that.

    Parent
    Meanwhile, the horse that won the (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    Kentucky Derby is accused of connection to Stevens' shady dealings in Alaska!  See Huff Post.  No, I don't have details, but it is a great headline.

    Parent
    Now horse racing I can do (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 12:15:04 PM EST
    but if you get fanatical about it that usually leads to gambling :)  I admit to watching one reality t.v. show when I do catch it on, the one about the racing jockeys.

    Parent
    I love this post (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    Nobody was born all knowing.  Is there going to be anyone out there in the near future who knows more about how illegal wiretapping can be used for political abuse?  I'm with you, I have no interest in poking fun and every interest in using this opportunity.  If there is anything I want to poke fun at, it is that Democrats as a fricken whole were stupid enough to give warrantless wiretapping to the same folks who brought us the Nixon administration.  That's a hoot and a half.  I don't care what anyone says....Cheney has secret files that look like eight years of Hoover's!  And if anyone thinks we are somehow magically out of those woods.......not all of those crooks have a bad ticker and most of them will always stand a chance of making a reappearance among those in power.  I'm certain that anyone who worked for Cheney, and to a very slightly lesser degree Rumsfeld, learned a lot about how to be a powerful scumsucking s.o.b.  And they stayed by the side of these A-h*les because they enjoyed going about life in that manner.

    You know, MT, if you applied the (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    same fervor to being a sports fan, look out!

    Parent
    I messed up (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:55:29 AM EST
    I think when I became a cheerleader in high school to aid my popularity I ruined sporting events for myself :(  A future feminist should never ever have designs on cheerleading.....it'll cause you to swear off all uniforms almost forever :)

    Parent
    Second the motion.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 04:39:53 PM EST
    confession is good for the soul (or something like that).

    Parent
    Since Obama voted for FISA [cough] reform (none / 0) (#72)
    by lambert on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:20:15 PM EST
    the Dems get to keep all the old files, and keep on collecting new ones!

    Who are the stupid ones? The ones who got caught, or the ones who are doing the exact same things and getting people to call them "progressives?"

    Parent

    Caveat - it's only X-Files Season 2 (none / 0) (#49)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    Wikipedia:
    The beginning of the second season saw an increasingly frustrated and hopeless Mulder, having been reassigned at the FBI to tedious wiretaps. He also had his prior informant taken away and replaced by the far more reluctant and less friendly X ... who never fully revealed his true allegiances.

    As Laura Rozen observes, we're picking through detritus from a "seemingly low level proxy war between competing factions".

    It's not clear what the factions are, or how many there are, or who is serving whom, or to what end, or who's playing a double game, or whether the major story arc has yet been introduced.

    One thing that is clear is that more Congressional intercepts were plotted, and debated, and (probably) executed. In this context, it sems that the Harman Episodes conveniently divert attention from . . . something.

    Footnote: Goss as House ethics watchdog (none / 0) (#65)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    Re Greenwald. Now that's what I (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    call a paragraph:

    Jane Harman is a warrior on behalf of the Constitution and against abuse of power -- that's the same Jane Harman who tried to bully The New York Times out of writing about Bush's illegal spying program, . . .


    One man's bully is another man's warrior :) (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    Pols are pols (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dadler on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    They are poly ticks.  Latching onto whatever they think they need to "survive".  Use them is right.  That is the entire POINT of representative democracy.  The bigger problem we have is half a century of short attention span society evolving into miniscule attention span society.  Seriously, if two normal citizens were having a loud and passionate debate about politics at, say, the mall food court, almost everyone would move away from them or think them nuts.  And notice I said "if", since I could TELL you the last time I heard two people really talking politics in the public square, circle, rectangle, crooked line, whatever.

    Pols are mols is more like it.  We just don't know that they are OURS, not the other way around.

    "since i couldN'T tell you..." (none / 0) (#61)
    by Dadler on Mon May 04, 2009 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    bah!!  proofreading.  i suck.

    Parent