To add a bit to my comments yesterday, Glenn Greenwald raged against the machine again today, in particular at those who want to use "bipartisanship" to enable the ongoing destruction of the constitutional values some of us hold dear. The anger and unrest, and the words remind me of 2004 when some idiots (too harsh?) kept on saying "hating Bush" (defined as being very upset about all the bad things he and his enablers done) was "childish," shows up in the various campaigns:
The campaigns of Edwards,* Mike Hucakbee and Ron Paul each, in their own ways, signify that there is some intense unrest and deep dissatisfaction with our political establishment, and this has to be quashed by the concealing device known as "bipartisanship." But it is also an attempt to ensure that nothing of any significance is exposed, that none of the lawbreaking and corruption of the last six years -- which they all enabled and cheered on -- sees the light of day.
I have noted by displeasure at his focus on Ron Paul, in particular, a failure to truly supply a complete picture of the man while denying expanded coverage suggests any special support. It was not his finest hour. But, a few times, he did suggest that the Paul phenomenon is expressed in other campaigns, where the candidate didn't give revisionist accounts of the Civil War, wanted a federal amendment to ban abortions, supported DOMA, wants to end Social Security as we known it, and so forth. Not that Huckabee (sic) is particularly ideal either, but McCain (St. Courage) has bowed down to the fundamentalists too, he was just more phony about it. McCain's serious foreign policy credentials suggests experience only takes one so far. One does almost feel sorry for Republican voters. Still they do have the transvestite candidate.
As to the "bipartisanship" (might one call it the "Lieberman" path? or is he the "tri" guy?), the term is like "compromise" -- it need not be a bad word, if the path does not take you into the abyss. One requirement should be that the other side should have to give up something real, the failure to do so warranting refusal to cooperate. Consider the deal that ended the "nuclear option" threat over filibusters of a handful of judicial nominees. What exactly did the Democrats get out of it? Nearly all of the disputed nominees were confirmed, and in some extreme circumstances, the fourteen who signed agreed that there would be a right to filibuster. The circumstances apparently in the judgment of each senator, arguably giving the power to the majority that the whole process was meant to check.
The fact that, like the bullies they are, these people do not want to share is at the heart of the problem. The public wants serious change in Iraq and the election of 2006 was a reflection of the general trend. But, Republicans -- put aside enabling Bush Dogs -- en masse did not want to share. Even a few refused to support honestly wimpy limitations on the President's carte blanche authority to f-up in Iraq. Let's put blame where it is deserved. Thus, call for "bipartisanship" should be targeted at the REPUBLICANS. Those who cry foul at what is going on are on the right path. And, to raise Obama again, let's hope he realize it is not some neutral "system" that is at fault, but certain forces therein. Some don't quite think he gets it enough. Others take their comments with a grain of salt.
As to my Sandy Levinson footnote, Glenn Greenwald and others are so angry because they think "the system" now furthers lawlessness. They think the "Constitution" ... cf. the rights and privileges of Englishmen the colonists thought were being tossed by the wayside while obviously the crown and Parliament disagreed ... is being broken. Their Constitution. A Constitution that opens up a path with the right leadership, choices, opportunities and luck to a different way. A way not like this:
Their chief weapon to protect those privileges is immunity from the rule of law, and most of our political controversies -- over presidential power and state secrets and executive privilege and torture and eavesdropping and these CIA videos -- really share the same root: the effort of the establishment to maintain their immunity from impropriety-exposing legal proceedings and, thus, from political consequences.
Some think this is compelled by the Constitution and how things do/must work. I think not. Not this badly. The Constitution was there in 1998 too. Sure, it led to a stupid impeachment, but like fire, such power is supposed to be able to be used for the good too. Instead, since our fingers were singed, we are eating raw meat now. The means to heat it is there though ... no need to invent something else or settle for maybe leaving some of it in the sun for awhile. Yuck. Makes one want to be a vegeterain.
Still, in this country, elections do not generally include assassinations -- the events after FDR was elected aside -- so there is something to, right?
---
* Flashback to 2004 as well: GG references the ridicule of Edwards' self-made wealth via defending those screwed over by corporations. For those who believe in that sort of thing, he was a self-made man -- via work and education, he rose from humble mill town origins with respect for the Lord (and concern for "gay marriage") along the way. Like Mike Huckabee, however, the real deal is not as good as faux representations.
** See also some comments here, including some by Dilan Esper, who also explains why he labels HC as a right wing conservative:
Hillary:
1. Has supported EVERY single war proposed in her adult lifetime, including the murder of 3,800 brave American service members in Iraq and war with Iran.
2. Opposes a single payer national health care scheme and wants to force poor people to buy coverage rather than provide something that should be a right to all citizens.
3. Supported throwing millions of poor women off welfare.
4. Attacked an intern making a truthful claim that her superior exploited her at the office as a "stalker" and a tool of a "vast right wing conspiracy".
5. Supports the Bush policy of refusing to talk to world leaders and demonizing anyone who challenges US hegemony.
6. Wants to continue the Iraq War forever in the form of a residual force fighting "terrorists", i.e., those Iraqi populations who oppose the American occupation.
I'd say that makes her a hard right conservative.
But, hey, if you oppose her too strongly, you are helping the conservatives win! BTW, #4 is mostly right -- there was a "conspiracy," even if Monica Lewinsky did not deserve to be victimized to fight it. I'd add this whole deal about her being a bad catch because she is fat or something is also a very crude shot.
Ironically, another person I enjoy online -- a true blue liberal -- has written that HC should be supported, in part as a symbol to his daughter on what can be possible. But, hatred by the people you hate is akin to the whole "enemy of my enemy" deal.