Devouring the Rule of Law

Tomorrow at 1 ET, I see that Ruth Marcus will have a call-in discussion. She has been so consistently blind that I thought I would give her latest column a read for the laughs, knowing it would give lots of misinformation. As usual, truth has a liberal bias. She wrote on flip floops.

Marcus began by totally ignoring McCain's refusal to follow his own campaign financing law, and taking a loan based on the contention that he would - the contention was later reversed. She did make Obama's reversal on campaign financing a major focus.

McCain's early opposition to tax cuts was regretted, his new position supporting them praised as ultimate wisdom.

Of all the flip-flops of campaign 2008, McCain's reversal on taxes may be the most disturbing, because it represents a stark turnabout on a key issue. But the important aspect is not that McCain changed his position -- it's that his "no new taxes" incarnation is so recklessly wrong. Still, it's a lot simpler to yell "flip-flop" in a crowded blogosphere than to hunker down with a set of distribution tables.

By contrast, Obama's biggest flip-flop, on accepting public financing, is disappointing not so much for the substance as for the execution. Had Obama been straightforward -- "I made a rash pledge. Circumstances look different now. I'm changing my mind." -- his about-face would have been easier to take than his pretense that he is doing us all a big favor.

When it comes to flip-flops, one candidate's outrageous reversal can be another's welcome pragmatism. Liberal bloggers are flaying Obama for a "craven" flip-flop because he once vowed to filibuster any wiretapping bill providing immunity for telecommunications providers. Now he plans to vote for one.

Smart politics, yes, but also sensible as a matter of substance. Whatever your position on immunity, crafting a workable wiretapping regime for the future, not punishing companies for past transgressions, should be the central issue in the debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If Obama is edging toward the center on this, or on free trade, we should praise the flip, not hate the flopper.

Indeed, some flip-flops might even be evidence of open-mindedness -- not a bad attribute in a president, as the past eight years have taught. The downside to flip-flop politics is making politicians reluctant to change course lest they be exposed to accusations of spinelessness. (Emphasis added.)

The invitation to come chat about this piece of propaganda is yet another instance of the right wing using the FISA legislation to work against the Dem candidate. Wingers know that it would provide no check on the war criminals, who have shown time and again that they are not going to follow the former Rule of Law. On the other hand, it is the Democrats' working with the law that they have always been able to count on. For this reason, I expect that the questions Marcus will be happy to feature tomorrow will contain lots of invective against Obama. This seems to be the purpose of her discussion project. After all, unless Obama wins, there will be no rule of law in any case.

I am calling FISA the Potemkin bill. It is all for show. The wingers are quite sure that wiretapping of us, the terraists, will continue to be conducted - no matter what laws are enacted - if they retain the executive branch. In bringing it on, they insure that the down side exists only for Obama's candidacy. He can oppose it strongly and end all chance of including anyone but the left wing in his constituency. The right would vote for McCain, for sure, if Obama came out swinging against FISA. That is not a certainty now, as so much of the right has deep resentment toward McCain for his resistance to their deep seated troglodytism.

The independents would see Obama's candidacy as irreconcilably taking sides against the executive - an inability to see issues through the other foot, oh, I mean, walk in that other fella's shoes. Let's face it, being an independent in the wake of the unconstitutional White House we've suffered through - that means you just can't accept that we have criminals in the highest offices.

I would love it if the rational thinkers were in the majority, and could vote a president into office. Not going to happen.

I'm working on my question.

Let's see: "How did you manage to ignore that McCain violated the law by taking a loan on the basis of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing plan, then not doing as he said he would in order to gain that loan?" Somehow I don't think that would make it to the discussion format.

How's this: "Since the occupied White House has acted unconstitutionally throughout its terms, what use is FISA when it will not be followed anyway?" Do we think Marcus will take this up? No, I don't think so either.

Got any other suggestion?

Atrios had a good basis for a question today:

McCain in 2004:

Question: "What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?"

McCain's Answer: "Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

Does the John McCain of 2008 agree with this assessment?

Maybe I'll send it in and see if it appears. Want to give me the odds of that?