MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: July 1, 2007

« June 24, 2007 - June 30, 2007 | Main | July 8, 2007 - July 14, 2007 »

July 7, 2007

NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Case Dismissed

A three-member federal appeals court ruled very narrowly yesterday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program should remain in place until a plaintiff comes along who can prove s/he was spied on, resulting in concrete harm. The decision suggests that the program might be illegal, but states clearly that the lawyers and journalists who brought the suit had no standing to do so.

There are some important sticking points in the decision, however. First, what about the generalized harm that results when any number of law-abiding citizens clam up because they believe, with a some justification, that they are being monitored? Second, people could only know for sure that they were spied on if the government told them. The government claims that that information is a "state secret"—information that, if revealed, would threaten national security. (One of the two judges in the decision determined categorically that the plaintiffs had no standing; the other wrote that the state secrets privilege prohibits the court from knowing.) The government's claim is, of course, only true if warrantless wiretapping were only conducted on people who posed a genuine threat, but it allows no legal avenue to determine if that's the case. Many legal experts argue that the state secrets privilege should not serve as a get-out-of-court-free card, but rather should simply require careful handling of the potentially secret material by the federal judges. After all, if we can't trust presidentially appointed federal judges to maintain confidentiality—which they already do as a routine part of their jobs—who can we trust? The same Bush administration that leaked Valerie Plame's name?

A case in San Francisco in which the plaintiffs claim to have proof that they were monitored is still pending.

July 6, 2007

Matches Go To War

Conflagration.

National Monument Saved From 4x4 Enthusiasts

A federal judge recently ruled that Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument may not be used as an ATV playground, putting an end to nine years of heated disputes between off-road vehicle activists and equally dedicated conservationists. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and Earthjustice acted as defendants in the case and Kane and Garfield counties, within which the monument lies, were plaintiffs.

The 1.9 million-acre monument, established as such in 1996 by President Clinton under the Antiquities Act, became the second largest monument in the continental United States and and is habitat for countless endangered species.

The Grand Staircase is one of many monuments, for which counties supportive of off-roading have invoked a 1866 mining statute called RS 2477 (a law that allows road construction over public lands), to counteract usage restrictions that monument status brings. Effectively, if the county can prove a road had been established before 1976, they have a shot at re-opening it to the public and, of course, for off-roading. In that spirit, horse trails, boulder-strewn washes, dried up creeks, and even hiking paths became possible ATV highways, sometimes even private property as we reported in our most recent issue.

The recent federal ruling puts ownership of these public lands firmly in federal hands, which hopefully means fewer 18" tires will be traversing (and destroying) the monument's unique ecosystem. But most likely, the ruling will also increase the ire of 4x4 activists dedicated to driving public lands, regardless of what's on them.

This marks one of the first times the federal government has stepped into the debate in favor of environmental conservation. Previously, the Bush administration loosened restrictions on off-roading in national parks and has repeatedly made it easier for counties to claim RS 2477 road rights.

Mike Gravel the "Avant Garde of the New Artpolitical Era"?

I didn't know we were entering into a new "artpolitical" era. And if this is a new one, was there an old one?

I probably don't know these things because I'm not an art history professor writing in the LA Times. If I was, I would understand that Mike Gravel, what with his crazy campaign ads, is a genius on par with Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Jackson Pollack. And the interpretation of Gravel and his campaign goes something like this:

Gravel's works confront us with our own existences and our deaths, the brute thereness of truth, the skull beneath the $400 haircut, the cellulite under the pants suit. His is neo-existentialist, post-apocalyptic, post-post modern art, a silence that screams and cajoles.

Gravel's politics are a politics of the body and of the physical world, of what is underneath our language and above it, what is broken and beautiful, the real world of human beings.

I suggest to you that a Gravel presidency would lead to an entirely new America, doing to us what cubism did to post-impressionism: dragging us moaning in glorious epiphanic pain into a new world.

It may be that Gravel, like Vincent van Gogh, Friedrich Nietzsche or indeed, Crispin Sartwell, is a premature birth of an astonishing future. He may toil in obscurity, misunderstood or ignored in his own time. And yet, whether we can fully theorize him or not, Mike Gravel, though he may never be president, has brought us all to the very brink of political ecstasy.

A ten on the crazy meter? That's probably what most Times readers will say. But I'll go with an eight -- there are some kernels of truth in there.

And good golly, I enjoyed that op-ed more than any other in a long, long time.

Via The Plank.

Why Didn't Libby's Defense Team Focus on Cheney?

Sorry to be so monotonous, but the holiday week has left people with an absence of news and a lot of time to speculate on all things Libby. So here's some more worthwhile block quoting. Did Libby's defense team threaten to expose Dick Cheney's crimes during the trial? And did they only back off after being guaranteed a commutation or pardon? Follow the clues, it makes a lot of sense...

If you ask any criminal defense attorney, they said we would make Dick Cheney the focus of the trial. He is perfect. He’s all over this case. It really was an investigation about what Dick Cheney ordered, what Dick Cheney said, what Dick Cheney did. It’s just that Dick Cheney wasn’t indicted.

So no one was that surprised when the defense team made it clear they were going to call him to the trial and they were going to take the gloves off. And then suddenly, it changed and they said they were not going to call him.

They barely talked about him in any sinister way. And they adopted what could only be described as a passive defense. They virtually walked Libby into a conviction. I don’t mean to be too harsh, but it seemed to me a pretty passive performance.

Well some of us speculated at the time that it seemed to be preserving the chance for a pardon. He was a loyal soldier. He took the hit in court and he remained quiet even after his conviction and even after his sentencing.

Crooks and Liars has video.

Scooter Libby, Ordered to Jail by a Republican System

Over at TPM, Josh Marshall has an excellent rebuttal to the people who say Scooter Libby's trial, conviction, and sentencing were all politically motivated. He goes down the list of the major players in this sordid drama and identifies them all as conservatives or leaners in that direction.

1. Attorney General John Ashcroft. Decided a special prosecutor was needed and then recused himself from the decision because of his proximity to the probable targets of the investigation.

2. James Comey. Yes, he's the darling of the Dems now because he spilled the beans about the hospital stand-off. But Comey is, dare we say it, a REPUBLICAN. And not just any Republican but a pretty tough law-and-order type who only months earlier had been appointed Deputy Attorney General by President Bush. He had it in for Scooter? He let his partisanship get in the way?

3. Patrick Fitzgerald. Again, a darling of the Dems now for obvious reasons. But anyone who knows the guy's history knows that while this registered independent may not lean ideologically right (in the way movement whacks might recognize) he certainly doesn't lean to the left. It's no accident that his appointments have come under Republicans.

4. Judge Reggie Walton. Let's start with this: He was appointed by George W. Bush. And if that doesn't do it for you, he was appointed to previous judicial appointments by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

There's bonus material in there as well: some bashing of Marty Peretz and Josh's take on why a pardon might have been acceptable but a commutation is just ridiculous. Check it out.

July 5, 2007

The Real Scooter Libby-Marc Rich Connection

This is, um, rich: Guess who pardoned financier Marc Rich's lawyer was, circa 1985-2000. Scooter Libby.

Netroots Sends ActBlue Love to John Edwards

Our package on Politics 2.0 is all about how the internet will decentralize politics and make it more accessible to the common man. That includes fundraising, mostly in the form of the website ActBlue.

To learn more about the site, check out the link. But suffice it to say, the netroots and online activists use ActBlue to funnel money to favorite candidates, and have sent almost $25 million over ActBlue's wires (average donation: $60). So who are the candidates receiving the lion's share of that cash?

Turns out, it's John Edwards. Just John Edwards. And it's not even close.

For number of lifetime donations through ActBlue, Edwards leads with 41,236. The next highest are James Webb with 16,363 and Ned Lamont with 12,420. Edwards also leads in terms of lifetime money raised, with $3,437,887. Webb is again second with just $894,042.

Obama and Clinton aren't in the top ten in either category. Hmmm... a strong clue on who the internet supports for president.

'08 Campaign's Next Big Issue: Hedge Fund Taxes

There's an upcoming issue that will test the principles of the Democratic presidential candidates. From Politico:

On the merits, this specific proposal -- which is part of a larger, ongoing re-examination by congressional tax writers of the way Wall Street is treated -- should not be a close call for a progressive leader courting union leaders and activists in Iowa and New Hampshire. It would correct an outrageous loophole that enables hedge fund and private equity managers to have their eye-popping profits (known as "carried interest") taxed as capital gains instead of income.

The net effect of this is that billionaires are getting taxed for their work at a lower rate -- 15 percent, instead of the top income bracket of 35 percent -- than the men and women who clean their offices, drive their cars and tend their gardens.

But when billions of dollars are at stake, the calculus is rarely that simple. Particularly when the billions are being taken away from a group of donors the Democratic Party is literally banking on for a competitive edge in the all-important financial arms race with the business-backed Republicans...

Favoring a fairer tax on hedge fund managers would very directly hurt any Dem's pocketbook: three-quarters of the $1.1 million that hedge fund managers contributed in a single quarter went to Democratic candidates. It's safe to say that anyone who supports doubling the taxes of these folks will be cut off from the money trough.

Politico frames this as an issue most important for Edwards, because he has focused most on bridging the gap between the rich and the poor in America, and because he needs campaign money the most dearly of the top three Democratic candidates.

I agree that it'll be interesting to see what Edwards does on the issue -- Politico recommends that he make it a central part of his campaign, because the loss of campaign cash will more than be made up for by the positive press and character points -- but I'm more interested in seeing what Hillary Clinton does. She's the most business-oriented of the Democratic candidates, and cares most about tending to her donors. Will she take the populist route, or will she disappoint yet again?

Iraq Creating New Terrorists, and Americans Know It

According to a new poll, 67 percent of Americans believe that the Iraq War is creating new terrorists. And they're absolutely right. Here's the proof.

July 4, 2007

Political "Outsider" Fred Thompson Happy About Libby News

When George W. Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, one of the Republicans to speak up on behalf of the action was possible presidential candidate Fred Thompson, who said, "I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife, and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

You bet he was happy. According to a June 25 article in the Washington Post, Thompson helped run the Scooter Libby Defense Fund Trust, which raised more than $5 million. Yet, as Media Matters for America points out, Thompson's connection to the Libby defense fund was totally ignored by NBC's Today, ABC's Good Morning America, and ABC's Nightline. A story on the Fox News website does mention his connection to the fund.

The Washington Post article describes Thompson's anything-but-outsider position in Washington. He has lobbied for S&L; deregulation, liability limits for asbestos lawsuits and nuclear energy, and has increased his income significantly through lobbying.

The news media has also continued to ignore Thompson's recent shutting down of his PAC, an act that became necessary when it was discovered that it had raised only $66,700 for candidates, but had paid Thompson's son $178,000 in consulting fees.

July 3, 2007

Patton Oswalt On Bush and Cheney As The Dukes of Hazzard

JULIA WHITTY

Tony Snow Probably Wishes He Could Have That One Back

Tony Snow was just asked at a press conference if, in light of the apparent resolution of the Libby case and the Plame affair, the American people are owed an apology from the White House. Snow's (frustrated and incredibly dismissive) response: "In Washington, things get leaked all the time."

See the video at AMERICAblog.

So after years of claiming that this was a serious issue and that they would fire anyone who leaked a covert agent's name or broke a law, the Bush Administration is now writing the whole thing off as business as usual. And the funny thing is that after six and a half years of these guys, it is.

Do you think Snow regrets taking that job? Before he got there, even though he worked for FOX News, he wasn't a living embodiment of anyone's lack of respect for the American people and the rule of law. Now he absolutely is.

Main Catch in War on "Virtually a Free Citizen" in Pakistan

New evidence that the Bush Administration's war on terror is more show than substance.

In a 2004 presidential debate, Bush sought to assure Americans that the war on terror was going well. He presented the case of a Pakistani nuclear scientist named A.Q. Khan who had been caught selling secrets to rogue elements across the world. "We busted the A.Q. Khan network," Bush said. "This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya."

Scary stuff, right? But according to a new AP article, highlighted by Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly's blog, Khan has been living a life of luxury, relaxing at his "villa in the capital" and meeting with friends, family, and associates. An official connected to Pakistan's nuclear program told the AP, "[Khan] is virtually a free citizen."

So what's going on? Turns out, the Bush Administration looked the other way while Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf pardoned Khan and set up the nuclear scientist's absurd form of house arrest. According to Seymour Hersh, Khan is "revered in Pakistan as the father of the country’s nuclear bomb," and parts of the Pakistani government have long been suspected as being complicit in the international trade of nuclear secrets. Khan hardly seemed like an appropriate scapegoat, considering all this.

Who knows what Khan is doing with his freedom — all we do know is that he isn't serving the sentence he deserves. Hersh's 2004 article in the New Yorker on this topic is well worth a read. It explains why Pakistan is willing to be a major ally in the United States' war on terror, and why the U.S. makes ridiculous exceptions for Musharraf and his government. Anyone who has read it can't be surprised by the new reports of A.Q. Khan's kid-glove "jail time."

PS — Iraqi nuclear scientists are even more free than Khan, and may be stirring up trouble around the globe. The reason? The American military didn't give a damn about them after the invasion.

PPS — While we're on the topic of the Washington Monthly, check out Paul Glastris' editor's note from the last issue. Glastris argues that Democrats should be more public about the fact that they make wars like Kosovo (i.e. victories) and Republicans make wars like Iraq (i.e. failures).

More Work to Do on Global Warming

From the BBC:

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

Wow. "Dog mess." It just goes to show, people care more about small, immediate problems than huge, long-term ones. Perhaps the poll respondents should read some of Mother Jones' coverage of global warming, like "As the World Burns" or "The Thirteenth Tipping Point." Or they should check out the Mother Jones Environment and Health page and its resident blog, the Blue Marble.

And for those who know the truth, here are the arguments you need when talking to a global warming denier.

Bad Moon Rising for John McCain

I hear hurricanes ablowing. I know the end is coming soon.

Faced with the second straight quarter of poor fundraising — McCain's $11.2 million pales in comparison to the $32.5 million of Obama and $27 million of Clinton, and is actually a decrease from his total last quarter — McCain's campaign laid off at least 50 people and is asking senior staffers to take pay cuts or work without pay. The campaign had promised that the second quarter would be better the first.

The staff cuts are the second of the short campaign season. "At one point, we believed that we would raise over $100 million during this calendar year, and we constructed a campaign that was based on that assumption," said McCain's national campaign manager, who is planning to work for several months without wages. "We believe today that that assumption is not correct."

Uh, yeah. McCain was so confident earlier this year that he actually spent more on staff than any of his Republican rivals. He was, in effect, trying to play the role of George W. Bush in the 2000 primaries: the cash-flushed frontrunner. Now he'll have to return to the campaign he ran in 2000: the outsider, the underfunded uphill battler. It's ironic that he'll return to the style that he used against Bush when it's likely an embrace of Bush's two top priorities, the Iraq War and comprehensive immigration reform, that are killing McCain with Republican donors in the first place.

And one last note. McCain's campaign has only $2 million left in the bank, which, according to Newsweek, makes it the most financially irresponsible of any in either the Democratic or Republican fields.

July 2, 2007

Bush: Libby Will Still Get 'Harsh Punishment'

On CNN this afternoon, news of Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence—from jail time to parole and a fine—appeared on the main screen as the ticker tape below flashed news that one Guantanamo detainee had managed to get the charges against him dismissed. In the president's explanation of his actions, Bush sermonized, "My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely…The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting." Images of Libby looking smug in a nice suit.

But what about the other detainees in Guantanamo? Many have been held for years only to be released with no charges against them. Unlike Scooter Libby, they were innocent. Unlike Libby, they served time. Their detainment was hardly cushy, as Mother Jones has reported. The Bush administration has failed even to take responsibility for the CIA's abducting a Canadian citizen whose name resembles al Qaeda deputy's and torturing him for months after they discovered the mistake.

Those held at Guantanamo have suffered from vision impairment, post-traumatic stress disorder and other serious mental health disorders, not to mention that their reputations—down to and including their identification papers—have been destroyed. Oh yeah, and their wives and young children have suffered immensely.

Reaction to Libby's Commuted Sentence: Surprise?

I wonder if the answer to Clara's question below is simply: "Why not?" Bush's approval ratings are so low already that he had little to lose by commuting Libby's sentence, and he's made clear that he cares more about the judgment of history than his day-by-day approval numbers.

Also, I'm surprised by the decision to commute instead of pardon. Bush left Libby, who helped him launch a war of choice — no easy task, especially when the evidence is against you — with a felony on his record and a $250,000 fine to pay. In any place but Washington, his career would be over. Considering how loyal a man Bush is (see Gonzales, Alberto), you would think he would have gone whole hog and cleared the man's record completely.

Is it a concession to the moderate middle? I hope not, because to everyday folks a commuted sentence and a pardon probably look a lot alike. After all, a rich, well-connected white man doesn't have to do his jail time either way.

Raw Story has a lot more, including quotes from important people whose names you'll recognize.

And for your enjoyment, a classic American picture -- Ford explaining to the country that he had pardoned Nixon.

Update: Joe Klein over at Time's Swampland agrees that Bush had nothing to lose in commuting Libby's sentence. He thinks up one thing Bush had to gain: the move stops Libby from writing a disgruntled tell-all.

Why Did Bush Commute Scooter Libby's Sentence?

Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet. And there's no good news for the GOP in sight. So why would the president decide to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted of obstructing justice, perjury, and making false statements in the Plamegate affair, now and not at the end of his term, when everybody expected it? After all a Cable News Network/Opinion Research survey conducted after Libby's March 6 conviction found that 69% of voters are against a pardon (though commuting is only perhaps a first step toward that); only 18% were in favor of a pardon.

The answer seems to be that the base demanded it. As Edwin Chen of Bloomberg News notes:

At the same time, a pro-Libby firestorm was being fanned by self-described conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts, and many conservative leaders asked the president to step in. Until now Bush had stayed out of the case, with his aides saying he would let the appeal go forward. Libby's supporters argued that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was over-zealous in prosecuting Libby for lying to investigators when no one was charged over the actual leak of Plame's status as a Central Intelligence Agency official.

But the mistake Bush is making is confusing his real base, i.e. ordinary Americans (Republicans must compose a good chunk of that aforementioned 69%), with the Bill Kristol base—pundits, who, on either side of the aisle, tend to gin up issues that make for good debate on CrossFire.

Do most even super rabid conservatives out in the heartland care if Scooter Libby does 2 years in jail? I doubt it. But they might care that he doesn't. People don't like when powerful people help their friends escape justice. Just another millstone Bush is piling on the Republican candidates that would like to succeed him.

Update: Lifted from Rolling Stone's National Affairs blog, the actual text of the clemency:

Grant of Executive Clemency
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

WHEREAS Lewis Libby was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case United States v. Libby, Crim. No. 05-394 (RBW), for which a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, 2 years’ supervised release, a fine of $250,000, and a special assessment of $400 was imposed on June 22, 2007;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, pursuant to my powers under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, do hereby commute the prison terms imposed by the sentence upon the said Lewis Libby to expire immediately, leaving intact and in effect the two-year term of supervised release, with all its conditions, and all other components of the sentence.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Bush's full statement to the press after the jump.

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

36 Comments

Site Meter

Breaking: Bush Lets Libby Off

Federal prisoner-to-be 28301-016 just had his sentence commuted. And not a moment too soon.

Open Source Politics, the Wiki

When Mother Jones launched its "Fight Different" package about politics and the Internet, it introduced the stories and interviews with a rumination on the term Open Source Politics. The short, irreverent definition was presented as a mock-Wikipedia entry, under the classic Wiki red-flag: "The neutrality of this story is disputed." And I tell you what, the neutrality of our approach has been disputed, and disputed, and disputed. And in this case, that was exactly the point: the new arbiter of truth in politics is increasingly you, dear reader. If you're sick of bias and spin, speak up, and change it.

That, at least, is the idea behind Wikipedia, which now accounts one out of every 200 page views on the Internet. No format on the web is better at reaching a consensus on objective truth in the most touchy and politicized of subjects. For a glimpse of Wikipedia's potential in the political realm, see our interview with Jimmy Wales here.

But don't stop there. Do you disagree with our definition of Open Source Politics? Are there counterpoints to what Wales has told us that you don't think are being aired? Well, feel free to offer your thoughts in this blog. Or even better, check out the real entry for Open Source Politics in Wikipedia, and edit it. If I had to guess, I'd say a Google search of the term will soon yield the popular view of the idea over anything a magazine writer has had to say.

Anniversary Update: Bring On the Sarcastic Applause

Just a short note to remind you that today is the fourth anniversary of the quote that, in my mind, best describes our president and his bald unfitness to lead a country in wartime: "Bring them on."

The swagger that substitutes for reflection, the arrogance that precludes careful planning, the false confidence in American invincibility that almost seems inspired by God (or maybe just stupidity) -- it's all in those three little words. It will be a true crime if the planners at Southern Methodist don't inscribe this over the entry to the George W. Bush presidential library.

A Not-So-Crazy Campaign Finance Proposal

Just wanted to add a note to the blogopshere's discussion, such as it was, of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on campaign finance reform.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court gutted the portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that prohibited corporations, non-profits funded by corporations, and labor unions from running campaign ads in the 30 days before primaries and the 60 days before general elections.

Some say it's a victory for free speech, some call it a step in the Court's rightward march and a victory only for the powerful interests who will have yet more sway in this country's elections. I don't much care.

That's because I think this particular element of campaign finance misses the point (just to pile on after it's already dead). Its creators' intentions were good, and anything that reduces the influence of special interests in politics is doing more good than bad, but I care far more about how campaign money is received than about how it is spent. I saw Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, suggest this once: make contributions like blind trusts, so that when a donation of $5 or $500 plops into a candidate's campaign chest, he or she doesn't know who dropped it there.

That way, campaign donations would be made out of genuine support for candidates, and not because corporations or special interests hope to have access to a candidate they supported after he or she wins. And opponents of campaign finance reform can't credibly cry that their right to free speech is being impeded.

Make sense, no? Probably means it's doomed in Washington...

July 1, 2007

Obama Raised How Much??

$31 million in three months? That's a lotta money.

July 7, 2007

July 6, 2007

July 5, 2007

July 4, 2007

July 3, 2007

July 2, 2007

July 1, 2007

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVE

RECENT COMMENTS

SEARCH MOTHER JONES

TODAY ON...

BLOG LINKS

IN PRINT

DONATE TODAY