July 17, 2008, 7:30 a.m., 4:05 p.m.
As the flood waters slowly recede, the dramatic damage emerges from the muddy water and remaining muck, and the long cleanup continues, our thoughts turn to the future.
"What did we do to deserve this?" "What's the best way to keep it from happening again?"
Thankfully, the answers to both -- coming from a diverse group of scientists and evangelicals, civil engineers and creative writers, farmers and journalists -- are coming to be more and more consistent.
It appears we know the answers. The Gazette offers further confirmation of that assertion in civil engineer Louis Licht's op ed column this morning, to be discussed shortly, as does the Press-Citizen in its editorial.
Last evening my wife and I watched a DVD of Arthur Miller's adaptation of Henrik Ibsen's 1882 play, "An Enemy of the People." ["Enemy of the People (Broadway Theatre Archive)," 1966; DVD available for purchase from amazon.com or by subscription from Netflix.] We'd both read Ibsen's play as college students, but had forgotten much of it (I always forgetting more than Mary). As occasionally occurs in life, Ibsen's insights and lessons from 120 years ago are as spot on as if the play had been written yesterday. Even more to the point, the setting involves a conflict between science and profit/politics regarding a community's toxic water. More I won't say, to avoid the risk of spoiling it for you. Watch it. The message is applicable to so many of the problems we confront today.
Many (including myself) wrote -- prior to our invasion of Iraq -- of what would likely happen. They were subsequently proven right. Ditto for what's wrong with our K-12 educational system. Ditto for how to deal with oil prices and our energy needs. Ditto for banks' practices regarding mortgages. Ditto for universal, single-payer health care. Ditto for campaign finance reform. And on and on.
In general, as Ralph Nader (and many others) have observed, "This country has more problems than it deserves and more solutions than it uses."
In short, as Walt Kelly famously put it in his "Pogo" comic strip, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Again relevant to our concern with flooding, though Kelly alluded to the idea in the early 1950s, the phrase was first used by him on an Earth Day poster in 1970.
The proposition is nowhere more true than with regard to flooding.
At the outset, let me acknowledge that I have no professional credentials or expertise in the flood-related areas of science. I'm simply trying to absorb what I can of the views of those who do, and pass it along, by way of this blog and in other ways, into the public marketplace of ideas.
Apparently, the one certainty is that rivers will flood. It may be every year, every 100 years, 500 years -- or even every 10,000 years -- but it will flood. We can and should reduce the severity of those floods -- and there are a number of things we can do to accomplish that. But it is folly to believe we're never going to get another flood along the Iowa River, or any other river -- especially given all the things we're now doing that tend to increase both the recurrence and the severity of flooding.
Where will it flood? In the area along any river that geologists, geographers, or engineers can identify as its "floodplain."
When we build roads, parking lots, large buildings, homes, and shopping malls in flood plains a number of undesirable consequences flow with the water. More rain water runs off, and runs off faster, and runs off with more pollutants in it, than if it fell on forests, grassland, pasture, prairies, parks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and recreation areas -- and then worked its way through "filters" of trees and tall grasses close to the river.
And when, up and down a river, more water is running off, and faster, and with more pollutants, the result is more floods, more often, that are more costly, and of greater severity -- as we continue to experience.
As is so often the case, retrofitting anything is ever so much more expensive than doing it right in the first place. Had we left the Iowa River's floodplain as we found it 170 years ago there would have been zero cost to this natural and virtually maintenance-free flood prevention (or minimization) program. As it is, cleaning up after this last one will cost well over $1 billion for Johnson and Linn Counties alone. And with the number of University buildings, businesses and homes involved there are very powerful political forces to deal with as well -- as Ibsen/Miller have dramatized for us.
Based on the science, what we need to do is rather obvious -- whether we take 2-5 years to get it done, or follow a longer-range (and perhaps more politically feasible) 20-50-year plan. Do we have the political leadership in place? (Yes? And just who do you have in mind?) And even if we did, does the public have the will to follow?
At a minimum, can we at least hold to a policy -- to the extent taxpayers' money is going to be provided business and home owners who knowingly built in floodplains -- that such money will only be provided to those who will use it by rebuilding in a location that is not in a floodplain?
Take a look at a map of Iowa City even as late as 1930. [Click on "Remove Overlays" (to get rid of the street names), focus on the area along the Iowa River between the Burlington Street and Iowa Avenue bridges, work your way up/down to the "2m pixels" level, and then move the map north and south along the river.] Notice the open, and often forested, flood plain along the River.
Now take a look at the current "City of Iowa City, Iowa, Flood Map," showing the floodplains for "100-year floods" and "500-year-floods," and recall (or go visit to see) what we have deliberately constructed in those areas, knowing that they would inevitably flood, and knowing that, by building there, we would be increasing the likelihood, and severity, of that flooding and the dollar value of the damage those floods would cause.
From the creation of the University until well into the 20th Century our predecessors either knew enough not to put costly buildings in a floodplain or through dumb luck built on the bluffs along the River (e.g., the Old Capitol and Pentacrest, and in the 1920s the hospital and athletic facilities on the West side).
Now, as a result of decisions since, with University administrators and Regents choosing building locations that flew in the face of the science of the time (which I can't believe wasn't made available to them by knowledgeable professors), we're left with nearly a quarter-billion-dollar loss for the University's buildings alone. Erin Jordan, "U of I flood-loss estimate balloons to $232 mil," Des Moines Register, July 9, 2008 ("University of Iowa officials predict it will cost nearly $232 million to repair damage to the campus from June floods, an amount that's triple an estimate from last week.").
For a map of the forests along Iowa's rivers in the 1850s, see "1850s Landcover Map of Iowa" ("Early surveyors' notes suggested that trees covered about 6.7 million acres or 19 percent of Iowa around the time of statehood in 1846. Settlers steadily cleared the forests, however, as they grubbed out trees for cropfields, rail fences, log buildings, and lumber. By 1857, the Iowa State Agricultural Society had issued a plea calling for more careful use of timber resources."), from Iowa Department of Natural Resources, "Iowa: Portrait of the Land" (2000), entire book available as a pdf file. And see, especially, Chapter 9: "A Vision for Iowa's Land."
Would this flood have happened if we were back in the tall-grass prairie days with no tile drainage, no tillage compaction and all those wetlands diked by beaver? It is our human economics that changed the natural tall-grass ecosystem to the tilled, fertilized, pesticided, compacted and simplified condition we found in June 2008.
Would any USDA-funded riparian buffer program, or mandatory no-till planting, or even just more crop rotation with hay and pasture make any difference at the rate runoff left the land? I realize we had some heavy rains falling on saturated soils, but I also believe rain fell on a tighter, less spongy watershed upstream from Iowa City and Cedar Rapids.
The rate that water drains off tilled upland fields determines the water’s momentum energy. More momentum on tilled soil scours more soil particles along with the solubles like the fertilizer and pesticides. Though the runoff goes away, we can find it redistributed where we don’t want it — in the reservoir pools, on flooded neighborhoods and further down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.
We Eastern Iowa locals are all touched by this flood and a bit changed — but our first desire seems to be “put it back as it was” and hope that never happens again for another 500 years.
For those who are now our leaders, a new part of the job description is to protect us from the next flood, which now has a bigger dimension than imagined back in mid-June. It’s rapidly getting down to money, politics and business. Now what to do? . . .
Iowans appreciate wisdom — especially when presented in a humble, honest and “nice” way. We now need a fact-finding watershed SWAT team beyond a committee that seeks only to put it back and protect their interests. This is the time for getting the facts to understand the science underlying the root causes beyond the rain of this disaster.
Many Iowans won’t like what they hear because it means a lifestyle change — but in our guts we know that changes are needed for how we live and farm on our beloved Iowa land.
This record wet spring and resulting flood disaster provides our educable moment to “Listen to the land.”
"Louis Licht of North Liberty is president/founder of Ecolotree Inc., a company that uses poplar trees to clean up soil contamination. He’s also an adjunct associate professor in the University of Iowa Civil-Environmental Engineering Department." Louis Licht, "Flood's Message: Listen to Land," The Gazette, July 17, 2008, p. A5.
The Press-Citizen's editorial is consistent:
[P]olicymakers now need to:
o Rely more on rivers' natural floodplains rather than on levee and pump systems.
o Provide homeowners with better information about the risks of living in floodplains; and
o Provide more flood buffers by returning at-risk land to forests and wetlands.
Editorial, "Seeking Advice for Floodplain Management," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 17, 2008, p. A11.
In the same issue, Tom Pickering says of the 2008 flood, "Mother Nature reclaimed some of th land that we altered over the years." Tom Pickering, Restore the Wilds of City Park," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 17, 2008, p. A11.
The paper's editorial also notes -- consistent with my earlier observations about "An Enemy of the People" and ignored advice and solutions -- that hydraulics engineering Professor Joseph Howe (father of one of my best friends and classmates at U-High) and the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, warned the City Council 50 years ago not to permit home building in the Parkview Terrace area. As is so often the case, politics and profits trumped science -- and led to the predictable disasters that followed.
For more details about this political disgrace and ecological disaster, see Marc Linder, "Give land back to the Iowa River; Before the Iowa River takes back Parkview Terrace -- yet again," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 12, 2008.
Last Sunday's Des Moines Register had two pieces also hitting consistent themes. Francis Thicke provided some pretty dramatic data regarding the impact of planting on the runoff that creates flooding:
Studies have shown that native prairie soils can absorb 5 to 7 inches of rainfall per hour. When corn and soybeans are grown on those same soils, the water absorption rate is reduced to just 0.5 to 1.5 inches of rainfall per hour. Sixty-five percent of Iowa's land area is planted to corn and soybeans. The manyfold reduction in the soil's ability to absorb rain on so many acres - in combination with extensive tile drainage to remove water from crop fields as fast as possible - makes corn and soybean cropland clearly the major contributor of flood waters to Iowa rivers during heavy rainfall.
Obviously, we are not going to return all of Iowa to pristine prairie. However, we could make some key changes in agriculture that would make a big difference in how much water soaks into the soil instead of going down the river to create flooding during heavy rainfalls.
A perennial grass and legume pasture that is rotationally grazed mimics the prairie/buffalo system that built Iowa's productive soils, and it absorbs water about as well as native prairie. My brother has such a grass-based dairy farm in southeast Minnesota. At a field day on his farm, the Natural Resources Conservation Service used a rainfall simulator to put 4 inches of rain on his hilly pastures in one hour. No water ran off. They waited four hours and applied 4 more inches in an hour, and still no water ran off.
Last fall, when floods raged in southeast Minnesota, my brother's farm got 15 inches of rain overnight. Area corn and soybean fields were destroyed by erosion, and whole towns got washed out. On his farm, there was virtually no sign of erosion. The pond at the bottom of his steep, hilly pastures did not even overflow. The soil absorbed the rain. . . .
If we could convert Iowa ethanol feedstocks from corn to prairie grass, we would make an enormous gain in reducing flooding potential. Ethanol production uses 20 percent of Iowa's corn acreage - nearly 3 million acres. Converted to prairie grass for ethanol, this large acreage would absorb five to 10 times more water during heavy rainfalls. . . .
Some will say it is too expensive to change Iowa agriculture. However, estimates of flood damage in Iowa are in the billions of dollars. If we factor in costs of soil erosion, the Gulf dead zone and other externalized costs, we might conclude it is too expensive to not change Iowa agriculture.
Francis Thicke, "To cut runoff, switch from crops to grass," Des Moines Register, July 13, 2008.
There was also an interview with Connie Mutel in that issue of the paper which I cannot now find online. Don't know why the Register wouldn't have uploaded it, but it doesn't seem to be there. Anyhow, here are some excerpts from my hard copy version:
[U]ntil the 1830s, Iowa had no soil erosion, no water pollution, and was covered by some of the most diverse and resilient communities [of plant and animal life] on our continent. . . .
[Today we] are discarding the soils upon which our agricultural economy is based. Our waters are among the most polluted in the nation . . .. Is Iowa being "used up" in our effort to produce food (and energy) for the world? . . .
If we continue to build on flood plains, we can expect continuecd destruction. To stop this, we need to remove structures from flood plains or we need to better tend the uplands so that they can limit flooding. Today, we instead work on the theory that we can use both flood plains and uplands intensively, as we wish, for maximim profit. We are paying the price.
Mike Kilen, "Author Maps Her Vision to Restore Iowa Ecology," Des Moines Register, July 13, 2008, p. OP5 (an interview with Connie Mutel).
And, of course, don't miss Connie Mutel's The Emerald Horizon: The History of Nature in Iowa (2008); and
the Web site of vast resources on this and related subjects at http://resourcesforlife.com/goiowa, and Nicholas Johnson, "Greenbelts, Greenways and Flood Prevention," June 16, 2008; Nicholas Johnson, "Gazette's Flood Plan, Floodplains & Greenbelts," June 21, 2008.
And note:
Code of Iowa, Chapter 161A: Soil and Water Conservation
Division I – Division of Soil Conservation
(Sections 161A.1–4)This chapter is also known as “Soil Conservation Districts Law.” The policy of the legislature is described in Section 161A.2:
“It is hereby declared to be the policy of the legislature to integrate the conservation of soil and water resources into the production of agricultural commodities to insure the long-term protection of the soil and water resources of the state of Iowa, and to encourage the development of farm management and agricultural practices that are consistent with the capability of the land to sustain agriculture, and thereby to preserve natural resources, control floods, prevent impairment of dams and reservoirs, assist and maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors, preserve wildlife, protect the tax base, protect public lands and promote the health, safety, and public welfare of the people of this state.” (emphasis supplied) Code of Iowa, Section 161A.2.
# # #
July 14, 2008, 7:25 a.m.
Now that the 2008 general election for president appears to be taking on the qualities of a conventional, "old politics" contest, modeled on the ones in 2000 and 2004, barring some dramatic turn of events I think I've said everything I have to say about it. I'm really sorry it's turned out the way it has, but that's the reality, and so now there's little left but to watch it run its course.
The blog will continue, but after today my daily comments about the candidates and their strategies and fund raising will not. (See links to prior political blog entries, below.)
Senator Barack Obama may think the Second Amendment forbids the Washington, D.C.'s, efforts to reduce handgun deaths, but the only thing he's shot so far is his own foot. Suzanne Goldenberg and Elana Schor, "Obama supports supreme court reversal of gun ban; Candidate's stance at odds with former position," The Guardian, June 27, 2008 ("In the latest in a series of policy reversals for the Democratic presidential candidate, Obama came out in support of yesterday's supreme court decision overturning a gun ban in the city of Washington that had been a model for fighting urban crime.").
I'm not going to say "I told you so" in the offensive, colloquial sense, because (1) I may be (and may have been) wrong, and (2) many others were making the same observations and providing the same advice I was during the last three weeks.
But I will note my earlier predictions that Senator Obama's change of heart, mind, and brand would prove to be a very serious strategic error (in addition to whatever else one might say about its ethics and what was owed to those who gained the nomination for him).
As I wrote last March, in comparing the range of experience of Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama -- that is to say, the breadth of experience, relevant to the presidency, that might warrant a candidate campaigning on the assertion that they were more qualified than their opponents:
None has served as mayor or governor; none has headed a cabinet department; none has helped administer the Pentagon or CIA; none has worked for international organizations, been ambassador to the United Nations or a foreign country; none has been a union officer or corporate CEO. None has headed delegations negotiating with foreign governments over trade agreements, release of hostages or treaties.
Each has the “legislative experience” of making speeches and signing bills, though none as House speaker or Senate leader. McCain has 25 years in the U.S. House and Senate, Obama 12 years in the Illinois and U.S. senates and Clinton the least with eight years in the U.S. Senate.
Nicholas Johnson, Politics: Assessing Candidates' 'Experience,'" The Gazette, March 30, 2008, p. A9, in "Gazette Op Ed: Candidates' 'Experience,'" March 30, 2008. (For contrast, consider the breadth of experience of, say, President George H.W. Bush, or Governor Bill Richardson.)
In short, if Senator Obama is to win in November, his advantage, his potential winning "brand," must be found elsewhere than in his "experience," his "record" -- as commendable as they may be. Senator McCain's experience that is relevant to the presidency, as I wrote earlier, is not that much better -- it's virtually all legislative. But it spans more years, and he does have that military hero's aura as a POW, did have a bit of administrative experience as a squadron commander, and he's older -- so many voters would probably give him the nod on the experience factor (whether warranted or not).
Sadly, Obama did once have the advantage in the form of a unique and winning "brand" -- not just "change," but change "we can believe in," hope, a willingness to "turn the page," to take our government back from the lobbyists and special interests, a real concern for the poor, working class and middle class.
His Web site still leads with the quote, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. . . . I'm asking you to believe in yours."
It was a winning brand. It enabled him to amass millions of dollars in contributions from 1.6 million supporters, and the volunteer hours, enthusiasm, and primary votes of millions more. What is more, it enabled him to win the nomination over eight very attractive and worthy competitors -- most especially, in Senator Hillary Clinton (Obama's last standing competitor), one of the most powerful, well-connected, and well-funded political organizations in the United States in recent years.
Having become the "presumptive nominee" the first week of June, prior to the Democratic National Convention actually nominating him in August, he switched into "general election" mode. He and his advisers apparently drank the inside-the-beltway Kool Aid that presumes Democrats must reverse field on some positions (e.g., public financing of campaigns, FISA and telephone company immunity (i.e., "terrorism" and fear), and The War), bring some others out of the closet (e.g., gun ownership, death penalty, federal funding of religions engaged in community programs), and be seen to be publicly turning his back on his "liberal/progressive" enthusiastic supporters and some portions of the African-American community.
It's not where he is now; it's where he is compared with where he should be that is troubling.
This year should be the Democrats' year -- from the courthouse to the White House.
Democrats have an almost unprecedented 10-point lead among voters who claim affiliation with the Democratic Party compared with those who are card-carrying Republicans. Something like 70% of the American people are other than registered Republicans.
President Bush now has the highest disapproval ratings of any president in American history.
Something like 80% of the people think the country is going in the wrong direction. Gasoline prices are over $4.00 a gallon and seemingly headed north -- inflating the prices of every product dependent on transportation. The War in Afghanistan is going even worse than the War in Iraq. Our balance of trade deficit approaches one trillion dollars a year -- in part because the dollar is now worth one-half to two-thirds of what it once was. And this week we learn that we've just had the second largest bank collapse in history, along with "financial troubles" with the two organizations that, between them, hold $5 trillion in (one-half of all) U.S. mortgages and have just seen a 50% drop in their stock prices.
All of which, politically, helps the Democrats even more (as a McCain spokesperson noted another terrorist attack would help McCain) as voters think Democrats can do a better job with the economy than Republicans. Since one of the consequences of permitting financial institutions to reach such size is that we can't permit them to go belly up, the likelihood is that this "little problem" will ultimately be "solved" by adding more trillions to the $40 trillion in unfunded future obligations our government has already created for our great-grandchildren.
Not only has Senator Obama had the fact that he is a Democrat going for him, his branding in the primary resulted in his stunning 48-to-36 percent lead over McCain among independents (whose past reputation as a maverick formerly made McCain popular with independents).
Switching brands.
When Obama's formerly enthusiastic young supporters became bitter as he "turned the page" back to the old politics he'd promised he'd change, he dismissed them with a casual "you just haven't been listening."
It turned out that they had been listening, and so had the rest of the American people -- 53% of whom now believe that he's just another old-style politician who not only did change positions, but did so merely to "gain political advantage."
The result is that, at this point in the campaign, he has deliberately demolished his old, quite dramatically successful brand, and put nothing in its place, by adopting the losing strategies of Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
The high cost of switching brands.
As a result (or at a minimum, at least in part as a result) of what I have earlier characterized as this strategic error, Obama's one-time 15% lead over McCain has now shrunk to 3%.
In June Obama had the support of independents, by a staggering 48-to-36 percent; today McCain has their votes, by a nearly reversed 41-to-34 percent.
Contributions to Senator Obama's campaign have dropped month by month February through May: from $55 million in February, to $41, $31, and $22 million in May. Now he's acknowledging he wants nearly a half-billion-dollars by election day, and is turning to $30,000-a-plate dinners and those who can "bundle" $250,000 each from their wealthy friends. This from a candidate who based his primary campaign, in part, on the boast of a dramatic use of the Internet to fund politics, getting away from the control by lobbyists, PACs, and special interests -- and the proportion of his funds coming from those giving $200 or less. This from the candidate who promised to control extravagant campaign spending by funding his general election campaign with the $85 million in public financing -- and then "changed his mind." -- thereby further contributing to the public perception that his "new-style politics" was coming to look more and more like the "old-style politics." See, Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.
Can Senator Obama recover from these self-inflicted wounds? Probably not completely, even under the best of circumstances. Even the most idealistic voters have by now learned the line, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Whatever one may think of Karl Rove, it's difficult to argue with his political savvy or his observation that, in politics, "A candidate's credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built." (Quoted in Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.)
Here's the Newsweek report, followed by "Obama's Other Problems" and some additional data regarding the American electorate.
A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.
Obama's rapid drop comes at a strategically challenging moment for the Democratic candidate. Having vanquished Hillary Clinton in early June, Obama quickly went about repositioning himself for a general-election audience--an unpleasant task for any nominee emerging from the pander-heavy primary contests and particularly for a candidate who'd slogged through a vigorous primary challenge in most every contest from January until June. Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.
More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama's outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.
Jonathan Darman, "Newsweek Poll: Obama, McCain in Statistical Dead Heat; Campaign 2008: Glow Fading?; The latest Newsweek Poll shows Barack Obama leading John McCain by only 3 points. What a difference a few weeks can make," Newsweek, July 11, 2008
Obama's Other Problems
Nor does Obama have an edge over McCain in favorable-unfavorable ratings. The author notes, "McCain's biography still appears to be his greatest asset, with 55 percent of voters saying they have a favorable opinion of the Arizona senator, compared to 32 percent who have an unfavorable opinion. (Obama's favorable/unfavorable gap is virtually identical at 56 to 32.)"
Senator McCain now has a 12-point lead with whites. Among Senator Clinton's supporters 30% are unwilling to say they'll support Obama. He never has, so far, done all that well with working class/high school-educated voters, or older women. And whatever else may be said of Jesse Jackson's inappropriate "off-mike" remarks last week, they do represent some disaffection among others in the African-American community as well.
The "FISA blog" on Obama's Web site has 23,000+ members -- clearly the largest -- and most of the comments range from disappointment, through a sense of betrayal, to real anger. And those enthusiastic youthful, first-time-voters who got him the nomination were something considerably more than just general election voters; they were the folks who would have been manning the phone banks, walking door-to-door, and otherwise spreading their enthusiasm. Casting them aside ("throwing them under the bus" as the current expression has it) was not a very smart move -- at least not until he can find an alternative source of equivalent energy.
Clearly, we still suffer under some vestiges of racism in America -- as virtually any African-American can confirm for you based on their own experiences. Polls can go only so far in predicting what voters will do with a secret ballot inside the voting booth on election day. But Geraldine Ferraro's views aside (she was quoted as saying Obama would not have been a serious candidate had he been white), there will be some who will vote against him because of his race(s).
Moreover, there are those who emphasize his middle name ("Hussein"), believe he is a Muslim, was sworn in on the Koran, educated in a madrasah, and uses a terrorist knuckle-greeting with his wife -- none of which is true, of course (except for his name).
The New Yorker hasn't helped on this one with its latest cover.
Among the sophisticated elites who write and read The New Yorker this may be seen as hilarious humor because of the contrast between the truth and the extremes to which political campaigns -- and ignorance -- can carry some Americans.
But insofar as pictures can re-enforce perceptions, even when known to be false, showing Michelle as a terrorist, Barack as a Muslim, Osama's picture on the wall of the Oval Office, and an American flag burning in the office fire place on the cover of one of America's most prestigeous publications has to rank as one of the magazine's more outrageous errors in judgment (at best).
Additional Supporting Sources and Voter Data
Rasmussen Reports' "Summary of Party Affiliation" indicates that the Democrats' margin of voters' affiliation over that of the Republicans from 2004 through the first half of 2006 has usually been in the range of 2-3%. But for June 2008 the figures were 31.5% affiliated Republican, 41.0% Democrat, and 27.5% independent -- a 9.5% margin for the Democrats. "Summary of Party Affiliation," Rasmussen Reports, July 1, 2008. And see, "Partisan Trends: Democrats Retain Huge Party ID Advantage," Rasumussen Reports, July 2, 2008.
Kelly Holder, "Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004," U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports,", March 2006, goes into considerable detail about voter preferences among a number of demographic groups in terms of number of Americans over 18, number who are citizens, number who bother to register, and of those the number who bother to vote, along with the reasons given for not voting.
The source for President Bush's unpopularity is the following:
WASHINGTON DC (CNN) -- A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.
"No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president's disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.
"Bush's approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon [22 percent and 24 percent, respectively], but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s," Holland said. "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval in January 1952."
Paul Steinhauser, "Poll: More Disapprove of Bush Than Any Other President," CNN Election Center 2008, May 1, 2008
_______________
Here are links to recent, related blog entries:
Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Bundling Business," June 26, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Will the Real Obama Stand Up -- For Us?" June 27, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Pragmatic Idealism," June 28, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Geometry: Triangulation," June 30, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Move to Right Shows Self-Defeating Weakness," July 1, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Telephone Switch," July 3, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "'Producing' a President," July 5, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Request for Response: Your Reaction to 'Move to Center,'" July 7, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama Doesn't Get It," July 9, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Where Have You Gone Barack Obama?" July 10, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Money Game -- And Rove's Advice for Obama," July 11, 2008.
# # #
July 11, 2008, 4:00 p.m.
Campaign Finance is Back in the News
Matthew Mosk, "Donors Asked To Give for Two; Clinton Debt Adds to Obama Burden," Washington Post, July 11, 2008, p. A4.
Given that the Obama Campaign hopes to raise $450 million by Election Day, the trend lines in his contributions aren't encouraging. (Election Commission data, as charted by The Washington Post.)
What would really be revealing of the impact (if any) from the FISA bait-and-switch would be a comparison of the total contributions, by month, for contributions under $200, comparing those for June and July with those from prior months.
So much for a campaign funded by 1.6 million "small donors." The real money, as in times past, comes from the big money folks (who, the Wall Street Journal reports, brought the cash flow back up to something closer to $30 million in June). Mosk gives us a sense of what's now going on: "Each of the hundreds of members of the senator's main fundraising team has been asked to raise at least $100,000 for the Victory Fund, which spreads money among Obama's general-election account, state party accounts and the DNC. Those joining the committee from the Clinton camp have been asked to raise another $250,000 in money Obama can continue to spend before the party's late-August nominating convention. And each finance committee member has been asked to collect checks from at least five donors to help Clinton retire more than $10 million of her campaign debt."
(Her debt, it might be noted, is almost exactly the entire amount raised by Senator Obama during the month of May.) Since there is a limit of $2300 per person on campaign contributions, we must assume that these $30,000-a-plate dinners are in part raising "soft money" for the Democratic Party rather than money for Senator Obama's continuing pre-nominating-convention campaign.
All of which brings us to the matter of "bundling." (See, Nicholas Johnson, "Getting in Bed with Bundlers," June 26, 2008.)
Yet records show that in their presidential campaigns, neither has lived up to his promise to fully disclose the identities of his top money collectors who bundle millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
Since November, Mr. Obama had added just two new names to a list of 326 fund-raisers who have bundled contributions of $50,000 or more for him, despite the campaign’s taking in more than $180 million during that time.
After receiving an inquiry from The New York Times, the campaign scrambled on Thursday evening to update its list of bundlers, adding 181 names, a jump of more than 50 percent, and increasing the amounts some were credited with raising. The number of bundlers who have collected $200,000 or more increased to 138 from 78.
Michael Luo and Christopher Drew, "Candidates Are Slow to Identify ‘Bundlers,’" New York Times, July 11, 2008. And see, Michael Falcone, "The Early Word: Show Me The Money," New York Times: The Caucus, July 11, 2008.
Notwithstanding the fact that these contributors -- the bundlers, the soft money underwriters, lobbyists, corporate CEOs, and the upper 1% of the wealthy -- are getting a 1000-to-2000-to-one return on these investments ("campaign contributions") (see, Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Sunday Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2) the Onion News Network's "In the Know" reports that some lobbyists are complaining that they're not always getting everything the candidates have promised. "In the Know" calls the piece, "Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?"
In The Know: Are Politicians Failing Our Lobbyists?
Karl Rove as Obama Strategist
Whatever you may think of Karl Rove, you have to respect his success as a political strategist -- especially given the candidate/president he was handed
In order for Obama to run a better campaign than than Rove/Cheney/Bush he must first run one that is at least as good
Here's Rove's advice to Obama
Mr. Obama's biggest problem is that when it comes to substance, he's following the playbook of a Republican other than George W. Bush. In 2000, Mr. Bush won the general election on the same themes and positions as in the primaries, including compassionate conservatism, the faith-based initiative, tax cuts and Social Security reform. There was no repudiation of past positions, no chameleon-like shifts in positions.
Instead of consistency, Mr. Obama has followed Richard Nixon's advice, to cater to his party's extreme in the primaries and then move aggressively to the middle for the fall.
In the primary, Mr. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months, called the D.C. gun ban constitutional, backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program, opposed welfare reform, pledged to renegotiate Nafta, disavowed free trade and was strongly against the death penalty in all cases. But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.
By taking Nixon's advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate's credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.
Karl Rove, "Barack's Brilliant Ground Game," The Wall Street Journal, July 10, 2008, p. A13.
And what if all this leaves you totally bored? The Onion News Network has some helpful hints in this piece from their morning "Today Now!" show they call, "Election '08: Pretending You Care":
Today Now!: How To Pretend You Give A S*** About The Election
July 10, 2008, 5:15 p.m.
Australia's Latest Wilderness Area
What took 10 years for a handful of dedicated Iowans -- and then was never completed -- the Australians have accomplished in 24 hours: a rain forest inside, of all places, the Sydney Opera House.
I've been there. It's one of the world's great architectural accomplishments -- as well as a great music hall -- and I've got to admit it just would never have occurred to me to take out all the seats and replace them with 1000 trees.
I guess I just don't have the very well developed creative artistic ability to come up with something like that.
French artist Pierre Huyghe having created this work of art in 24 hours, scheduled it for no more than a 24-hour showing. So, sorry, you've already missed it.
Maybe that's what we should have gone for. A 24-hour rain forest. Oh, well, I guess the Aussies beat us to it again. Now we're going to have to settle for "The Stories Project."
Here's the story: Alex Lalak, "Opera House concert hall now forest of trees for Biennale," Daily Telegraph, July 10, 2008, 12:00 a.m. -- and here's the story of the Iowa rain forest.
Some challenge the notion that "Foster's is Australian for beer."
But now no one can challenge that "Opera House" is Australian for "rain forest."
# # #
July 10, 2008, 6:25 a.m.
Links to prior, related blog entries on this subject can be found at the bottom of this entry.
Eric Lichtblau, "Senate Approves Bill to Broaden Wiretap Powers," New York Times, July 10, 2008 ("[In] the end Mr. Bush won out, as [the FISA bill] . . . included almost all the major elements the White House wanted. . . . [Senator Obama] had long opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies that took part in the N.S.A.’s wiretapping program, even threatening a filibuster during his run for the nomination. But on Wednesday, he ended up voting for [the bill].")
And for balance, see Gail Collins, "The Audacity of Listening," New York Times, July 10, 2008.
Just What Has Happened to Senator Obama?
What is Obama doing to himself, his campaign, and his one-time enthusiastic, hopeful young supporters -- and why? And what options do his disaffected former supporters now have?
Seemingly everyone's asking, and it's coming at me from all directions -- the chattering classes on cable, the newspaper stories in hard copy and online, the blogs (especially the comments in the FISA one on the Obama campaign Web site), comments on this blog, conversations with friends -- and personal emails. Here are excerpts from a couple from my inbox this morning.
One speculates the problem may be a switch in campaign staff since the primary:
What in heavens name is that man thinking? He should have gone on a two- or three-week vacation after the primary, is my diagnosis. OR: he needs all new campaign-gurus: almost every wrong turn taken since the primary, good Lord! (All the while, McC campaign ads on local TV ALL the time, and most of them are actually pretty solid—at least before I hit the mute!). Aside from the craziness of all his switches, they’re just so DUMB! I don’t get it—his intelligence was supposed to be one of his greatest virtues. I’m just glad I was for Biden so I don’t feel guilty or even more sunk than I do!
Another finds the Obama saga the only additional evidence anyone should need as to why the two party system has failed ordinary Americans, will continue to do so, and should therefore lead a rational voter to find a third party. Those who trust the two parties promises of "change" every four years, after repeatedly experiencing their failure to deliver, are no better than Charlie Brown relying on Lucy to hold the football:
If Obama doesn't change course immediately, it will be McCain's election to loose.
I haven't been following what McCain's people are saying right now, but if they aren't already doing so, they should be jumping all over this -- hammering Obama over his recent changes in policy . . .
"Who is Barack Obama? What does he stand for? Can we believe anything he says? McCain is a man of courage [blah, blah], patriot [whaa, whaa], steadfast [yadda, yadda], experienced...track record...etc, etc."
"We live in a dangerous world (it's very scary!!). We need an experienced elder statesman to lead us through these difficult times -- not a young man who hasn't even served a full term as a senator and can't make up his mind about what his position on various issues is from day to day. . . .
I think a lot of people are torn between hope and fear. Up until recently, Barack did a good job of playing on their hopes but fear is easy to exploit -- especially when the candidate of "change" and "hope" turns out to be a fraud.
We need a strong third party movement -- the dems and reps are too much alike and too entrenched. The system has been broken for a long time and continuing to expect those who benefit from it to fix it is -- if not the definition of insanity -- kind of like poor 'ol Charlie Brown, always trusting Lucy to hold the football.
That poor 'ol Charlie Brown -- he just never learns...
Nader '08!!
Many members of the Obama FISA blog are using the "lesser of the two evils" line (that Ralph Nader used to twist to "the evil of the two lessers"). It's an age old dilemma for voters, with solid arguments on both sides:
1. "The only realistic thing for a voter to do is to support the candidate who is at least slightly, marginally, better -- 'the lesser of the two evils.' The reality is that no third party candidate has a chance of winning; voting third party is just throwing your vote away -- which, in some states, could actually lead to victory by 'the greater of the two evils.' It's a sad reality, but it's the reality nonetheless."
2. "If you continue to accept disappointment and betrayal election after election, if you continue to let your corporate party's leaders (and their campaign contributors) take your vote for granted -- as the Obama campaign has made clear it is doing with those who got him the nomination -- because 'you have nowhere else to go,' you just perpetuate the system and its gradual worsening, decade after decade. 'Instant runoff' voting is the obvious win-win solution for both the major and the third parties. But since the major parties will probably continue to fight it, the only responsible move is to 'send them a message.' Third parties have brought about progressive change throughout America's political history and they can do so again -- it's a proud record of achievement -- but only when their membership had grown to sufficient size that they constituted a meaningful threat to the major parties. It's long past time we do it again."
What do you think? How do you come out on this choice? Or do you have a third option, or a better way of expressing those two?
Here are links to recent, related blog entries:
Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Bundling Business," June 26, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Will the Real Obama Stand Up -- For Us?" June 27, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Pragmatic Idealism," June 28, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Geometry: Triangulation," June 30, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Move to Right Shows Self-Defeating Weakness," July 1, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Telephone Switch," July 3, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "'Producing' a President," July 5, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Request for Response: Your Reaction to 'Move to Center,'" July 7, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama Doesn't Get It," July 9, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Where Have You Gone Barack Obama?" July 10, 2008.
July 9, 2008, 3:50 p.m.
Here's a sampling of excerpts from comments posted in the Obama Web site blog, "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right," during one hour this afternoon
This was an hour (2:46-3:33 p.m. CT) following Senator Obama's failure to vote against cloture (which he would have had to do to permit the filibuster he promised) followed by his vote FOR the FISA bill and telecom immunity (which he had formerly opposed). And, oh yes, Senator Clinton voted against cloture (i.e., for a filibuster) and against the bill. Here's the official roll call record of the Senate's votes, if you're curious.
This morning I blogged, "Obama Doesn't Get It." That was before his vote. The reactions reproduced below -- all those of others, not me -- is just more evidence in support of this morning's thesis. I predicted two weeks ago something like this backlash was going to result for his campaign. Now it has.
# # #
Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right
Senator Obama - we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!
I agree - there are many other issues
By Arun from Englishtown, NJ - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:33 pm EDT
Also listed in: Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right
. . . But whatever those are - starting from being a better informed citizen (by the media companies), voting (on machines made by corporations), health care (provided by corporations), having no digital divide (telcos), disaster insurance for future Katrinas and mid-West floods (insurance cos), having my savings, investment, pension safe(banks and financial companines) - all these issues involve large and powerful corporations
Which just demonstrated that they can buy immunity from the law by purchasing Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
Senator Obama went tamely along.
Where is our protection when corporate interests are opposed to those of us people? We've just seen that Senator Obama and his movement cannot provide it. . . .
Sad day to be an Obama Supporter
By John H - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm EDT
This FISA bill just stinks from head to toe. Where was the fillabuster? Where is the man who ran on this issue and now flipping so easy to those that broke the law. You have my vote Senator Obama but no longer my work on the phone banks and my dollars from my other bank.
Lesser of 2 Evils Again
By Kathy - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm EDT
Congratulations, Senator Obama, on becoming the "lesser of 2 evils candidate" for millions of your supporters.
We worked for you and supported you before today because we believed what you said. I don't anymore. . . .
As it is, no more donations from me. No more going out of my way.
Because when I thought you were more than just another politician I became more than just another voter. Well you dropped your ball so I see no reason to disrupt my life on your account. You can obviously win without my contributions and work since the telecom companies will more than make up for what you lose from me.
[Y]our campaign just went corporate. Good luck serving them!
Obama FISA Flip-flop a Betrayal of Principles and the People
By Bryan K. Long - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm EDT
. . . Few Democrats held to principle and voted against this bad bill today. Hillary Clinton was one of them. Obama was not. Perhaps I made a mistake supporting Obama. If he betrays us on this, how can I trust him on promises about energy and the environment, or health care? Obviously, he and the Democratic congressional leadership are listening to "higher voices", and our government is in the control of powers larger than "we the people". . . .
Certainly I will not be renewing my financial support for Obama for the general election. I'm not sure I can even vote for him.
Shame on you, Sen. Obama.
Good By Barack
By Daniel from New Castle, PA - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:08 pm EDT
I have been watching C-Span 2 for two days to listen to the debates and vote on the FISA BILL. After the vote I removed your sign from the front window, and your bumper sticker from my car. Hillary voted against this bill. Lets draft her at the convention.
Obama votes for bush's American fascism!
By Robert - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm EDT
In 1933, in response to a "terrorist attack", Hitler, through his politics of fear and his cry for "national security", got his "Enabling Act" passed. . . .
It's amazing how similar the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act resemble many parts of hitler's Enabling Act. . . .
My money will go to Feingold, and my vote, i will have to reconsider.
What's done is done. Now what?
By John from Springfield, MO - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm EDT
So, Senator Obama has voted in favor of immunizing telecoms at the expense of us all; even though he said during the primary campaign that he would not. He has voted for what was clearly a capitulation and not a compromise. . . .
This is a sad day indeed. So long fourth amendment. It's been nice knowing you.
Cheers,
-John
Telecoms are king, gee thanks, Congress! Huge disappointment Senator Obama!
By Kate S - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:02 pm EDT
I feel betrayed... and lied to, yet again. Did we not just experience a most horrendous 8 years with a president who lied to us over and over, ultimately doing what was best for him and his cronies and not what is best for the people of this country? I do not want that again, I will not be taken in again by pretty words and lies. . . .
I did not expect this from Obama. Obama voted yes for FISA today. Unbelievable. I was unaware the Congress could rewrite amendments to the US Constitution at will. . . . My disappointment in Obama and Congress is enormous. But I have learned to accept little from politicians. I have been behind Obama for quite a long time, but this as a slap in the face, given his previous positions and statements. . . I am also not ready for another president who talks out two sides of his mouth... and Obama most assuredly did this on FISA. It IS capitulation and nothing less. . . . I expected something better - different - from Obama, but we were sold out to big business again. . . . Big money is king, even to this campaign... the people do not matter. If you keep saying they do, then you need to show it. Sorry, I am not seeing it. I see capitalism strangling freedom and the Constitution. What a sad pathetic day for America. . . .
Lost my Vote today over FISA
By CJ from Moreno Valley, CA - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm EDT
How disappointing that our man of change represents more of the same. I can't in good conscious vote for him now and am despondent of the future of this country I loved so much. So sad. I will start shopping jobs elsewhere, let the brain-drain begin as is usually the case when governments become fascists.
No Money, No Vote for the Latest Gutless Wonder - Barakh Obama
By David C. - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm EDT
The 4th Amendment is apparently irrelevent to our legal genius.
The same complete disrespect for the Constitution and the LAW as Mr. Bush.
How completely shameful and disappointing.
The Federal Government is predatory, corrupt, and venal, and Obama has revealed today that he is part of the problem.
Obama lost my vote today
By Keith from Knoxville, TN - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm EDT
Voting for the FISA bill was inexcusable. Obama was the only hope we had to turn this country around, but unfortunately, he has shown himself to be a traitor.
Hillary voted no on FISA amendments
By Steve from Austin - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm EDT
I've been semi-comforting myself by saying that it doesn't matter whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee because they will both vote for FISA, but Obama voted yes and Cinton voted NO. I can no longer feel sure we have selected the right nominee. Very sad day. Integrity has suffered a major blow.
i don't believe in fairy tales
By joy - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm EDT
Your asking me to believe? letting me think for a moment that my voice, the peoples voice, actually meant something to you?. Well we all begged, pleaded and asked you to stand strong with us against the fisa bill and you could have cared less. Change to believe in, or believe that you will change for political points. . . . [I've] lost that hope you lied about.
FISA is the deal breaker Senator Obama
By Paul from Salinas, CA - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm EDT
Wwll, it is official, Senator Obama can no longer expect my support either monetarily or otherwise. The idea that upholding the rule of law was even debated in Congress is enough to make me sick. The real question now is since history will judge Bush to be the WORST president ever, how will the Representatives and Senators that supported this disgusting bill be remembered . . . [T]he idea that EVERY individual is equal under the law, including the president and corporations is apparently just a advertising slogan. Seems that our country is already lost....all we can do now is slowly watch all of our remainging freedoms . . . dissappear.
Here are some more, but . . .
rather than edit the comments with authors' names, etc., these are just some of the headlines they put on their comments [posted from 4:21 until 4:51 p.m. CT]
Change My Ass
what a pi$$er!
On the wrong side of FISA
Well, thanks for selling out our constitutional rights.
ACLU and EFF Pledge to fight New FISA in court
Barack Obama has disappointed me
FISA consequences: There Will Be Blood
Withdrawing My Support Due to FISA Capitulation
Faith based FISA
Disgusted with Obama
Obama’s ‘Sister Souljah Moment’ on the Surveillance Bill
Obama Caves In
# # #
July 9, 2008, 7:00 a.m., 10:15 a.m.
Senator Obama's announcement that he was going to abandon his support for public financing of presidential campaigns -- at least so far as his own campaign was concerned -- (along with the $85 million it would have provided) was the first worrisome hint that we might be in for a number of other seeming changes as well. Surrogates rushed to reassure us that he was holding to his position, just using a different kind of "public financing" -- namely our small contributions -- as a matter of a pragmatic winning (and very expensive) strategy. This was a special case, we were told.
Well, it wasn't. Since then our initial concerns have been played out -- big time. I've been blogging about it since June 22.
Nicholas Johnson, "Change We Can No Longer Believe In," June 22, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Holding Obama's Feet to the Fireside Chat," June 24, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "The Bundling Business," June 26, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Will the Real Obama Stand Up -- For Us?" June 27, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Pragmatic Idealism," June 28, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Geometry: Triangulation," June 30, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Move to Right Shows Self-Defeating Weakness," July 1, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Obama's Telephone Switch," July 3, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "'Producing' a President," July 5, 2008.
Nicholas Johnson, "Request for Response: Your Reaction to 'Move to Center,'" July 7, 2008.
Sadly, either Senator Obama just doesn't get it, or he doesn't care, or he is further fudging regarding his shifts. And to borrow a line from CBS "60 Minutes'" "Ronald Reagan the Movie," "which would be worse?" Here's a report regarding his defensive response in Powder Springs, Georgia, yesterday:
POWDER SPRINGS, Ga. — Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday forcefully addressed concerns that he had moved too quickly to the political center, acknowledging complaints from “my friends on the left” about his statements on Iraq, his approaches to evangelicals and his remarks on other issues that have alarmed some of his supporters.
“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he told a crowd gathered at a town hall-style meeting in this Atlanta suburb. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”
Michael Powell, "Obama Says His Critics Haven't Been Listening," New York Times, July 9, 2008.
Far and away the most active blog -- on Senator Obama's Web site! -- is "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right." Over 20,000 supporters -- many of whom are now "former supporters" -- are clearly upset; some expressing a sense of betrayal, many saying they will no longer support him financially, some talking of voting for Ralph Nader or Senator John McCain. I've reproduced some of the responses I received when I put a questionnaire into that blog asking for members' opinions in Nicholas Johnson, "Request for Response: Your Reaction to 'Move to Center,'" July 7, 2008 (to which some readers of my blog, this blog, have added similar comments of their own).
The problem Senator Obama has created for himself does not come so much from some one position he's now articulating -- though that is a problem for many former supporters (especially on FISA and telephone immunity). The primary problem is that, having gained voters' (especially first-time voters') enthusiastic support for this "new kind of politician," who offered "hope" and "promises we can believe in," he is now looking more and more like the same old, same old politics as usual -- thereby creating a sense in former supporters of something between betrayal, a sense of having been duped, and a very deep disappointment and disillusionment.
The problem, in short, is not that his former supporters who are now being critical "haven't been listening to me" -- it's that they were listening, and absorbing, precisely the image of Obama that he was trying to project and hoping they would buy. They did buy. And now they're suffering from a severe case of buyers' remorse.
Criticizing one's most enthusiastic supporters with, in effect, to borrow the old song title, "How Could You Believe Me When I Told You That I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life," is not -- among other things -- the most effective way to win elections.
Meanwhile, yesterday (July 8) the Times' op ed columnist Bob Herbert, who does "get it," summed up much of what I -- among a great many others -- have been saying. Here are some excerpts to give you a flavor of what he wrote:
Back in January . . . there was a wide and growing belief — encouraged to the max by the candidate — that something new in American politics had arrived. . . .
Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician . . . could hold fast to every position . . .. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. . . .
This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer. . . .
Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies . . . but Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash. . . .
Separation of church and state? Forget about it.
And there he was . . . agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. . . .
“What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.
For one thing, he’s taking his base for granted . . .. A taste of the backlash this can produce erupted on the candidate’s own Web site.
Thousands of Obama supporters flooded the site with protests over his decision to support an electronic surveillance bill . . ..
[B]ehind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over . . . his support of . . . the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.
There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. . . .
Mr. Obama is betting that . . . the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters . . . will be there when he needs them.
He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.
Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual. . . .
Bob Herbert, "Lurching With Abandon," New York Times, July 8, 2008.
To grasp -- or remind ourselves -- of the great heights from which his youthful followers have been dropped without parachutes, read Kathleen Parker's column from February 22. It provides some understanding of why many are moving so fast, and so far, with such bitterness, from his campaign -- based on their perceived discovery that what they thought was going to be a "new politics" has turned out to be -- as their more cynical friends warned them earlier -- the "old politics" after all. Here are some excerpts:
Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. . . .
His rhetoric . . . drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. "We are the ones we've been waiting for," he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.
Actually, they were hysterical . . ..
To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans. . . .
Grown-ups . . . have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.
One of Obama's TV ads, set to rock 'n' roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: "We Can Change The World" and "We Can Save The Planet."
Those are . . . campaign promises . . . no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope -- and hope, he'll tell you, knows no limits. . . .
But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent -- hence thousands of years of religion -- but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.
Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, . . . apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.
Kathleen Parker, "The Ecstacy of Barack," Townhall.com, February 22, 2008.
I wouldn't want to leave the impression that all of Obama's young supporters are abandoning ship; nor even that all contributing to the "Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity" blog on Obama's Web site are doing so -- although clearly the overwhelming majority of the 20,000-plus contributors are disappointed with his new-found position on FISA/immunity. After all, as the name of the blog suggests, that was why it was created.
An example from this morning, almost selected at random, illustrates some of the more analytical (as distinguished from emotional) comments in that blog. Here are some excerpts:
Compromise - but not your principles.
By Another from Englewood, CO - Jul 9th, 2008 at 8:05 am EDT
It is unreasonable to expect supporters to understand Senator Obama's new position on giving immunity to telecoms. It is simply not what was advertised. . . .
The biggest disappointment about Senator Obama agreeing to immunity is because it stands for everything he has said he is against. People understand that compromise is needed in government and expect the Senator to seek opportunities to find it - but not at the cost of his principles.
The compromise citizens want is that of finding the middle between two extremes. And while almost everyone agrees that granting retroactive immunity is an extreme, no one sees the two extremes that would make immunity the "middle" or "center". And without that contrasting extremes, how can one honestly call it a compromise. . . .
Many Democrats had hoped that Senator Obama represented a CHANGE from weak leaders that readily accept what amount to Republican threats. . . .
Republicans have threatened that they will not pass a bill unless it includes immunity, so now Senator Obama feels he must . . . accept what he can get. Why is he not instead rallying Democrats to defeat any bill that provides immunity to those telecoms that ignored the law? . . .
And underlying it all is the question of why is it important to Senator Obama to make such a stance? This, in itself is extremely disappointing, as it smells of pandering to the very concepts held by those for which Senator Obama has been selected to defeat. It casts a strong doubt on the understanding that many people had of who he is. It makes it appear that he has abandoned his principles for the political maneuverings of the day - which is exactly the type of leadership he presented himself as a CHANGE from.
There is an honest difference of opinion here among politically sophisticated Democrats and Obama supporters.
(1) On the one hand are those who, with Vince Lombardi, say "winning is the only thing." They are willing to do whatever it takes (though most would like to avoid violating any laws) to save us all from what one member of this group described as "those evil Republicans." Even among this group, there are two views:
(a) That the best way for Democrats to win presidential general elections is to move as far to the right as possible that will still pass the laugh test, thereby making it somewhere between more difficult and impossible for conservative Republicans to charge that our candidate is "too liberal" or "out of the mainstream."
(b) That we've tried this approach and found it wanting -- most recently in 2000 and 2004. Moreover, polls show that voters want a "strong" president, and recent research shows that the most effective way to project "strength" is to project a willingness to stick with one's views regardless of how unpopular. (For example, among even those who oppose the war in Iraq, and the "surge," are some who express some admiration for Senator McCain's willingness to stick with his support of the surge -- in spite of its widespread unpopularity, and the fact that they would never consider voting for him.) Therefore, this group would urge that Senator Obama not change positions, especially not in the wholesale manner that he has this past three weeks or so.
(2) On the other hand, there are Obama supporters who believe that it is the responsibility of the voters -- especially those who are Democrats supporting him -- to participate as active citizens as much, and perhaps more, during the campaign as when he is, hopefully, in the White House. They believe themselves to be the realists, aware that the positions taken by a president, indeed any elected official, are in large measure subject to the pressures of their constituents. As has been said, "When the people will lead, their leaders will follow." When those who put "people over profits" remove themselves from the public dialogue (because "winning is the only thing" and conservative platform planks are most likely to win) they have only themselves to blame when the president they succeed in electing is found to be granting immunity to telecom companies and otherwise doing the bidding of the largest corporations and their lobbyists, using the power of the presidency to perpetuate the very "old politics" from which we believed Obama would deliver us.
This is a debate worth having, and on the resolution of which will clearly turn America's next four years -- not only because of the outcome of the election in November, but because of the actions of the government that will follow during that president's administration.
# # #
July 7, 2008, 4:00 p.m., updated 8:20 p.m.
I put this comment into my blog and the FISA group blog on the Senator Obama Web site a few minutes ago and already have a couple of responses -- as a result of which I decided it should be posted here as well. Needless to say, I would also welcome any comments you'd be willing to register on this blog (which I could then copy over to the Obama blog area as well).
Request for Response: Your Reaction to "Move to Center"
By NickIowa - Jul 7th, 2008 at 4:25 pm EDT
I am a supporter of Senator Obama who would welcome help/comment from any members of this group willing to provide it for an informal study I am doing of the Obama campaign strategy.
Much of the excitement surrounding the Obama campaign has involved those of you who are relatively younger, first time voters, and students. Not all, but many, came to the campaign with a sense of hope and idealism, having been sort of disgusted with what they perceived as the mess the older generation had made of government and politics "inside the beltway." Many believed that in Senator Obama, at last, was someone who seemed to be the genuine article, willing to change all of that -- in terms of campaign finance (1.6 million contributors), involvement of (and communication with) constituents (these blogs), political process ("reaching across the aisle"), foreign relations (talking to our enemies), and domestic programs (a rational/educated approach to creating a progressive agenda) -- and with the intelligence, energy and moral conviction to get it done.
Since the primary, during the past few weeks, our candidate and his campaign have made moves to the middle/right on an array of subjects -- whether they were in fact changes in his positions that was the perception of many supporters: public financing of campaigns (and bundling), NAFTA, FISA and telephone company immunity, $30,000-a-plate dinners, the Iraq War, regulation of handguns, the death penalty, Israel, government funding of "faith-based" programs, tax breaks for corporations, and so forth.
Which of the following comes closest to what has been your reaction to these shifts in positions -- if such they be?
1. Do they bring him closer to what your positions were all along, reassuring you that he is not so progressive/radical as you once feared?
2. Do you not have any view on any of these subjects anyway, and thus you have been unaffected in your enthusiasm one way or the other?
3. Do you have positions, but they're not strongly held, and you do not really care about his positions; you just like him and really want him to win, regardless of what he thinks he has to say and do to get elected, and trust that he will be a good president if he does?
4. Are you slightly upset with what you perceive to be your having supported someone during the primary who has now turned out to be something different from what you first thought -- but you know that all candidates shift from primaries to general elections (liberals to the right; conservatives to the left) and you just accept it?
5. Are you very upset and feel some sense of betrayal and having been manipulated -- but you have nowhere else to turn, since you don't want to vote for Senator McCain or some third party candidate?
6. Are you so upset that, while you've continued your membership on the Web site, and will vote for Senator Obama in November, you are not going to give any more money to the campaign, or otherwise contribute your time and effort?
7. Or have you actually decided that if the election were held now that you would do one of the following: stay home and not vote, or vote for Senator McCain or a third party candidate or some name you'd write in?
I'm concerned that the campaign's shifts in strategy may have been a little too much, too fast -- losing more present and potential future voters than they gain. On the other hand, many of the older voters I've surveyed don't seem to be (for the most part) all that concerned.
What I'm interested in finding out is to what extent there may be differences in the reactions of the younger supporters. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank you.
# # #
Reply [on the Obama blog]
By Dan 11 minutes ago
1. on a couple of the issues, his "new" positions are more in line with my own (particularly the second amendment), but those that fit this description are also not really new. on most of the issues, i don't really care... they aren't critical issues for me. obviously, the one that is a problem for me is FISA.
2. particularly the faith based stuff... i understand the problem people have with it, but it just doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. not because of the merits of the position, but the likelihood that he would put much priority to it.
3. no, but i'm mostly drawn to his decision making process, which includes considering alternative viewpoints. in that sense, his ultimate decisions on most issues are not as critical to me as the process by which he arrived at those decisions.
4. i'm mostly upset that he's voting on the FISA bill, not because it's conservative (it isn't), but because it is a no-win for him politically and a no-win for the american people legally. i feel his decision making process in this issue must not have been very thorough, because anything beyond a purely cursory review of the bill would lead any sensible lawmaker, especially a democratic one, to vote against it.
5. i don't think i've been manipulated, but i also don't think i have no where else to turn if i did.
6. i'm not giving him any more money until i feel he's back on track with his vision for america. i don't know when that will be, but it certainly isn't right now.
7. i will vote for the candidate i feel will best do the job, and that would always be my answer to this question. it's not my job to promise my vote to obama, it's obama's job to convince me he's best for the job.
Reply
By Wayne from Ridgewood, NY 5 minutes ago
"AT&T Whistleblower: “Congress is intervening ... to ... protect the President ... It was all a secret deal, a conspiracy against the American people” "
I am sick to my stomach over this!
A few minutes later there were a couple more:
By janinct Jul 7th 2008 at 5:00 pm EDT
I agree with Arianna Huffington that this is a tactic that can cost Obama the election. I am an older, white, female progressive and I have felt enthusiastic about his campaign, something I have not experienced before. Bush has left this country with overwhelming problems, we need a president who will tackle these problems with intelligent, forthright solutions. These solutions will not come from wishy washy, middle of the road thinking. We need leadership, not triangulation.
By William from Louisville, KY Jul 7th 2008 at 4:55 pm EDT
My interest in Obama is based on the fact that he seemed to be someone who would NOT compromise his integrity. Some disagreement I can handle, but if he decides whether or not to vote for an unconstitutional FISA bill based on what he thinks it will take to get elected I can always return to Nader.
There were subsequent comments that, while not entered as comments in my blog entry, nonetheless appeared either responsive or on the same subject. Here are some examples (sometimes excerpted, but without altering the general point):
Obama Must Stand Against Telecom Immunity
By Brian Carver - Jul 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm EDT
My wife and I have donated to this campaign multiple times but will no longer do so if Obama does not do everything in his power to remove telecom immunity from the FISA bill. I have joined this site solely to raise this issue. It is a critical constitutional matter.
No to telco immunity
By Todd Grigsby, CA - Jul 7th, 2008 at 4:55 pm EDT
I urge everyone to make the message clear to Mr. Obama, that any form of telecommunications immunity is not acceptable. I want to see Mr. Obama respond to that message by voting against the FISA reform bill in its current form. I want him to stand by his "message of change" and stand up to Bush's "energetic executive" program. I want my rights back, and I want their violation punished, and I don't think that's too much to ask from someone who expects to be the leader of this nation.
I like the Constitution!!
By Michael - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm EDT
Preface: I support Obama for President.
Massive epic failure on the part of Obama on FISA, Faith Based Initiatives and Troop pull out.
Senator Please...
1. Keep your promises
2. Don't move to the "center" it is certain political death
3. Quit giving the enemy (the mainstream media) spin fuel. Flipping makes you look weak and malleable, opportunistic and fickle.
4. Pick a progressive VP, because you aren't looking that progressive anymore.
Supporters Please...
1. Bombard Obama with calls, emails and posts about FISA.
2. Knock off the glazed eyed cheerleader infatuation. He needs to be held accountable.
3. Don't think that FISA is distracting or not that important. It is fundamental, the very essence of his campaign.
4. Bombard YOUR Senators about FISA. My Senator McCaskill is turning into a Bush dog, and the other one named Bond, Kit Bond thinks waterboarding is like swimming lessons.
5. Boycott the mainstream media...it is the sickness which eats the body politic.
Thank you
mlk
The time is NOW... they vote tomorrow!!!
By Michael - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm EDT
Preface: I support Obama for President, but support is not submission! Obama has been blessed with the FISA issue, not often does a candidate get an issue that will PROVE to all whose side he is on. But then he drops the ball!!!!
Is the Senator's stance on FISA hurting us?
YES!!!
1. It makes him look like a typical politician, this what we expect form an insider, a Pelosi, a Reid, all talk and no action!!!
2. The Evil so called Conservatives are spinning this into Obama being a Kerry like flip flopper and that we got played. Progressives bought in to the hype and now he is turning his back. They spin and the mainstream media eats it up.
3. The skate to the "center" is a sure sign of failure on many levels. Gore, Kerry, Clinton and others have given their goodbye speeches all because of the move to the so called center.
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY, it goes against the spirit, the essence of the Obama campaign. It goes against the hopes and dreams of all of us.
It is the foundation of our support for Obama.
Now I know what you will say...
1. Look at the big picture...there is no bigger picture
2. McCain is worse...McCain is not the yardstick I want to judge Obama by. I'll use Feingold, Kucinich and Dodd for the parameters Obama needs to meet.
3. YES WE CAN!!! Yes we can what, roll over? Pretend this isn't important? Not pressure him to do what is right?
4. This isn't that important...really, if you feel that way, quit pretending to be conscious and go watch TV.
5. We lose the battle but win the war...I say he can gain MORE political capital by doing what is right.
If you REALLY support Obama (not just a glazed eyed cheerleader suckered in by charisma and false hope) then you will SAVE his candidacy and possibly the future of this country by DEMANDING he vote against FISA, not just vote against it, lead the fight against it.
Thank you!
In mourning
By Carol - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm EDT
I joined Community Blogs because I need to give shape to the primal scream that wants to escape from my lungs. I was so inspired by Barack Obama. I believed we had at long last found an enlightened leader who would return this country to the ideals it was founded on, bring hope and unity back into government. I thought that the people would have voice and that even the non-elite of us would thrive again. Since the day he became the presumptive nominee for our party, however, I have been disappointed and then alarmed by him. Choosing a WalMart executive as economic advisor, his biased AIPAC speech, his promise of tax cuts for the middle class at a time when even those of us in the middle class understand we can't afford them if we're to get this country back on sound economic footing. And finally the FISA vote. I feel as if I have been duped yet again, that I voted for someone who would lead from his heart and conscience only to find that I have voted for someone who will once again sell us out. I feel betrayed. I have not put my Obama lawn sign out and don't know that I will. Of course I will vote for him; I have no choice. But I am very much afraid that we will only end up with another politician who will sell out to corporate interests, who will continue the Bush/Cheney fear mongering. I've lost the hope he inspired. I am in mourning.
Huffpo blog today: Obama's empty response to our group
By no right turn - Jul 7th, 2008 at 5:33 pm EDT
Last week, on these pages, Senator Barack Obama responded to critics of his position on telecom immunity. I found the occasion to be a strange one - there was something very exciting and vital about seeing Obama engage with his constituents in the way that he did. As an evangelist for the virtues of blogging in general, it was thrilling. But as a citizen, engaged in the issues, I found the substance of the exchange to be wanting. . . .
We've all heard variations on that worrisome theme of the Move To The Center. Speaking only for myself, I'll say that there's nothing inherently wrong with having a centrist position. If you boldly stake out a position in the center, it sends a message of principle to voters. But when I hear critics speak of the "shift to the center," I know that they're not talking about making a bold stand - they're talking about making no stand at all. They're talking about navigating to a place where one's position becomes so indiscernible, so wishy-washy, so undefined, as to make it seem like you are taking all positions at once. Obama's response - which includes a vague promise to join the effort to strip immunity from the bill, even while signaling that its preferable to a worse bill - seems designed to be as innocuous as possible.
This perplexes me greatly, because I simply am unable to see how taking a bold stand against telecom immunity could possibly hobble his presidential aspirations. It is precisely this sort of lawlessness, precisely these sorts of policies, that have driven up public discontent with the Bush administration. . . .
Obama's insulting dishonest reply to our group
By no right turn - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm EDT
Maybe he thinks we are like the bumpkins he has met on the campaign trail. I have found that within the net roots are some very politically savvy people who get it much better than the politicians who represent them. . . .
If you want to get to the truth, you have to be willing to lose everything for it. I do not see Obama doing this, not on the FISA issue, not on torture, not on the crimes of the current administration. We have put our faith in a man who by his own words is not perfect. At this point, with all his gifts, he now appears ordinary and common. His first test of mettle is a failure. . . .
Advice for Obama and Supporters
By Michael - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:25 pm EDT
To Obama and his supporters!! I support Obama for president, but I will not allow him to vote the wrong way on FISA!!! If your a glazed eyed cheerleader infatuated with Obama but have no real education on policy or how elections are won, read this and more.
Obama does not have this election tied up yet. And if we don't check his swerve to the so called center he could lose big!! . . .
Mr. Obama, PLEASE join us!!!
By Robert - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pm EDT
Well, we are coming down to the wire on this FISA thing. Tomorrow is YOUR big day, (as far as over 20,000 of us feel). It is amazing to watch this group grow day by day, (over 1,000 members just since yesterday evening). Your "pro-FISA" group has 10 members. I bring up these numbers for a reason; they show, we are your staunchest supporters. They also show that the Constitution is much more important to most of us, than even a charismatic good man as yourself. Otherwise, the "pro-FISA" group would be growing by leaps and bounds, to show their support for you, but they are not, and we are. Just to be members of "my.barackobama.com" means that we are probably your strongest base of "get-out-the-vote" voters. We are your foot-soldiers going from door-to-door, manning phone-banks, writing letters to the editor, rallys, etc.
I fear that a "yes" vote on FISA, or Anything short of leading the fight against FISA, will deflate a Lot of the enthusiasm and effort we have brought to your campaign, because we believed in you. In fact, i bet, if you vote "yes", you'll notice it sooner than you think, in terms of All those small donations that have fattened your campaign chest so far. . . .
Telco immunity? Ask whistleblower Mark Klein
By Bluejane - Jul 7th, 2008 at 7:41 pm EDT
Senator Obama, Since you seem to be fact-challenged about the FISA bill, for example claiming the FISA amendments provide adequate oversight measures when in fact they do not, on the issue of telco immunity you might want to read an in-depth interview conducted today with Mark Klein, a long-time AT&T employee and communications specialist who was a witness to massive NSA wiretapping via AT&T through a secret room in San Francisco. Mr. Klein is a chief witness in a lawsuit being brought against AT&T for illegal warrantless surveillance; the suit will be stopped dead in its tracks by the new FISA bill which you support, so that the American people will never know the extent of the wiretapping or the facts of what happened and justice will never be served for breaking the law at the highest levels of government, rendering the rule of law meaningless. . . .
Senator Obama, you are supporting retroactive legislative obstruction of justice. Here's a brief excerpt followed by a link to the extensive interview transcript:
>>Mark Klein: "In 2003 I was assigned to that office [in San Francisco], and I got hold of the documents which were available—they’re not classified—and the documents showed what they were doing. They were basically copying the entire data stream going across critical internet cables and copying the entire data stream to this secret room, so the NSA was getting everything." <<>
# # #
