(cross-posted on OpenLeft)

We're all tired of capitulation. We all think offshore drilling is pretty darn evil. But are we willing to give up a crack at something we need for the hubris of those reasons?

Let's talk about the New Energy Reform Act of 2008. If you haven't been paying attention, that's the name of the proposed energy bill sponsored by the "Group of 10" Senators in order to address all those concerns everyone has about energy. There are certainly a good bushel of bad apple policies in the bill, but some pretty awesome oranges in there too that might make the bill worthwhile. Let's take a look at both, plus some context, in the extended entry.

"I can't believe it's not Impeachment!"

(Yes I can... This is just an update and reminder that a dog and pony show is being substituted for actually doing the proper thing, so we'll have to make the best of it. Tomorrow.)

Consortium News

Rebuffing Dennis Kucinich’s calls for impeachment hearings on George W. Bush, the House Judiciary Committee instead will hear testimony about Bush’s "imperial presidency" and several of his administration’s scandals.

In a press release issued [last]Thursday, Rep. John Conyers, House Judiciary Committee chairman, said his panel will explore a variety of Bush controversies, including manipulation of prewar Iraq intelligence, politicization of the Justice Department, and refusal to cooperate with congressional investigations.

AP, WASHINGTON - Democratic Congressional leaders have responded to Bush administration advisor Karl Rove's refusal to obey a congressional subpoena by proposing legislation that would render him immune from prosecution for any crimes he may have committed or may commit in the future.

The bill, expected to land in committee next Monday, has been named the Duty and Honor Act.

"We are a nation of laws," said sponsor Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), "By exempting Mr. Rove from these laws, this legislation will ensure that no lawbreakers in this corrupt administration will go unpunished, as they will have committed no crimes."

Thank ya... Thank ya furry musch

The Senate gave President Bush what he wanted Wednesday, sending him a bill expanding his surveillance authority and granting legal amnesty to telecommunications companies that facilitated his warrantless surveillance program.

You're such good dogs.

Yes you are!

The Democratic House and Democratic Senate just said it is perfectly reasonable for the most unpopular president in the history of the United States to tell corporations to violate the Constitution on his order alone.  The Democratic House and Democratic Senate just caved in to Mr. 23% Approval Rating to create an ex post facto immunity for lawbreaking on his authority alone.

And the Democratic nominee for president thought that would be a nice power to have once he's in office.  The Democratic nominee for president just told us that should he feel it necessary, he can order the private sector to spy on us illegally without any repercussions or accountability.

All because of political convenience.  All because they feared the "Barack Obama voted to enrich trial lawyers and help Osama bin Laden" attack ad.  All because they were afraid the Republicans would call them names.

Here are some ways Obama could have won big, politically, on the warrantless wiretapping law.  (Which, for those who don't know, allows the NSA to spy on anyone, any time, with no real court oversight.  See http://www.aclu.org/... if you don't want to read the entire bill.)

(1) Explained, straight up, months ago, that he didn't give a damn about spying, didn't think the Fourth amendment applied to email or phone calls, and was OK with the executive branch spying on anyone any time, and that he would draw the line on something else (torture, habeas corpus, etc.).  That way he wouldn't have disappointed any of us later: we would have known what we were getting.  And he would have looked honest and principled, if not right.

More under the jump.

Done Deal

Short "diary" to note numbers and names.

It is sometimes said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

If that is the case, many of us here are clinically insane, and I am certifiably batshit.  I know this, because I just wiped the blood from my eyes and am preparing to charge headlong into the brick wall yet again.

"Bitter" North Carolina rednecks who are tired of corporate capitulation and politicians that bow to the mean voter "theory," the intelligent design to real electoral political theory.

How does Obama get off as being progressive while John Edwards and Jim Webb do not?  Like so many problems in this country, they are endemic to every part of this country.  All the while, Democrats from the South are conflated with "Southern Democrats," and the South remains the scapegoat caricature for racism, economic darwinism, and any other form of parochialism.  

I'm damn bitter that Democrats fell for the smoke and mirrors of the Obama campaign because of a speech in 2002.  When Jim Webb does the same thing, but capitulates on telcom immunity (which I'm none too thrilled over), "progressives" stick a fork in him.  Edwards runs the most progressive campaign in at least 28 years (and in all of my time), and explicitly admits his errors from 2002 (something Obama-bot Kerry still won't do), and we stuck a fork in him.

In his latest kos diary and "Special Comment," Keith Olbermann repeats the same inane and now quite stale refrain that we should all be comfortable with the FISA capitulation and stop complaining because Olbermann, in his infinite wisdom, has uncovered some little-known flaw in the bill. This fortuitous fuck-up saves everything, you see, and makes it OK for Obama to vote for it because -- get this, folks! -- the bill ONLY grants civil immunity! So yes, we're holding the guilty telecoms' bottom lines harmless and denying millions of Americans their day in court, but thanks to this "mistake" in the bill, Obama will prosecute these evil companies to the full extent of the law!

Ever since the House’s approval of the FISA capitulation and Obama’s subsequent embrace of it, those of us who care about the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment and accountability have been told by many on this site to essentially "sit down and shut up." Then we're told we also need to keep giving our money and time. That sounds too much like a mugging to me.

We are at a crossroads as a progressive movement, and what we do now will determine our relevancy for the foreseeable future. It may also determine our country’s future.

Last week, the majority of this community was on the verge of immolating itself on the altar of "party unity" and accepting the FISA capitulation without a fight. But Feingold's maneuverings on the Senate floor have given us a little over a week’s reprieve. A week’s time to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution are OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE to us and that eviscerating  is not just "one issue" that we can live with. It is THE ISSUE. And we need to tell Democrats everywhere, especially Obama, that it is a non-negotiable item. And this should be our SOLE FOCUS between now and the time the Senate reconvenes after the July Fourth holiday.

I'm a former shop owner.  Most of my customers were happy with me; with my wares, my easy-going attitude, and my service.  I am a pragmatist.  

So, please bear with me as we explore why I am now a former shop owner instead of a current shop owner.

Like many I was disappointed when I heard that Obama was supporting the House capitulation on FISA, giving telecoms immunity.  I was so angry I sent a missive to the Obama campaign vowing that I would no longer support them with money or by volunteering.

Today I heard something that opened my mind.  

I don't want to fawn over Feingold; he's just a pol, after all; but he's showing once again why he's the best Senator there is, with apologies to Sanders, Brown, Kennedy, and Reed.

It's a meme we've heard for so long...the weakness of our party on issues of defense. We're 'capitulators,' as our President would say. Weak-kneed. Soft Sallys. Roll over Beethoven. Go on, say it. You have some snarky two-word combo that perhaps rhymes to describe their behavior. Lofty softies? Elities with no wheaties? Pliable unreliables?

But....it's true.

We are weak on defense.

I'm live-blogging this evening from the prestigious Heritage Foundation Annual Democrat Capitulator Awards in Washington, DC.  Every year conservatives gather to heap praise upon those Democrats who are willing to compromise and work across the aisle with their fellow Republicans.  Of course, the dirty little secret that everyone in the room knows is that conservatives never given in, it's the Democrats always who cave in.

This evening they are honoring Steny Hoyer, the Democrat Majority Leader in the House and Jay Rockefeller, lead Democrat who pushed hardest for Bush and Cheney's FISA bill.  

So, "they" capitulated on FISA in order to grant telecom companies and corporations immunity from lawsuits for illegally using and providing private information of their consumers to security agencies at the behest of the U.S. government.

Here's a question that has been nagging at me all along with this desire on the part of telecom companies to be granted such immunity: was it really in order to avoid lawsuits?