Republicans have lots of "get out the vote" strategies - such as divisive ballot referenda. I hope they don't do this in Georgia, cause they don't need to do it here. But they will probably do it in other states, where it will help their presidential candidate. Anything that gets Republicans out to the polls will be useful as nobody cares about Obama.

On whether he'd back a bill, if one is submitted, that would ask voters to consider a constitutional amendment in support of "personhood," effectively criminalizing abortion: "It's too early to tell at this point, but traditionally I've always been very supportive of pro-life issues. Traditionally, I've always had a stance that allowing the people to vote on a constitutional amendment whether I'm for or against it makes good policy. [But] you obviously need to be very sensitive ... that it doesn't have unintended consequences."

Cagle sets priority list as session nears  | ajc.com

Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.

I don't think that any of the Republican candidates are compelling. Most are too radical and have shot themselves in the foot in one way or the other. And Romney - who finds Romney compelling? I don't even think he really thinks what he says he thinks. He is going to be the nominee because he will be the least of evils.

The wild card is - who finds Obama compelling? Certainly not liberals who are concerned about Wall Street or civil liberties. The partisan activists are going to have a hard time getting traction this year. They might have trouble getting out the vote.

I don't think the Republicans have a good chance of winning this but as they proved in the last election, an army of people who think Obama is a socialist can win elections against an army of people who don't care and aren't going to go to the polls.

The great question in this election will be - who cares?

Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

PayPal may also require you to destroy the item and to provide evidence of its destruction.

This policy is obviously firmly detached from sanity.

Paypal orders the destruction of antique violin

“There doesn’t seem to me to be any other way to do it, except to engage with the party that won the election,” the official said, adding, “They’ve been very specific about conveying a moderate message — on regional security and domestic issues, and economic issues, as well.”

“Obviously the proof will be in the pudding.”

The administration’s willingness to engage with the Brotherhood could open President Obama to new attacks by Republicans...

U.S. Reverses Policy in Reaching Out to Muslim Brotherhood - NYTimes.com

Religious freedom is the approach most likely to maintain high levels of religiosity in the Islamic world. Francis Fukuyama has commented that “countries without established churches . . . often experience a higher degree of genuine religious observance,” an observation that has been confirmed by numerous studies.17 Fukuyama notes that mandatory religious identity “often goes on to feel like an unwanted burden,” associated with all the grievances that people have against the government in general. By contrast, when people are given the freedom to worship as they choose, church attendance rises, as does the level of charitable donations to religious organizations.

This is an interesting perspective but I wonder if muslims find it persuasive.

The Advantage to Islam Of Mosque-State Separation | Hoover Institution

Hijexx wrote:

The 1st edition of The Rootkit Arsenal, published back in the summer of 2009, included a short epilogue that raised questions about the underlying integrity of the political system in the United States. It used the metaphor of a malware infestation to discuss aspects of popular participation and means of control. In preparing the forthcoming 2nd edition, this material has been extended and explores territory that has just barely received attention from the major news outlets. Though the publisher has opted not to include this content, it has been made available here.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. But its easy to state problems. Its harder to talk about solutions.

I think its interesting that the AARP appears on the list of the top ten lobbying spenders. They certainly aren't a corporate interest group.

The central premise of this essay is that in the 1970s the corporate interests decided that effective lobbying was more important than winning elections. Part of the problem here is that the people are split between partisan groups while those with real influence lobby both sides of the isle.

So instead of trying to take back the electoral system, why not just lobby more effectively? If you've the money, its easy to hire yourself up a thinktank and start talking to people in Washington.

Who should I be giving my money to?

Public interest groups tend to be focused on narrow issues, like abortion or civil liberties or the environment.

Who lobbies for my economic interests? Better labor contract laws? Better financial regulations? More investment in basic science R&D?

RE: The Rootkit Arsenal - Lost Chapter Now Available

2. Drink more Riesling. Riesling is one of the food-friendliest wines in the world, and every wine merchant and sommelier you encounter will think you're cool if you ask for it.

Jay McInerney's 10 Wine Resolutions - WSJ.com

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.

Barack Obama: The Democrats’ Richard Nixon?

I recent ranted about why I don't think civil libertarians should support Ron Paul's Candidacy. In the linked essay, Glen Greenwald calls people who've been writing things like the rant I wrote out on the floor, accusing us of being either simple minded or "lying partisan enforcers."

My problem with Paul, which I've expressed consistently for several election cycles, is that he does not support civil liberties, yet he is presented as someone who does, without qualification. I think that is dishonest - I think its a trap that is used to reel in money and support from libertarians with whom Paul does not actually share common cause. I care about this because I care about what it means to be libertarian, and I don't like to see civil liberties issues left in the dust. Greenwald misses this point in his essay, and calling people names is not a useful way of engaging a serious argument.

So why link Greenwald's essay at all? Because I think his point is nonetheless interesting:

Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

The exact same accusation that I make about Ron Paul - that he is being sold as a civil libertarian but he is not one - can be made about Barack Obama. The reason that I was excited about Obama's candidacy is that my primary problem with the Bush Administration was their deliberate disregard for legal structures in our society such as habeas, FISA, and international norms regarding warfare that have been created as a consequence of historical lessons as framework for statecraft that prevents totalitarianism. I thought a law professor who claimed to care about civil liberties could help construct a new framework in the wake of the destruction that the Bush administration left behind - a framework that balances liberty and security in the age of terrorism.

Obama has done no such thing. On civil liberties, Obama has been just like the Bush admin. In many ways, civil liberties might have been better off under the Bush admin because at least then the Democrat's partisan noise machine was drawing attention to every debate. The left is now silent on these issues, and when the Republicans try to raise them they lack credibility given their cheerleading for Bush. In the future, the failure of the left to raise the profile of these issues right now will harm their credibility if they try to raise them during a future Republican admin. Its basically check mate for civil liberties as a political issue in the United States.

The differences between Obama and the Republicans are real... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

Greenwald calls people out for defending Ellsberg and condemning Manning. Its an interesting read. Its important to recall that no one ever said Ellsberg wasn't guilty. Ellsberg got off on a mistrial. I think this is the key observation:

As Ellsberg himself makes clear, everything that is being said now to condemn Manning — everything – was widely said about Ellsberg at the time of his leak. Back then, Ellsberg was repeatedly accused of being a traitor, of violating his oath, of endangering America’s national security, of aiding its enemies, of taking the law into his own hands; he was smeared and had his sanity continuously called into question. Had it not been for the Nixon administration’s overzealous attempts to destroy him by breaking into the office of his psychiatrist — the primary act that caused the charges against Ellsberg to be dismissed on the grounds of government misconduct — there is a real possibility that Ellsberg would still be in a federal prison today. He’s viewed as a hero now only because the passage of time has proven the nobility of his act: it’s much easier to defend those who challenge and subvert political power retrospectively than it is to do so at the time.

The intellectual cowardice of Bradley Manning’s critics - Salon.com