The President
The White House
July 11, 2008*:

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. The Act authorizes critical intelligence gathering activities designed to defend the United States and its interests at home and abroad and provides much-needed flexibility to manage effectively the personnel and taxpayer resources devoted to the national defense.

Section 301(b) of the Act purports to place require the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Department of Defense, and any other element of the intelligence community that participated in the President's Surveillance Program, to complete a comprehensive review of all of the facts necessary to describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use of the product of the Program; access to legal reviews of the Program and access to information about the Program; communications with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the private sector related to the Program; interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and transition to court orders related to the Program; and any other matters identified by any such Inspector General that would enable that Inspector General to complete a review of the Program, with respect to such Department or element.

The executive branch shall construe the requirements on the Inspectors General in section 301(b) as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

What then?

*What you're looking at is an adaptation of one of Bush's oft-used signing statements. Since the "administration" claims that the AUMF and the president's "inherent powers" under the Constitution authorize his domestic spying as a "military" operation, a signing statement simply rejecting the obligation of the Inspectors General (a part of the "unitary executive") to produce these reports would be entirely consistent with everything the White House has argued to date, on this and other related subjects.

So, shorter version without legalese: The people supporting this FISA bill say it has accountability built right into it, because it requires the Inspectors General to conduct inquiries and produce reports on what happened.

What if Bush says, "Yeah, but I'm not going to do it"?

The Democratic establishment is out in full force now, providing justification for the crappy FISA Amendments Act that's about to become law. While they haven't learned how to fight like Republicans (who have redefined "compromise" to mean "capitulation") they've learned how to lie like them.

Case in point, Nancy Soderburg, who was Clinton's deputy national security advisor and an ambassador to the UN. She pens a truly deplorable op-ed in today's LA Times, in which she tries to rewrite not only the history of the Bush administration's lawlessness, but also this law.

I can't write a better take down of this nonsense than Glenn, so be sure to read his whole piece. But here's this part that's particularly salient:

It's notable because the political establishment is not only about to pass a patently corrupt bill, but worse, are spouting -- on a very bipartisan basis -- completely deceitful claims to obscure what they're really doing. This is what Soderberg says is what happened:

The Senate is dragging its feet because the compromise bill's opponents -- mostly Democrats -- want also to punish the telecommunications companies that answered President Bush's order for help with his illegal, warrantless wiretapping program. That is the wrong target.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks. In its review of the effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance "had been authorized by the president" and that the "activities had been determined to be lawful."

We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal.

That just isn't how our country works and it never was. We don't have a King who can order people to break the law. I have no doubt that people like Nancy Soderberg are spending the July 4 weekend paying shallow homage to the Founding, all the while being completely ignorant of or indifferent to the principles they pretend to celebrate.

This line of thinking is not only patently false, it's absolutely dangerous. Political expediency has been put ahead of principle, which happens all the time in politics. Politicians are always going to be politicians and they are always going to be basing their actions on the next election.

In this case, it wasn't even smart strategy. There are basically three groups who care about this legislation--us, The Villagers, and the Bush/Cheney cabal. Voters aren't clamoring for the Democrats to cave--Bill Foster's win proves that. So in a valiant effort to appease The Villagers, they piss off the activist base. As usual.

But this time is different. This time it's the Constitution we're talking about, the core principles of our founding--separation of powers, rule of law, all those "quaint" phrases that have kept this country going for 218 years.

Now the phrase we get is "it's good enough." Literally, Nancy Soderburg says this bill is "good enough." Sorry, but some of us have slightly higher standards. One of the reasons the Republican establishment is about to be thrown out by the American people is because we're sick of being lied to. Dems should take that as a cautionary tale, and realize that we're just not that stupid.

That goes for our soon to be President, as well. We have a much better chance of continuing this battle, repealing this legislation, and having the information related to this program declassified with a President Obama than we do a President McCain, and I relish the opportunity to do just that.

That's why I'm supporting Obama fully in this election. He's got my vote. But truthy talking points are not going to fool us--we will not sit by while Dem leaders lie to us about what this bill does and and watch them confer the king-like powers on the office we hope he takes.

Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....

• georgia10 will explore the new face of activism and what it looks like for the millennial generation.
• DemFromCT will review recent polling on health care as it relates to the 2008 campaign, and the chances for health reform after the election.
• DevilsTower will take a look back at Freedomnomics, sockpuppetry and misleading economics.
• Think the Cold War ended? Think again. Plutonium Page will take us on a tour of one of the most contaminated nuclear sites on Earth... right here in the United States.
• DarkSyde will give a lyrical salute to one of the most beautiful places on earth.

Due to the holiday yesterday (and the resultant slow news day), we did not do a roundup on Friday, instead saving the news for today. House and Senate Roundup will be returning to its regularly scheduled...uh, schedule, on Monday - brownsox

Senate Races

MS-Sen: MSNBC reports on the Mississippi race between Republican Senator Roger Wicker and former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove, noting that it will be the first competitive Senate race in the state for decades.

But the fact that a Democrat is able to seriously challenge a Magnolia state Republican in a GOP stronghold for a seat in the Senate is almost heresy in Mississippi, which hasn't had a close Senate race in two decades. It could bode ill for Republicans all around the South and maybe the nation.

"We're concerned in the South. We've lost some Republican seats and that can't help but worry all of us who are interested in keeping good Republicans in office," said Lucedale Mayor and town doctor Dayton Whites, who perched Wicker atop a fire engine in front of Town Hall for a campaign appearance.

Wicker is fairly well-liked in the areas where he is known, though as a recently appointed Senator, he still has somewhat less name recognition than Musgrove does, leading to humorous anecdotes like this one:

After finishing a 13-mile bike ride through the Civil War battlefield where Union forces laid siege to Vicksburg, 70-year-old Alan Lessem continually calls Wicker "Sen. Licker" before being corrected by a reporter.

I'll be very interested to see how Musgrove's fundraising went in the second quarter.

TX-Sen: Rick Noriega raised $930,000 in Q2. The good news is that this is Noriega's best haul yet. Nearly half of that -  $454,000 - came via ActBlue, a testament to the netroots' commitment to this race and the Texas blogosphere's effectiveness.

The bad news is, well, the same thing. Texas is the most expensive state this cycle in which to advertise, and Noriega's total haul is a patch on Cornyn's take (Big Bad John, sad to say, is a top-notch fundraiser).

We don't know what Cornyn raised last quarter, but he was sitting on $8.7 million previously to Noriega's $328K on hand. Adding %930,000 to that five months before the election is a disappointing take, I'm afraid.

NC-Sen: Elizabeth Dole wants to drill for oil off the coast of North Carolina.

But she also wants to protect North Carolina's coral reefs from the kind of damage that could ensue from drilling for oil off the coast of North Carolina.

Color me confused.

Elizabeth Dole’s campaign this week touted the letter she sent to President Bush asking him to protect the deep sea coral wilderness off the coast of North Carolina, designating it as a marine monument. Dole wrote that the corals may contain "new biomedical breakthroughs" urging its protection because it "cannot be replaced once disturbed and damaged."

Last week, Elizabeth Dole’s campaign touted the bill she cosponsored which would allow drilling off the coast of states, including North Carolina, where part of the deep sea coral wilderness is located.

Today, the Charlotte Observer’s Bruce Henderson wrote that the corals off of North Carolina’s coast, "could potentially be damaged by offshore drilling and deep-sea trawling."

"You can’t have it both ways," said Hagan Campaign Communications Director Colleen Flanagan. "Elizabeth Dole wants President Bush to protect the same coral reefs she wants to drill into for more oil – that is completely hypocritical. Dole wants us to believe she’s in favor of protecting North Carolina’s coral reefs but what she’s really in favor of is protecting Big Oil and Gas’ bottom line. Offshore drilling continues to pad their profits while doing nothing to help middle class North Carolinians, and nothing to help us invest in renewable energy on the path to true energy independence."

House Races

AZ-08: Well, this is embarrassing for one of the GOP's top recruits, Arizona Senate President Tim Bee.

The district's former Rep, moderate Republican Jim Kolbe, has pulled his support for Bee's campaign, as Bee seeks to unseat freshman Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.

"I will not be actively campaigning for Bee," the former Republican congressman said during a telephone interview with the Herald/Review on Thursday. Kolbe, whose district included Cochise County and whose seat in Congress is now held by Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, hosted a fundraiser recently for fellow Republican Bee at his Washington, D.C., home.

Kolbe's spokesman cited "personal reasons" for Kolbe's decision. He declined to elaborate, but the Sierra Daily Herald speculates that it may have something to do with Bee's support of a constitutional marriage amendment in Arizona (Kolbe is openly gay).

When asked if Bee’s vote in support of putting a potential gay marriage ban in Arizona on the ballot had anything to do with the issue, Dunn also refused to cite what Kolbe’s personal reasons were.

Kolbe has been openly gay since the early 1990s.

Last Friday, the Arizona Senate placed a constitutional marriage amendment on the November ballot.

Whatever the reason for Kolbe's decision, it certainly doesn't make Bee look like a moderate in Kolbe's mold, an image he needs to cultivate to unseat Giffords this year.

VA-01: We weren't running very hard here anyway, but still, this is disappointing; the lone Democrat in the race to face freshman Republican Rob Wittman has suspended his campaign.

Dr. Keith Hummel, a Democrat from Montross, has suspended his campaign for the 1st District congressional seat, leaving the Democratic Party potentially without a candidate to run against first-year Republican Rep. Robert J. Wittman.

Hummel said discussions about past financial difficulties have become a "distraction from the real issues at stake in this election." Those difficulties include a bankruptcy, campaign manager Stephen Pierce said.

Hummel, an emergency room doctor, said he had made no secret of his financial problems.

"I have always said that I am an imperfect candidate," Hummel said. "Unfortunately, our elections today revolve around narrow and simplistic assessments of viability."

Well, I do think that it's rather critical to be a decent fundraiser in a district which gave Bush 60% of the vote, and where the last Democratic candidate (Phil Forgit) actually underperformed Kerry in his December special-election bid. So perhaps Hummel was not the ideal candidate, anyway.

The First District Democratic Party will be able to pick a successor, if they want to, should Hummel officially drop out.

FL-21, FL-25: The Florida Democratic Party has sent out a press release noting that Miami-area foreclosures have more than doubled in the second quarter of 2008, in the face of action by the Diaz-Balart brothers. The New York Times reported on the Miami housing crisis in March:

But as Congress returns from a two-week recess on Monday for a furious debate over whether to help homeowners on the brink of default, Mr. Diaz-Balart is caught in a crunch of his own.

On one side, Democrats emboldened by the Federal Reserve’s intervention in the collapse of Bear Stearns are demanding help for "everyday Americans." On the other, Republicans including Senator John McCain, the party’s presumptive nominee, are urging restraint, reluctant to commit taxpayer funds to what they say is simply a bailout for greedy lenders and reckless buyers.

On the ground, Miami residents appear to be angry:

For constituents like Mr. Carpio, that is not enough. "I’m very lukewarm about him nowadays," said Mr. Carpio, who like his congressman is a lifelong Republican of Cuban heritage.

Others were less subtle. "He says a lot of about foreign policy, mainly toward Cuba, which makes no difference here," said David Carbonell, a former computer programmer and gas station manager now on disability with a heart ailment. "You have people living here at the edge of poverty and he has done nothing to bring anything back to Hialeah or Miami Lakes. He is a party hack. He will vote the way his party votes."

Ouch. I can't imagine that after the apparent second-quarter fiasco, things are any better for the Diaz-Balarts at home.

Rep. Mark Udall, running for Senate in Colorado, is among the House Dems who recently voted for the FISA bill.

That by itself isn't particularly remarkable. It's symptomatic of running for higher office, just as the votes of Bob Menendez and Sherrod Brown for the heinous Military Commissions Act was. They both voted for it, and almost immediately after winning announced how deeply they regretted it and that they'd be working to repeal it as soon as possible.

The MCA, of course, remains on the books. Its repeal never stood a chance so long as George W. Bush held his veto crayon. And both Brown and Menendez knew that when they said it.

But that's (political) life. It is what it is, and we say so out loud even though it's one of those dirty-but-open little secrets that Serious People^TM don't talk about. Actually, that's probably why we say so out loud.

So now Mark Udall finds himself in the same position. And just as Brown and Menendez bet it all on their promises to repeal, Udall now bets it all on committing the next administration -- yet to be elected, by the way -- to extensive criminal investigations penetrating into the very heart of years and years of executive operations.

Well, he's not really betting it all on it. There are literally hundreds of other critical issues and as many equally critical reasons why you absolutely must vote for him if you're a Colorado voter, despite anything that could possibly be said about FISA. And he's just one of dozens of Democrats running for higher office or for reelection to their current offices in November about whom I'd say the exact same thing. But FISA and the core issues underlying it are getting the same exact same glossing over from those other candidates as we're about to read from Udall. And all of the people saying it are actually rather hoping you won't notice if they eventually pick up their chips and drop the wager entirely.

So this is not important because Mark Udall said it. Mark Udall is just the vector we have under the microscope at the moment, and just as with Menendez and Brown, we are better off by far agreeing to live with the dirty little secret and electing him. What's important is that this letter or one like it is going out to millions of concerned constituents, in hundreds of districts around the country. You may be expecting one, yourself. I think you deserve a fuller discussion of the answers you're being offered. Then I think you should go out and vote for Udall and/or your local Democrat, anyway.

But here, via email to a constituent that was shared with us, is just one example of what we get when we're silly enough to actually ask why they voted for this thing:

This bill is designed to update FISA while putting an end to abusive domestic spying, and I voted for it in order to prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch. The bill is explicit that complying with FISA is the only way for the government to conduct surveillance. At the same time, it updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities. I fully understand why there is confusion and even anger that the legislation does not do more to require some telecommunications companies to respond to lawsuits for alleged privacy abuses in their actions to implement the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance after 9-11. But it does require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress. This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This particular line of response is now in wide circulation, doubtless disseminated by the House Democratic Caucus to help Members deal with constituent inquiries. And it does its job well. It sounds like a nuanced and intelligent response, and in most cases is likely enough to shoo away follow-ups and lingering doubts. But it's got serious holes in it -- serious enough to render the whole thing worthless, actually -- and they deserve examination.

Regarding the claim that this bill can "prevent a future program of warrantless surveillance by the executive branch," I say you're living in a dream world:

The "administration's" lawyers -- people like John Yoo -- advised Bush that the president had the "inherent power" to ignore the FISA provisions in the name of "national security."  So he did it. Despite the existence of the exclusivity provisions.

In fact, Yoo's memo insisted that FISA's exclusivity provisions meant exactly the opposite of what they do mean:

Unless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area -- which it has not -- then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading.

Just days ago, of course, the federal court in the Al-Haramain case said Yoo did indeed have it exactly backwards:

Congress squarely challenged and explicitly sought to prohibit warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch by means of FISA, as FISA's legislative history amply documented.

Congress appears clearly to have intended to -- and did -- establish as the exclusive means for foreign intelligence surveillance activities to be conducted.

Now, we've got a new exclusivity provision that also purports to prevent the president from simply ignoring the law, and it's being presented as something new and improved, and good enough by itself to justify a vote for the bill.

But the truth of the matter, as the court's decision makes clearer than ever, is exactly as Glenn Greenwald puts it:

They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.

There really is no way to write a law such that it prevents someone from ignoring it, of course. If you ignore the law, you ignore the provisions preventing you from ignoring it. That, it turns out, is actually what "ignoring" means.

Regarding the claim that the bill "updates FISA, which was originally passed in 1978, to give us important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities," it's arguably true that the bill does "update" FISA, but it is decidedly misleading to follow that up by simply stating that FISA was originally passed in 1978. If "updating" is the issue, Udall might have taken care to mention that FISA has actually been updated dozens of times over the years, and several times just since 9/11.

It might also have been helpful to explain that while some of the updates were arguably necessary (debatable, but arguable), retroactive immunity for the telecom companies is neither an update to FISA, nor a necessity. Udall might have taken the opportunity to explain that George W. Bush would not accept the updates that were arguably necessary and proper unless he also won his point on immunity, and that he had in fact threatened to veto these "important capabilities to discover and stop terrorist activities" if he didn't get his way.

Some actual grown-ups among his constituents might like to know that.

Regarding the claim that the bill will "require a comprehensive review of that surveillance program by the Inspectors General of the Justice Department, the Directorate of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Department, including a report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of Congress," I offer this observation shared with me via email, by emptywheel:

The IG report, by law, cannot name a private citizen or entity that participated in the warrantless wiretap program. In other words, while a lot of people are pointing to the IG investigation as a great invention of transparency (though, without the Bingaman amendment [about which, see here], we have no way to force the Administration to carry out the investigation in good faith), but the IG investigation by design will continue to shield the telecoms that broke the law in assisting the Administration.

Sounds pretty "comprehensive," eh? Can't name names. That, I think, is going to be rather important when it comes to Udall's last and most ridiculous claim, that:

This will mean that past abuses by the Bush Administration will not go uninvestigated. Also, the bill does not provide absolute or criminal immunity for these companies, and no government official will receive civil or criminal immunity for past abuses.

This last claim has already been addressed thoroughly by bmaz, writing on emptywheel's blog at Firedoglake. And the issues with it utterly destroy the point. Just a few such issues:

WHAT CRIMES? - Neither Olbermann, Dean, Obama, nor anybody else discussing this hypothetical pipe dream has indicated exactly what crimes they think might be charged. Let us be clear on one thing, simply because a proscribed activity is unconstitutional does NOT make it criminal. For a crime to be charged, there needs to be a specific provision of the US Code (USC), or other statutory provision, making said conduct a crime. It is crystal clear, from the collective record to date, that the participating telcos were compelled by the Bush Administration to assist and were given written assurances that their cooperation was necessary for national security, legal and authorized by the President of the United States in a supposed time of war. That pretty much eliminates any crime that requires criminal intent by the perpetrator, and leaves only what, in criminal law, are known as strict liability crimes, of which none come to mind. The only cogent possibility is the criminal offense defined under the FISA law (18 USC 1809) which, you guessed it, requires specific intent. How are you going to prove that here?

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: - Even if you could identify specific crimes to charge telcos and/or their owners, directors and personnel with, the crime must be viable and ripe for prosecution. The first question any criminal defense attorney is going to ask is "Gee, is this crime within the statute of limitations"? FISA is subject to the Federal general statute of limitation contained in 18 USC 3282, which is five years. And, remember, the statute starts to run when the crime is committed and/or when the government becomes aware of the conduct; in this case the Department of Justice knew about the conduct as, or before, it was being committed. When we, as citizens learned about it is not the relevant test. Obama, assuming he is indeed elected, will not be issuing indictments at the end of his inaugural address. The FISA Amendment Act provides for an investigation and report of the Bush/telco wiretapping/datamining and snooping to be completed by applicable Inspectors General within one year of passage; assuming Bush signs the FAA in mid-July, that would be mid-July 2009 for the report. The Bush Administration will not be working diligently to effect this while they are still in office; any meaningful work will have to be reviewed and/or performed under the new administration. It is unrealistic to expect that any charges could possibly be filed before said said report is due, so any act occurring prior to about July 15, 2004 will not be within the statute of limitations and will be barred from prosecution.

To these, I have still more to add.

1. Why, if you believe there are or may be grounds for criminal prosecution, would you immunize against civil liability? What sense does that make, exactly? Why make life easier for people you're telling us should be or could be subject to criminal liability?

2. Going the path in #1 says, "Don't press your rights by yourselves, Mr. or Ms. Citizen. Let the government that just finished stripping you of them take care of that for you. Maybe.

3. Who are these Congressmen commiting the Barack Obama administration to a major criminal investigation spanning eight years of the Bush White House's most secretive and most deeply shrouded abuses as its first official act, and have any of them asked Obama where he stands on this commitment?

4. The people promising you criminal prosecutions after '08 if you'll just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election are the same people who promised you effective "subpoena power" after '06 if you'd just shut up and trust them to read the law and take care of things after the election.

Well, when they said it in '06, I read the law myself and saw very clearly (and dead accurately, I might add) what would happen to "subpoena power". Now we're back to trusting their reading of the law, their predictive powers, and their assumptions that Bush won't simply pardon everyone, out of some kind if pure shame, it is suggested, even though he hasn't exhibited such shame at any point in his life, much less during his "administration."

Absent the fact that Udall is hoping we'll all go away, this would be an intentionally stupid position to take at this point, 7 1/2 years into the Bush "administration." And if it weren't for the fact that we're all going to be hit with this telegraphed punch, I'd be more than happy to let those who subscribe to it take in on the chin while I laugh from ringside.

Too bad it's not that simple.

• The most unpopular president in history is still a formidable fundraiser even as his party frets over how to keep him confined to the attic during the upcoming convention. Some, in fact, don't even want him in the attic:

  "I don’t think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention," said Mr. Rohrabacher, who is especially irked with Mr. Bush for his stance on immigration. He said the president "should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off."

• Vets for Freedom--a "non-partisan" group that boasted Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham on its policy board before the two rascals resigned--is gearing up for a multi-million dollar, battleground state ad blitz. I'm sure readers will be surprised to learn the ads will be critical of Barack Obama.
• A Canadian court ruled that a refugee board needs to re-examine its denial of asylum to Joshua Keys, author of The Deserter's Tale.
• Condoleeza Rice: Still Proud of Decision to Invade Iraq.
• The mighty state of California admits cowering in the face of Anthem Blue Cross, neglecting to enforce a $1 million verdict for fear of being "outgunned" in court.
• At Hullabaloo, Tristero ridicules the notion of "hard trade-offs and ideological confusions that the past years have forced on all thinking people" when those supposed "thinking people" are erstwhile supporters of the Iraq war. DHinMI
• Best eulogy of Jesse Helms, from Hendrick Hertzberg:

  Far too late for it to do anybody any good, Jesse Helms has died. He has done so on Independence Day, which, since he was born too late to own slaves and in too liberal an age to allow him to outlaw sedition, will forever be his only resemblance to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

  It is rude to speak ill of the dead. Luckily, I did so ahead of time.

  DHinMI

• Gallup:Obama Leads By 5, 47% to 42%

  Except for a brief period a week ago when McCain and Obama were tied in voter preference, Obama has had the slight upper hand in the race since Gallup's June 6 report, leading McCain by one to seven percentage points. The last time McCain had any numerical advantage over Obama was in Gallup's June 5 report when he was one percentage point ahead, 46% to 45%. However, the last time McCain had a statistically significant lead was in early May. (To view the complete trend since March 7, click here.)

  Gallup does not call it a statistical dead heat. DemFromCT

So, I have a great idea:

With four months until Election Day, and four months since Sen. McCain secured his party's nomination, the Arizona senator is relaunching his campaign. Trailing Democrat Barack Obama in the polls and dogged by the dismal approval ratings for the administration of George W. Bush, the campaign rearranged its staff last week. The primary reason: to sharpen its messages.

Trailing in the polls? Who knew? Anyway, since McCain is such a terrible campaigner who can't read a teleprompter, and since McCain's biggest liability is comparison to Bush, why don't we make him more scripted, and take away the thing that his supporters purport to like about him: his spontaneity?

So the campaign will try to find ways to better manage what comes out of these sessions. Aides say they will push Sen. McCain for tighter delivery and to contain diversions -- if not completely eliminate them. One senior adviser said the message will be executed "crisply" from now on.

Oooh, that will work. Let's run his campaign just like 2000 and 2004. Let's remind people everything we dislike about President 23%, including hiring all the Bush hands we can. Let's do this while attacking Obama for not being his own core self.

Brilliant.

I can't wait for the GOP convention. Should be some great theater, and a chance for a terrific warm embrace by the most unpopular President in post WW II polling history, reminding people what a dumb decision the GOP made in holding the convention in true-blue Minnesota, while the Democrats turn Colorado bluer.

Anyone want to bet on how many personnel changes the McCain camp will have between now and then? I hear Ken Duberstein is still available.

From one standpoint, Minnesota's senior Senator Norm Coleman is certainly a lucky man. He has a lovely wife, Laurie Coleman, who has succeeded at several walks of life: she is a former runway model and actress, and currently an inventor and entrepreneur (and mother of the Colemans' two children).

Laurie Coleman's latest endeavor is absolutely priceless, although it retails for $29.99.

Seems that Ms. Coleman grew frustrated with accompanying her husband on the campaign trail and on junkets abroad: one would wake up early in the morning in hotel rooms, with no way to properly take care of one's hair in such a brief period of time.

So she gave the world the rather unfortunately named Blo & Go!

For years, Coleman had been jury-rigging wire coat hangers into holders for her blow-dryer so she could use both hands to style her hair. "You go on a trip with senators and you have 45 minutes and you have to be ready to go," says Coleman, who doesn't have the luxury of traveling with a hairstylist. "Norm's not going to blow-dry my hair."

Her makeshift holsters were awkward, but they worked. That led a friend, Anthony Turk, who is now her business partner, to encourage her to develop and manufacture the device. It took four years of working with a product designer, but you can now get a Blo & Go for $19.99.

Prices have increased due to the economy, of course, but still!

The Washington Post rather dryly notes:

It is hard to believe that the name Blo & Go was not chosen to, at the very least, amuse. This, after all, is a world in which the term "wide stance" churns up easy chuckles.

Coleman's voice registers shock -- and dismay-- that anyone would make such a connection. "I didn't think of that," she says.

Evidently.

So I wonder how old Norm feels about his wife's invention?

"I needed something of great quality that was really going to stay up," she says.

Ouch.

"The whole key to this is the suction."

Stop it. You're killing me.

Senator Coleman, unfortunately, has not issued any public statements on the Blo & Go, depriving us of what could be a true YouTube gem. But as minor consolation, we have this zinger from Comedy Central's Pages:

It's fortunate that Coleman doesn't offer refunds, because (Senator Larry) Craig is going to mistake this product for an airport concierge service.

Race tracker wiki: MN-Sen

When we last left our heroes, House Judiciary committee Democrats had...

renewed their demand that former White House political adviser Karl Rove testify publicly on the politicization of the Justice Department but suggested they may accept a compromise in which Rove would be interviewed in private without taking an oath to tell the truth.

We were, of course, surprised to learn that Judiciary Dems considered this, "an important step forward," and that they were "encouraged by this suggestion."

Why would they say such a thing? Well, the thinking was that the "important step forward" was that Rove's offer didn't specifically preclude the later enforcement of a subpoena to compel sworn testimony, a key difference from a similar "offer" made on behalf of Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten last year. (Yes, they've been in defiance of their subpoenas for over a year now.)

But was it an important step? Well, clearly not that important, because:

Karl Rove has declined to testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee, despite a subpoena directing him to appear, his attorney told the committee on July 1.

Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, cited executive privilege as the reason that the former White House adviser would not appear before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on July 10.

As I sarcastically implied, no surprise. And no important step forward, either. The offer to testify off-the-record without precluding later sworn testimony was not, as it turned out, an important change in the White House's position on compliance with Congressional subpoenas, but rather an additional degree of gamesmanship that lawyering up privately (rather than through the White House) allows you to employ. You have your private attorney float an offer that puts daylight between you and the White House's position, let it be hailed as "an important step forward," and then:

respectfully decline to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10 on the grounds that Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity from process to respond to a subpoena directed to this subject.

Voila! You're back to the White House position, and the House Judiciary Committee has to explain why the "important step forward" is now unacceptable.

It's not inexplicable, mind you. The grounds are these: Rove says he'll answer questions about the Don Siegelman matter only, and will refuse to discuss the broader U.S. Attorneys matter. So technically, it's this that the Committee is rejecting as unacceptable.

And it is unacceptable. Unfortunately, it also means the Rove subpoena ends up in limbo with the Miers and Bolten subpoenas, awaiting the outcome of a federal lawsuit filed by the Committee, begging the judicial branch to please allow the legislative branch to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Just as Rove himself said it would, back in May.

So what's next? Well, there's always what some Members of the Judiciary Committee say is next:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said that the House Judiciary Committee would be willing to arrest Karl Rove if the former White House official doesn't testify about his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006.

That sure would go a long way toward making people believe in subpoena power. Not to mention the tantalizing suggestion offered and oft-repeated by certain Members of Congress that the new FISA revisions recently passed by the House still preserve the possibility of criminal prosecution of domestic spying abuses.

It's hard to buy into the criminal liability claim when the House has Rove, Miers and Bolten dead to rights, and... seeks civil relief. Don't you think?

Independence Day weekend, and the pundits are uneasy.

Clarence Page:

A century ago the satirist Ambrose Bierce defined a conservative as "a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." Of course, he was being sarcastic, describing each side in terms used by its opponents. Patriotic conservatives prefer to think of themselves as preserving what's good about America, while patriotic liberals aspire to make America better.

Ambrose Bierce (1911):

PATRIOT, n.
   One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

PATRIOTISM, n.
   Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

   In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Bob Herbert:

Symbols of patriotism have replaced the hard work and sacrifice required to keep a great nation great...

We can build spectacular new stadiums for football and baseball teams (the Yanks, the Mets, the Giants and the Jets are all getting ready to move into staggeringly expensive new homes) but we can’t rebuild New Orleans or reconstruct the World Trade Center site destroyed almost seven years ago.

Daniel Henninger: That World Trade Center thing? It's all because no one is in charge. Dear reader, it's all your fault for insisting on democracy. If Disney owned it, we'd have a finished building (okay, shaped like Mickey Mouse, but it'd be done, damn it, and with enough parking.) Where the hell are the Hapsburgs and the Bourbons when we really need them? Mike Bloomberg, I'm looking at you!

Colbert King: Speaking of the good old days, Fredrick Douglass, 150 years ago, on race:

"What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence?"

"The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence bequeathed by your fathers," Douglass said, "is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me."

This July Fourth, Douglass declared, "is yours not mine."

Barack Obama in 2008:

Racial strife, poverty and the political corruption revealed by Watergate, Obama said, were outweighed by the "joys of American life and culture, its vitality and its freedom."

Patriotism, he said, is "more than loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people"; it is loyalty to American ideals and their proven capacity to inspire a better world.

We've come a ways in 150 years.

Gail Collins: The good old days? FTS.

Independence Day in New York City was much like Baghdad after a big soccer game, with men racing outside to fire their guns into the air — or into another person if the casualty lists in the newspaper were any indication.

Victor Davis Hanson:

On this Fourth of July of our discontent — with spiraling fuel prices, a sluggish economy, a weak dollar, mounting foreign and domestic debt, continuing costs in Iraq, a falling stock market, and a mortgage crisis — we should remember two truths about America. First, the United States remains the most free and affluent country in the history of civilization. Second, almost all our problems are lapses of complacency, remain relatively easily correctable, and pale in comparison to past crises.

So as for that once in a generation foreign policy blunder in Iraq? And the hurting economy? This is the greatest country on earth, and you ought to get down on your knees and kiss the ground for the right to pay 6 dollar a gallon gas while the bank forecloses on your house. Washington at Valley Forge had no such opportunity, so make the most of it. Suck it up, and for God's sake don't blame the Republicans and elect a Democrat, or we'll all be overrun by the Communists while we sleep, just like Seoul in mid-summer 1950.

Tonight, our 4th of July Rescue Rangers Marching Band is comprised of vcmvo2 on clarinet, srkp23 on trumpet, ezdidit on trombone, dopper0189 on sax, grog on drums, and jlms qkw on flute, with watercarrier4diogenes on tuba, bringing up the rear.

Tonight's diaries decorate the skyline with starbursts of ideas, highlighting, each in their own way, why this day carries so much meaning for all of us.

CELEBRATING OUR INDEPENDENCE

• Purple Priestess provides a great recommendation for 4th of July viewing in Don't be a Fribble - Sit Down and Watch "1776" Today. (jlms qkw)
• FoundingFatherDAR asks for our assistance in Some Firefighters Won't Get to Celebrate the 4th of July. (vcmvo2)
• You can only vote for Democrats if you're alive, as Gramarye reminds us in Please, Preventive Healthcare Starts at Home. Yes, even couch potatoes can lose weight and live healthy. (grog)

THE MEANINGS OF OUR INDEPENDENCE

• PvtJarHead provides a quick biography of a netroots ancestor in Resurrecting Samuel Adams the Prototype Kossack! Are we positive Markos isn't related? (grog)
• don mikulecky looks back on a personal experience with civil disobedience, and the meaning of a movement, in We need to declare independence again! Where is Jefferson when we need him? (srkp23)
• From Sand in Florida comes a wonderful, personal diary of an Iranian family's rise through persecution in their homeland to emigration and finally, to U.S. citizenship (through the granting of a habeas corpus petition), in Blinded By Hope: An Average Man's Vote for Barack Obama. (ezdidit)
• jpspencer reflects on the future development of this nation and the futures it holds, in My Son Turns Two Today. (srkp23)
• Rimjob gives us the latest news on the long-delayed redevelopment at Ground Zero. (srkp23)

KEEPING OUR INDEPENDENCE

• ScottyUrb asks and answers Are You A Patriot? (jlms qkw)
• two roads reminds us why we fight the FISA bill in When they came for the fifth amendment... (dopper0189)
• In McCain flip flops - embraces Swift Liars, AllDemsOnBoard reports on the latest version of the "straight talk express." (vcmvo2)
• tc399 offers a rant in a diary with political overtones. Insurance? ...um, Was someone discussing insurance? (ezdidit)

RESPECTING OTHERS' INDEPENDENCE

• VoteHope08 heartbreakingly explains why Sometimes I Worry About This Country. (srkp23)

jotter has High Impact Diaries - July 3, 2008 and emeraldmaiden has Top Comments 7-4-08 - And the People Spoke.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

If you enjoy Diary Rescue, please consider joining the Rescue Rangers. It's a great way to become more involved with the Daily Kos community. Did we mention it's rewarding and fun? To volunteer or learn more, please contact us (don't forget to tell us your screen name) at: dkos.rescuerangers@gmail.com

This holiday isn't this holiday without Dave Alvin:

His friends and sometimes Knitters bandmates in X have a great version of it, too, but it's Dave's song, so he gets the honors of the video.

That song and mcmom's potato salad are pretty much my only requirements for this holiday, since I don't get all that much out of explosions.

What makes your 4th?

July 4, 1826
On that date, our nation's second president lay dying. Over the difficult course of his presidency and the years that immediately followed, his friendship with Thomas Jefferson had been terribly strained. But a bit at a time, through voluminous correspondence that stretched over decades, the bond between the two men had been restored.

In his last moments, John Adams' thoughts turned to his friend. His final words were "Jefferson survives." He did not know that Jefferson -- his rival, his enemy, and his great friend -- had preceded him in death only a few hours before.

It was the 50th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

Most holidays (the meaningful ones, anyway) end up centered around a meal. A holiday meal isn't just food, of course. It's a chance to come together and share, to join in a fellowship that echoes the holy rituals of many religions. Thanksgiving has its turkey, Easter its ham -- and those meals are often eaten with an eye to the meaning of the day.

The Fourth of July meal tends to be a little more raucous. And, be it a picnic or a barbecue, a lot more outdoorsy. But that doesn't mean we don't all have our own traditions around what you eat and how you eat it. Given the nature of the holiday, it seems like what you eat should be somehow American, since that is after all what's being celebrated here. (You could also go for a freedom theme and grill only free-range meats, I guess.) But what's even American? I once went to a party thrown by an Australian woman who asked guests to bring food they considered typically American, and the menu ranged from pancakes to takeout Chinese food.

I'll be honest: my family doesn't do the Fourth. My parents are not holiday people, and when I was a kid, I usually hoped someone would invite me to their family's barbecue. For the last several years, I've usually been at a Sacred Harp singing in Alabama on the Fourth, eating southern picnic food off a thirty-foot concrete table. Fried green tomatoes, pecan pie, all sorts of food like I never grew up on. This year I'm not going to Alabama, but I will be singing on Saturday, so I'm cooking picnic food a day late. I'll be making a pasta salad with a dressing that looks bland and white, but has a zing of garlic and wine. I was going to make my mother's slaw, but the grocery store was sold out of bags of shredded cabbage, so I'm making a taco salad recipe I learned in Alabama. For dessert, those awesome chewy peanut buttery chocolate topped rice krispy treats. And I'll be bringing a gluten-free black forest cake I got at Trader Joe's.

So what about you? What are your traditions -- either the ones you grew up with or the ones you happened into as an adult? Will you be cooking, and will it be outdoors over an open flame? Burgers or barbecue? What's your potato salad recipe? (Seriously, I need a potato salad recipe.) What's your favorite patriotic-themed recipe, and does it match the flag of red, white, and blue jello shooters one Daily Kos contributing editor once created? For once on this site, recipes are welcomed by the diarist.

Anything sound familiar?

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them....

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries....

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
...

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Over two centuries ago, colonial America reacted to the abuses of their leaders in the most drastic and violent way open to them, by taking up arms against their oppressors. Revolution is not to be taken lightly, and wasn't by those men and women. Perhaps recognizing within themselves the potential to create a grand experiment that would alter world history, or perhaps just fed up with the status quo, they acted.

And out of their actions was built something indescribably profound. A simple piece of paper that recognized both the strengthens and the foibles of human beings, that allowed the best of what's in us to flourish, while providing a stop against the natural tendency of those in power to abuse their rule. The philosophy of these men and women when approaching governance was best summed up by John Adams:

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

The shred of paper that grew out of the experience of colonization, oppression, violence and revolution has proven remarkably durable over these 219 years. It's weathered foreign war, civil war, four presidential assassinations, two presidential impeachments, and many a misguided Congress. It's also been supported by some extraordinarily brave men and women who served in that body and who elevated it.

In response to the revelations that a president had violated the 4th amendments stricture against "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," the first branch of government stood up to that president, led by Senator Frank Church:

Personal privacy is protected because it is essential to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution checks the power of Government for purposes of protecting the rights of individuals, in order that all our citizens may live in a free and decent society. Unlike totalitarian states, we do not believe that any government has a monopoly on truth.

When government infringes those right instead of nurturing and protecting them, the injury spreads far beyond the particular citizens targeted to untold numbers of other Americans who may be intimidated...

The natural tendency of government is toward abuse of power. Men entrusted with power, even those aware of its dangers, tend, particularly when pressured, to slight liberty.

Our constitutional system guards against this tendency. It establishes many different checks upon power. It is those wise restraints which keep men free. In the field of intelligence those restraints have too often been ignored....

The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened.

And thus the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the sole and exclusive means by which the government could conduct surveillance against Americans, was born. How ironic that the major battle against what is undoubtedly the worst and most dangerous executive this nation has ever seen would be over this, and that this Congress would so abjectly fail this test their forebearers set. They try to dangle in front of us the shiny object of a "new" law that has been in effect for thirty years as some great achievement, hoping that we won't notice that with their other hand, they are vastly expanding the president's power to ignore the 4th Amendment of that remarkable piece of paper.

The most important political office is that of private citizen.
-Louis D. Brandeis

Don't let them get away with it. This terrible law will almost certainly pass, but don't let it happen quietly. And don't let them think they got away with their ruse. Celebrate your 4th of July by finding your nearest Senator. Remind them that they work for you. Remind them that their oath of office admonishes them not to "support and defend my next election campaign," but says "support and defend the Constitution."

While you are doing so, give thanks to an incredible Patriot, Christy Hardin Smith, who has marshalled her vast organizing skills for a campaign to make doing your job as a private citizen easier. Click on this link to take action.

Coming Up on Sunday Kos ....

• georgia10 will explore the new face of activism and what it looks like for the millennial generation.
• DemFromCT will review recent polling on health care as it relates to the 2008 campaign, and the chances for health reform after the election.
• DevilsTower will take a look back at Freedomnomics, sockpuppetry and misleading economics.
• Think the Cold War ended? Think again. Plutonium Page will take us on a tour of one of the most contaminated nuclear sites on Earth... right here in the United States.