Feingold Takes on Bush: Another Battle in the Ongoing War between the Map and the Territory

I've been harping on this subject for a long time. I am pretty sure it started with the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. A theme presented there, which has resurfaced throughout my adult life, is that of confusing the map with the territory. I am reminded of it, once again, after reading today's Washington Post.

The Post article Feingold Pushes to Censure President presents a perfect example of the confusion I am referring to. It also shows quite clearly how the failure on the part of our elected representatives, to properly distinguish between the map and the territory, is turning our nation into a worldwide joke and our country into a third-world nation. I refer, specifically, to the habit of focusing on appearance versus reality.

The crux of the Post article, referenced above, is that the Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold, wants the president to be held accountable for using his presidential powers to bypass the law and legislate from the White House. Feingold, who is clearly concerned about the use of the wiretapping program Bush has authorized and its effect on our (yours and my) civil liberties, is introducing a resolution to censure the president. This would, presumably, lead to a debate in Congress over the situation and would call to account the specific actions taken by Bush, as well as provide an opportunity to look more closely at the ways in which we might provide the security measures needed to protect the public without breaking the law. In other words, rather than jump to impeachment, as many others have suggested, Feingold wants to solve the problem.

As anyone who has ever solved a problem knows, it can't be done if the problem isn't recognized first. Step one, then, is acknowledging that the wiretapping program Bush implemented is outside the law. This we know. This particular issue isn't even up for debate. The law says, clearly, all domestic wiretapping comes through FISA. Period. Bush didn't use FISA; he ignored FISA. So first, we must deal with that issue. Here's an excerpt from the Post article:

In a floor speech introducing his resolution, Sen. Russell Feingold (Wis.) said: "When the president of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable." Bush, he said, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program."

So, this is how it begins. Once the problem is acknowledged, Feingold wants to look at how we can use this lesson to improve the way the executive and legislative branches of the government can work together in the future to both provide the security the nation is so concerned about and ensure that our (yours and my) civil liberties are protected.

This sounds pretty reasonable to me. In fact, the only extreme element of it is that our president chose to ignore the law put in place specifically to address this situation in the first place, that being the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which already established a secret court for the purposes of dealing with wiretap warrants. In other words, what Bush says he needed to do, he could have done, without breaking the law.

For people with critical thinking skills, this can't help but bring up other questions, such as: Why didn't he go through FISA? Was he concerned that FISA would not have approved some of his requests? Did he plan to spy on people he didn't have reason to think were tied to Al Qaeda? Why wouldn't FISA have approved his requests--if they were reasonable?

These are not extreme questions; they are the logical result of applied critical thinking to real, practical issues. In other words, we're working with territory, not maps now. We're talking about what's real, not merely what's perceived. But now, let's take a look at how the Republicans supporting Bush are reacting to this.

Sensing a Democratic misstep, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) labeled the resolution a "political ploy" and called for an immediate vote, hoping to put Feingold's colleagues in a tough spot. But Democrats invoked Senate rules to postpone action, and it was unclear last night whether Feingold's measure would face a roll call.

Even Democrats are scrambling to assess the effect this move might have on their map, how damaging it may be to their image, how it may adversely influence their political prospects for the future--completely forgetting that the real issue isn't how good they look or how popular they are but whether or not they are actually protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States, rights they have sworn to uphold:

Several Democratic strategists said surveillance issues are not Bush's most vulnerable spot, and they fear the party may appear extremist. "It is more likely that a big censure fight would have the effect of rallying folks to his side," said one Democratic strategist and former Clinton aide.

And here's another:

Democratic leaders reacted cautiously to Feingold's move. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) commended him "for bringing this to the attention of the American people."

Yes, they are being cautious; they are also wrong. For one thing, Feingold didn't bring this to the attention of the American people. The official who leaked it (and will, if Republicans have their way, be found out and prosecuted for it) brought it to the attention of the American people. Then the American people brought it to the attention of Russ Feingold. Let's at least get the facts straight: Feingold has confirmed that his office has received, literally, thousands of letters calling for Bush to be held accountable for his actions in violating the FISA Act, and many are even calling for impeachment.

When, do you think, was the last time thousands of citizens wrote to their elected representatives and asked that action be taken to address illegal activity in the White House? The Iraq War maybe? And see how well Democrats handled that? Fear, fear of a messy map, that's what drove them then. Let's hope it isn't what drives them now.

The political debate Republicans insist on having is simply a cover for the real issues. Their response to everything is to put a better spin on it. In other words, they make a new, nicer map. If Democrats are foolish enough to accept the Republican map instead of focusing on the territory (yet again) they will meet, in the 2006 mid-term elections, the same fate they met in 2000 and in 2004. They simply can't win by playing a game invented by their adversaries.

I keep hearing that the Democrats need a message, so here it is: It's not about how you look, it's about what you do. It's not about strategy, it's about morality. It's time to change the game. It's time, in fact, to stop playing games and start going to work. It's time to throw away the map, roll up your sleeves and get dirty.

If you need a leader, you've got one: his name is Russ Feingold.

Hacking Away at Voters' Rights

"It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes." -- Joseph Stalin

The Brad Blog covered a great story yesterday: Florida's Ion Sancho, Election Supervisor of Leon County, is suing Diebold. It seems that after Sancho had Diebold optical scanning voting machines (the ones that were the source of so much speculation when traditionally Democratic/Independent voters turned out in droves for Bush in the 2004 election) tested for their 'hackability,' the results were impressive. It was found "that election results could be completely flipped on Diebold's optical-scan system without a trace of the hack being left behind." Wow.

Since that discovery, Sancho has diligently done his best to ensure the Diebold machines are either fixed or replaced. But he's not having much luck. After giving Diebold the required 30-day notice to report back regarding their progress in repairing the machine (the deadline is March 21) Sancho attempted to find a replacement vendor. He worked out deals with the only two other companies that provide voting equipment: ES&S and Sequoia Voting Systems. Both companies promised to deliver voting machines to Sancho and both, at the last minute, backed out of their agreements. What's more, with Diebold failing to fix their problems, Sancho is in a very awkward position: if he fails to provide his county with a voting machine contract, he can be fired. Apparently, this is exactly what Diebold (one of Bush's largest corporate supporters) wants.

In fact, the Brad Blog is reporting that on February 28 there was a secret meeting during which Diebold's General Counsel actually stated that Diebold would not sell its machines to Leon County unless Ion Sancho is removed from office first. Unfortunately, that's just what might happen. With all three voting machine vendors refusing to do business with Sancho, Sancho's May 1 deadline for signing a voting machine deal that will provide a disabled-accessible system may come and go without a deal--in which case Florida law will allow Sancho to be suspended by the Governor (Jeb Bush) or even fired, if the state Senate so wishes.

So Sancho is fighting back. He is suing Diebold. It will be interesting to see what happens. Here in California, our own Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson, confirmed the findings of Sancho's Diebold hack test--yet he still recertified Diebold in the state. That might be worth looking into.

As for Sancho, he does have at least one vocal supporter, a member of the team that took part in the hack test analysis. According to the Tallahassee Democrat, this particular supporter (who has apparently chosen to remain anonymous) sent a letter in support of Sancho. It reads, in part:

I think very highly of your contributions, and I am puzzled why others fail to recognize just how much you have done for the voters of Florida. I find it unconscionable what some of the vendors seem to be doing to make life difficult for a supervisor of elections who would put the public interest first and foremost.

Indeed.

From Bad to Worse

I fell asleep with the TV on last night. I awoke to breaking news: Bush, on tape, being briefed about the expected devastation from Hurricane Katrina--the day before the storm hit New Orleans. Bush is seen listening to various warnings from experts who had studied the data and knew what to expect. Bush asked no questions. At the end of the briefing, which he took from his vacation home in Crawford, Texas, our president looked the camera squarely in the eye and said that the federal government was prepared and would move quickly to do whatever was necessary for the victims of the storm.

Yet, I seem to recall hearing that three days after Katrina made landfall, our president had to be force-fed a video-taped version of TV highlights in order to impress upon him the extent of the devastation. Then, when FEMA failed to provide the assistance the desperate and neglected residents of New Orleans needed, we were told it was the local and state officials who were to blame--for failing to file the proper paperwork to get the Feds rolling.

Now we know, unequivocally, that Bush had all the information he needed to act before the storm hit--but he didn't act, did he? And that's not the worst of it--not by half.

Even as civil rights activists are fighting to get Congress to investigate the domestic wiretapping program Bush says is within the law (but most of us believe isn't) it has come out that the wiretapping program Bush authorized may not be the only secret program to which the American public is being subjected. It appears that when Congress told the Bush administration to cut their Total Information Awareness program, because it violated the privacy rights of American citizens, the administration simply moved the program to another area within the government and gave it a new name. So, perhaps they weren't lying, after all, when they said the domestic spying program is only used for terrorist suspects--because the spying they do on the rest of us is through an entirely different program--one that was supposed to be stopped two years ago--one that, until a few days ago, nobody even knew enough to ask about.

Here is an excerpt from the February 27 episode of Democracy Now:

More than two years ago Congress halted plans for a controversial plan called Total Information Awareness to create the world's largest surveillance database to track your phone calls, purchases, Internet usage, reading material, banking transactions. The National Journal has now revealed the program has quietly continued inside the NSA.

But wait, there's more: While protesters are fighting to shut down the detainee camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, it has come out that an even more medieval prison, also run by U.S. interests, has been growing its inmate population, in Afghanistan.

The U.S. is holding 500 at the base in wire cages at the Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul in Afghanistan. Some have been detained for up to three years. They have never been charged with crimes. They have no access to lawyers. They are barred from hearing the allegations against them. Officials describe the jail's conditions as primitive.

Meanwhile, Congress just passed another Patriot Act renewal. They decided not to worry about the pesky little provisions that violate our civil rights and instead chose to focus on the supposed improvement in communication between law enforcement and the various Homeland Security agencies. The rationale given is that this particular improvement is at the heart of the Patriot Act, so Congress figured it would be better not to worry so much about all the other stuff they were previously so riled about.

Meanwhile, John Conyers, the only politician who has consistently had the guts to fight the administration at every turn, starting with the stolen elections (I refer to 2000 AND 2004), is now the latest smear target of the Bush administration. Just yesterday I heard on the news that Conyers has been over-utilizing his paid assistants by asking them to baby sit. How sad. No steamy extramarital affair, homosexual encounter or drug problem. Is that really all they can come up with? Goodness, I think they're losing their touch.

The only thing I can figure out that explains how the rest of Congress laid down and died here is that they're all just as sleazy and corrupt as their high-profile Republican counterparts and have either committed some serious illegal actions themselves, which they know all too well will become the breaking news of the day, should they fight Bush and his band of bullies, or they've figured out that even if they have no major closet skeletons, the Bush machine will be happy to conjure some on their behalf. Either way, the bullies in the White House are still running the show and the rest of us are just taking up space in the cheap seats. That's some sorry excuse for Democracy, that's all I can say.