Obama needs Texas

but only as an ATM:

While Texas is unlikely to turn blue this November, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama may still be making a few more trips to the Lone Star state now that he has made it official that he is not taking public financing.

Obama's decision to forgo $84 million in public money means he will have to really crank up his already formidable fund-raising machine. And Texas has always been generous to candidates, regardless of party. Indeed, Lone Star donors have showered Obama with far more campaign bucks than the Republican nominee John McCain. According to the Federal Election Commission Obama has raised $7.8 million in Texas compared to $6.3 million for McCain.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director who spoke to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday, indicated that the candidate, who has not visited Texas since before the March 4 primary, will be back.

"We'll be down there a lot,'' Gibbs said. But don't expect lots of those big, noisy rallies like the candidate held during the primary season. More likely the drop-ins will consist of discrete private fund-raisers.

Saw this coming after Boyd Richie spurned them prior to his coming-out party as a superdelegate, and they payed him off in full for that by shining his shoes in Austin.

They're even now, and both have cover for pretending to do something to get down-ballot Texas Democrats elected without actually doing much of anything.

With the local consultant class following Texas Monthly's lead and making excuses in advance for Rock Noriega losing to John Cornyn, the circle of defeat is almost complete and we're still two weeks away from the long July 4th weekend.

So here's my five-months-out prediction: Obama will have all the money he could ever need and gets elected the nation's 44th President handily -- over 300 EV. The US Senate and the House of Representatives increase their majorities, the Democratic Senators achieving a near veto-proof count of 58 seats. As in 2006, a big blue wave rolls across the country -- but hits a concrete seawall at the Texas border. Noriega, Nick Lampson, and a handful of Texas House members (such as Juan Garcia) lose, most of our Harris County executive and judicial races are very narrow defeats, "just five more seats in the Texas House" results in three net victories (but Chairman Richie declares victory anyway), Tom Craddick and David Dewhurst jam through Voter ID in 2009, and the battle cry for 2010 from the Texas Democratic Party becomes "focusing on a few, select, targeted races in order to take the Texas House, just in time for redistricting".

(Somebody please prove me wrong. Please.)

And hey: don't forget all those great activities next week.

Why did the Democratic leadership capitulate on FISA?

Because -- and truthfully, this is not just mere speculation on my part -- they're bigger fucking corporate whores than even their Republican counterparts:

"Congress is poised to once again pass disastrous surveillance legislation, now upping the ante with a thinly-veiled giveaway to some major campaign donors.

"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing -- all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole -- ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

"The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them.

"The telecom companies simply have to produce a piece of paper we already know exists, resulting in immediate dismissal. That’s not accountability. Loopholes and judicial theater don’t do our Fourth Amendment rights justice. In the end, this is politics. This bill does nothing to keep Americans safe and is a constitutional farce.

"The process by which this deal has come about has been as secretive as the warrantless wiretapping program it is seeking to legitimize. While members and organizations who would seek to fiercely protect the civil liberties of Americans have been denied a seat at the table, one wonders how present the powerful telecom lobby has been.

"Leadership should be leading to protect the Constitution, not bowing to pressure from Republicans, the White House, and the telecommunications companies.

So again we have Democratic leadership in the House (Steny Hoyer) and Senate (Jay Rockefeller) who betray other Democratic leaders in both chambers who have beaten back telecom immunity several times already in this legislative session.

Like Steve, this is the sort of thing I simply cannot stomach and cast a ballot for in November. After all, when the corporate advertising and sponsorship banners at the Democrats' state convention are more prominent than the ones at the GOP's, we probably don't have a party for the people anywhere within sight.

Regarding FISA: there's fighting back to do, and it must be done tomorrow.

Torture is a war crime. Or an occasionaly useful tool.

Depends on who you ask.

The two-star general who led an Army investigation into the horrific detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib has accused the Bush administration of war crimes and is calling for accountability.

In his 2004 report on Abu Ghraib, then-Major General Anthony Taguba concluded that "numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees." He called the abuse "systemic and illegal." And, as Seymour M. Hersh reported in the New Yorker, he was rewarded for his honesty by being forced into retirement.

Now, in a preface to a Physicians for Human Rights report based on medical examinations of former detainees, Taguba adds an epilogue to his own investigation.

The new report, he writes, "tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individual's lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

"The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full-scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted --both on America's institutions and our nation's founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.

"In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. . . .

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

If you check the results of recent Pew Research polling, though ...

More than four in ten Americans (43%) say that the use of torture can be justified to gain key information sometimes (31%) or often (12%), according to a 2007 Pew Research survey. However, a 54%-majority say torture is never (29%) or rarely (25%) justified. The number of Americans saying the use of torture against suspected terrorists is at least sometimes justified has been fairly stable since 2004, though the percentage saying torture can often be justified has dipped from 18% in October 2006. There have been consistent demographic and political differences in views about whether torture of suspected terrorists is ever justified. For instance, more African Americans than whites say the torture of suspected terrorists is never justified (37% vs. 28%). Older Americans also are more likely to rule out the use of torture than are younger people: 36% of those ages 65 and older say torture of suspected terrorists is never justified, compared with 25% of those ages 18-29.

So how did we get to this point -- where far too many Americans still believe bullshit that has been proven false? Such as Saddam was responsible for 9/11, or that climate change is something Al Gore invented along with the Internet to make millions?

Can all of this ignorance be blamed on Fox News?

I don't think so.

At some point the morans are going to have to accept responsibility for the outcomes of their blind stupidity. That point ideally needs to be reached by them before the United States is attacked again by religious fundamentalists bent on retribution for a century of petroleum-driven political manipulation, or before global wars are instigated over water instead of oil.

Because by that time it'll be too late for them to make amends. It may be too late already.