My electoral college vote prediction, 6/22

I'll begin this weekly prognostication today, and continue it through the first week of November, based in part on data compiled at electoral-vote.com and FiveThirtyEight.com. If you want to play around with your own map, click below or click here.

Today's map reflects my view that Obama turns Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico from red to blue. Florida and Nevada are too close to call, as is Georgia (due to the Libertarian candidacy of favorite son Bob Barr).

<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

Sunday Funnies

See, it's not just me

who's irritated about Obama and FISA.

BooMan:

Unless this all part of a brilliant plan to popularize the campaign of Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and thereby win some extra states, Obama is making a big mistake in moving to the right of Arlen Specter. And even if it is a political move, the FISA debate is about bedrock principles of constitutional rights, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Political dodges and maneuvers are inappropriate.

But here's an honest question. Who is saying this bill is good and necessary? Look around. Is anyone saying that who is not implicated in the wrongdoing? The New York Times thinks it is a terrible bill. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee (Sen. Specter) thinks it's a terrible bill. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Sen. Leahy) thinks it is a terrible bill. The ACLU thinks it is a terrible bill. The entire blogosphere thinks it is a terrible bill. Who thinks it is a good bill?

Even Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer are not saying it's a good bill. They're calling it a good compromise or whatever. It's bad law. It's wrong to support this bill.

Atrios:

... Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an "abuse of power" scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention.

Of course it's not just Obama but Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer who think we're stupid for not supporting their bad bill:

That is my primary objection, here. Democrats: if you're going to cave, just cave. Don't draft up flagrantly insulting talking points that pretend you've gotten something in return -- you haven't. You haven't gotten squat, except for the knowledge that the illegal is now legal, that past illegalities will be swept under the rug, and that future illegalities will be met with no action more substantive than a few harshly worded reports.

We all know how much money the telecommunications companies spent "lobbying" you for this legislation; fine. So just come out and say it -- you can't piss off corporate contributors that are that important, so the Fourth Amendment can go suck eggs. We all know you don't have any confidence you can both stand up for the rule of law and get reelected in the face of conservative demands that our laws be considered obsolete in the face of our own pants-wetting fear; fine. So just say that, and quit painting us as rubes who won't know any better if you shove a few noble-sounding sentences our way.

Pelosi's right about one thing, though. This is a democracy, not a monarchy. In a monarchy, the king would just violate the law at will, and nobody would say a word. In a democracy, the President gets to violate the law at will, and we'll jump through months of hoops to change the law so that he retroactively didn't violate it.

After all, Emanuel says these are the "civil liberty protections" you "deserve." If the President said it, that makes it legal, and if you don't like that new interpretation of your rights, hey -- you're just against "compromise." In this case, "compromise" means blanket immunity for everyone involved: they don't have to prove that what they were doing was legal -- because they can't, we know it violated the law -- they just have to prove that the President told them to do it anyway, and we'll just forget the whole thing. And let them keep doing it. And they don't actually have to come clean on the extent of what "it" was, or is.

Here's Digby, with the calm voice of reason (and the tie-in to the other outrages, as well as a little bit of excuse-making for the Dems which I personally refuse to buy):

Here on planet earth, the civil liberties issues, along with torture and Guantanamo and the entire GWOT legal regime is a central concern because I have watched a very ruthless and cynical right wing show themselves to be bent on rebuilding the police state of J. Edgar Hoover and the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon. I don't think it's a good idea. It's not that I don't realize that the Democrats have an equally awful history or think they are the exemplars of all that is true and good, it's just that in recent years the Republicans have shown they have a real fetish for undemocratic authoritarianism, and in a complicated system, you have to focus on those who are creating the most obvious and immediate threats.

Democrats have certainly enabled them over the years and will likely continue to. They are politicians, after all, not comic book superheroes. But there should be no doubt to anyone who isn't wrapped up in immature freshman dorm cynicism, that there is a distinct difference between those who believe in the concept of an imperial presidency and those who are simply weak and corrupt. They both undermine freedom, but the first is many orders of magnitude worse than the second.

And lastly emptywheel, who's closer to my level of upset:

In case you couldn't parse the three bolded sentences yourself, here's my take on them.

1. I will make a showy effort in the Senate on Monday to get them to take out immunity. I will lose that effort 32-65. But hey! I can say I tried!
2. But don't worry, little boys and girls, Inspectors General are an adequate replacement for our third co-equal branch of government!
3. Nice little bloggers! Aren't you cute! After you demanded accountability we gave you piggy lipstick and fig leaves and told you it was time to move on while we important Senators told you--in polite terms--to fuck off.

The Senate vote is scheduled for Thursday. Don't waste your time with Texas Senators Perjury Technicality and CornDog. Call Obama's Senate office, starting tomorrow morning, and tell him what kind of vote you expect of a constitutional scholar.

Happy-to-bitter ratio is out of round

So we'll have a few funnies early this weekend.

(So that no one confuses me for being overtly jolly, the Obama widget on the right column is in danger of being removed until I know for certain exactly how he intends to vote on FISA next week -- as well as what he means on NAFTA. It's coming off pretty quickly if he indeed supports either one. Running to the middle is for losers.)

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.