I love America for what it aspires to be, and what is has the potential to become. The foundation of what this nation celebrates today, the Declaration of Independence, was more than a statement of revolution; it was a statement that governments exist to secure the rights of their citizens, and not to enrich and empower the few. That aspiration has been a inspiration for countless people, revolutionaries and dreamers, and a model for governments around the world for over 200 years.

I love America for its incredible diversity, for its commitment to the idea that our unmatched military might should be used for good, not dominance, its belief that every man and woman should have the opportunity to achieve his/her dreams, and its incredible optimism. I love America for its sense of community, its belief in civil rights and equality, and its capacity to be united.

And yet, we fall so short of some of those aspirations. Our government, like any human institution, often falls short of the aspirations that guide it, and sometimes even deliberately does wrong. With all of our power and all of our wealth, we sometimes fail to do what is in the best interest of the world, or even our own citizens. As someone who loves his country, I cannot be silent when  I believe we are on the wrong course. I cannot acquiesce when the government oversteps its power, or when it ignores its responsibility to the people it serves.

Liberal criticism of our nation’s policies is often mistaken or mischaracterized by the Right as hatred of America, or a desire to leave. Nothing could be further from the truth. We criticize the government because we believe it can be better, do more, infringe less. Blind devotion to one’s country is not patriotism; it is nothing more than subservience that Jefferson would have despised.  As James Baldwin once wrote, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” 

The celebration of our independence isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum. Patriotism isn’t about whose flag is flown higher or whose lapel pin is shinier; it’s about working together to make our nation what Jefferson and the other founders hoped it could be, an inspiration for the rest of the world:

"The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them."

Have a wonderful Fourth.

My initial reaction is that the guy is probably quite liberal.  He is clerking for a very activist, ATLA-oriented justice.14 His law review article appears to favor reintroduction of wolves on federal lands, a very controversial issue here which pits environmentalists against lots of other interests, including virtually all conservative and moderate thinkers.  I know of better candidates through our internship and clerkship programs who have applied to the honors program.

That is one delightful e-mail. Not only does he make a “gut reaction” about someone’s politics, Mercer offers his slightly skewed reasoning about wolf reintroduction as a rationale for his bias.  When confronted with his action, Mercer acted in the best tradition of Republican stonewalling, a combination of forgetfulness and dishonesty:

When we questioned Mercer about this e-mail, he said he did not recall being asked about this candidate, although he had a vague recollection of talking to the reference named in the candidate’s application about the candidate.  Mercer said he probably assumed that Hruska was asking about a candidate for a political appointment such as a special assistant, rather than for the Honors Program.  However, Mercer said he could not say why he referred to the Honors Program in his e-mail.  He said he understood in 2002 that while the candidates’ liberal affiliations would have been legitimate considerations for a political position, they would not have been legitimate considerations for an Honors Program position.

Finally, Mercer had one more important role in this effort to politicize the Justice Department: despite his role as Acting Associate Attorney General, Mercer did nothing, when told that hiring practices were being politicized. While this is a good long section of the report, starting on page 63, I think this is the most telling quote:

Keisler said that Mercer appeared to be unaware of much of this information but that he seemed to be paying close attention.

Let’s at least give him credit for listening, right? It’s just another example of the Bush Administration putting politics above the law, and knowing that they won’t face any real scrutiny or consequences for it, but at a deeper level, how do these repeated violations not undermine respect for rule of law in this country?

At least we’re protected from the wolves.

“What drives you to reach out to do so much? Adopt a child, reach out to all these different nations, care about Myanmar?” Curry asked. “And what does it say about what you might do as first lady?”

It’s going to be a long fall, folks.

Honestly, has anyone ever made so much of having done so
little?

 The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal.

The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times last week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill. The ad was headlined: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House."

It's no wonder how Max Baucus voted, but you might be surprised to learn that Jon Tester supported the resolution, too.

How about Barack Obama? 

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another contender for the Democratic nomination, did not vote, although he voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

Boy, that's leadership that's going to get my vote. 

Let's hear it for another humiliating day for the Democrats in the Senate. 

The framers of our Constitution created a document that
has withstood the test of time, and their shadow continues to be a
constant presence in the work I’m doing in Washington, D.C.,
on behalf of Montana. This week, let us all pay homage and remember
those who first sacrificed in order to give us what we have today.

Maybe Dennis just meant Article I. I'd like to remind him of some
other important parts of the Constitution he seems to have
forgotten:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand
jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in
the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public
danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be
confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

For the very people who have stripped the Constitution of its core
protections to wax poetic about it is pretty shameful.  History will show how craven this President and his lap dogs in Congress were, by simple comparison. The men who wrote the Constitution did so when we were incredibly vulnerable, a weak semi-nation threatened by any number of European powers. Yet threatened as they were, they upheld the principles of liberty in the face of incredible odds. For member of government in the most powerful country that has ever existed to lack that courage is shameful and weak.

The Constitution is more than rhetoric and letters to the editor, Congressman.

Pardon my skepticism, and certainly no disrespect for
the dead Montana soldier, but in my time in the Army I never heard
such a word as “recalcitrant” escape the lips of any
Staff Sergeant. I doubt if it’s spoken all that much in
Ismay, either. The soldiers had the help and probably the
encouragement of a writer with an agenda, from a newspaper which
has always had one. Its continually declining circulation now
mainly consists of those who want desperately to consider
themselves sophisticated as well as compassionate, even if that
means always branding the U.S. as the chief villain on the world
stage—-in fact, especially if it does.

I await the inevitable onslaught from outraged liberals. (Is there
any other kind?)

You know why we’re outraged, Dave? Because you cynical, short
sighted bastards who drummed up support for this failed war that
has killed almost 4,000 outstanding American men and women use them
for politics when it suits you and attack them when it doesn’t.
Your smug condescension while a family grieves is no different than
John Boehner suggesting that American casualties are a “small price
to pay.”

I know you and your ilk will never apologize, take responsibility
or admit that this war was wrong. At the least, you can apologize
for your comments about this young man who died serving his
country.

My God.

• On June 21, 2007, Dennis Rehberg announced that he had secured $400,000 in funding for the Montana World Trade Center. He secured, you paid for it.
• On the same day, Rehberg announced that he planned to start posting his schedule online.
• On August 16, the Washington Post reported that the Montana World Trade Center was paying for Rehberg to take a tour of South America and France. His redoubtable spokesman told the Post that Rehberg is on the job, promoting Montana business.
• August 14, 2007 was the last time that Rehberg updated his schedule.

My question is simple: is Rehberg working for the people of Montana and doing official business or  is he taking a vacation, funded by an earmark he provided a Montana organization? If we are to believe that Rehberg is doing official business, then surely we have the right to know what he is doing, don't we?

Jon Tester is still posting his schedule, despite the recess. If Denny doesn't have something to hide, I would think he would be as well.

Rove is the greatest political mind of his generation
and probably of any generation. He not only is a breathtakingly
smart strategist but also a clever tactician. He knows history,
understands the moods of the public, and is a visionary on matters
of public policy. But he is not a magician.

Barnes, like a number of fawning followers in the media, has
mistaken Rove's willingness to behave in absolutely amoral fashion
for genius. Whether it's falsely accusing Ann Richards of being a
lesbian to win conservative votes in Texas, smearing John Kerry's
war record, suggesting that John McCain had fathered an
illegitimate child, or any of his other underhanded tactics, Rove
represented the worst of American politics. It doesn't take genius
to lie about and try to destroy a candidate; it merely takes a
willingness to put aside decency and morality.

American political campaigns have always been tough, and people
like Rove have been there from the start. Karl Rove is nothing
special; he is the televised version of the Adams supporter who
accused Jefferson of "favouring the teaching of murder, robbery,
rape, adultery and incest" or John Quincy Adam supporters who said
this about Andrew Jackson: "General Jackson's mother was a common
prostitute brought to this country by British solders! She
afterwards married a mulatto man with whom she had several children
of which number General Jackson is one!!"

Actually, I'm surprised Rove didn't steal that one.

In the end, it's excellent news that Republicans believe Rove is a
genius. His short-term win-at-all costs strategy has done more
damage to the Republican Party and its prospects than any Democrat
has. Americans are beginning to see through Rovian politics, and
roundly rejecting them in 2006. The resilience of American
democracy might be explained very simply. While thuggish, immoral
tactics may yield short term electoral gain (especially when
combined with a butterfly ballot), the American people won't
accept those strategies for very long.

The rejection of the Republican Party in 2006 and the resignation
of Karl Rove in 2007 are good signs that we're coming around.