Sunday Discussion Group

August 5, 2007

Caroline Fredrickson, the Washington legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the other day that Democrats “have a Pavlovian reaction: Whenever the president says the word ‘terrorism,’ they roll over and play dead.”

I’m beginning to think she has a point.

Under pressure from President Bush, the House gave final approval Saturday to changes in a terrorism surveillance program, despite serious objections from many Democrats about the scope of the executive branch’s new eavesdropping power.

Racing to complete a final rush of legislation before a scheduled monthlong break, the House voted 227 to 183 to endorse a measure the Bush administration said was needed to keep pace with communications technology in the effort to track terrorists overseas. […]

But with the Senate already in recess, Democrats confronted the choice of allowing the administration’s bill to reach the floor and be approved mainly by Republicans or letting it die.

If it had stalled, that would have left Democratic lawmakers, long anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing an August spent fending off charges from Republicans that they had left Americans exposed to threats.

Now, it’s wrong to suggest that all Dems cravenly succumbed to demagogic political pressure. When the votes were tallied, 181 Dems opposed the measure, including the House Speaker, who said the legislation “does violence to the Constitution of the United States.” But 41 Dems broke party ranks and voted to give the president sweeping new surveillance powers with limited checks or restraints. It was easily enough to give the administration a victory.

Likewise, in the Senate, most Dems, including all of the presidential candidates, opposed the measure, but 16 Dems (plus Lieberman) voted for the bill.

What will it take, exactly, for these Dems to stop cowering every time the GOP shouts, “Weak on terror”?

Clearly, much of the caucus knew exactly what was going on while it was happening.

Despite the political risks, many Democrats argued they should stand firm against the initiative, saying it granted the administration far too much latitude to initiate surveillance without judicial review.

They said the White House was using the specter of terrorism to weaken Americans’ privacy rights and give more power to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, an official Democrats say has proved himself untrustworthy.

“Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering,” said Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey.

All of this comes just days after a major national poll showed that the GOP has lost its advantage on public trust when it comes to counter-terrorism for the first time since 9/11.

I suspect the Dems who broke ranks in both chambers are thinking, “I can’t afford to be attacked as ‘weak’ when it comes to terror,” but therein lies the rub — the GOP Smear Machine is going to say that anyway, whether Dems give Bush unreasonable and unrestricted surveillance powers or not.

I’m not condemning the party, but I am condemning that fourth of the party that is too afraid to take a stand. What’s it going to take for them to learn that spinelessness is not a pre-condition to political survival?

What’s it going to take for them to learn that spinelessness is not a pre-condition to political survival?

Ultimately, being voted out of office. In the meantime, where’s Nancy Pelosi’s influence on rogue Democrats? I thought this was her strength, her ability to unite Democrats on really important issues.

Who were these Democrats, that one-fourth who voted to grant Bush even more power? Are these “rogues” really Republicans-in-hiding?

We need a new political party.

  • What will it take…

    It will take a massive deluge of messages telling them they are “weak”. It will take an absolute refusal to contribute any money to their campaigns. But mostly, it will take other real Democrats who are willing to offer themselves as alternatives to these weak geeks. It’s time to clear the decks of “politics as usual”. The voters are sick of it.

  • Ed’s right. We need to focus on these 41 in much the same way we do Republicans in key and endangered races. Maybe some of the 41 had reasons to vote as they did, but we must keep their voting records in mind and start looking at Dem primaries next year for new, more progressive candidates to support.

    I’ve been traveling for a week and this is the first I’ve seen of the “New Look”. Like Dior in 1947, it will revolutionise political websites of the future!

  • Barring a storming of the gates, what else ?

    Let your rep. have it – I just wrote mine a scathing letter. Tell them they WILL be punished for their votes.

    And then follow through. Democratic appeasers of this corrupt idiot will be cut off and voted out. The threat has to be real.

  • The Republicans are Nazis and the Democrats are cowards who want to be seen as good Germans. They are all scum.

    I’m starting to think all this blogging isn’t helping much.

  • the Democratic Party has been a strong advocate of the War on Terror. Lets not forget it was the Democrats that pushed Bush into the Homeland Security Dept, they have used this War on Terror whenever possible to establish they are tough and willing to send troops and bombs anywhere in the world. So don’t expect anything other then a continuation of the Bush Military driven foreign policy approach,even if they win the White House. The American public has been conditioned to believe that a military approach provides them the best security for their SUV debt leveraged lifestyle.

  • Good look, but Smithers should not have been erased. I like the capitol best when he was pouncing on it. At least for one day a week put him back in. Dont be intimidated as the dems are.

  • The Democrats are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The GOP Smear Machine still will call them weak on terror no matter how they voted. That’s why all Democrats have to start voting against Bush-supported legislation that shreds our Constitution and to inform the public how the Republicans are destroying the foundation of our democracy. Also, why can’t the Democrats tell Bush that they will not approve any legislation until he waives executive privilege?!

  • Maybe it’s just an impression created by the press, but Bush seems to have had more victories since the Congress changed hands than before when it was Republican owned. The Democrats are being too cautious because of their fear of appearing indecisive, as the Republicans have branded them. As a consequence, they’re deciding too quickly and are supporting policies to which the electorate is decisively opposed. How it must make the neocon core laugh and high-five each other: they’re unstoppable!

    That was already the last chance for Democrats from a significant block of voters, and if this reaction to the president every time he stamps his foot and says, “Mind me, now!” keeps up, America is going to see a historically low turnout for the 2008 elections.

    If Bush is able to point to a reasonable record of success in getting legislation passed despite general opposition to it, the Democrats will have nobody else to blame. Republican obstructionism doesn’t cut it this time – the Democrats look like cowards, and seem blind to the danger this impression represents.

  • If Dems were serious about leadership they would have first addressed the widespread distrust of the Attorney General.
    Any national security law that leaves Gonzo in charge of compliance is a joke.

    The Dems’ empty political gestures of defiance are not to be taken seriously.
    They are lap dogs.

  • Apparently the Dark Side of the Force really is more powerful. As a minority party, the Dems were unable to be effective oppositon; we blocked virtually nothing and the Rethugs steamrolled us for years. Sadly, we are no better as a majority party: the minority Rethugs still steamroll us and get everything they want (or successfully block everything they don’t want). The only conclusion I can draw is that the party who seeks to use its power for evil is simply better at this “game” than the Dems are — right now it doesn’t even look very close.

    I like Reid and Pelosi, but I’m not sure they are really up to the task of outflanking the unburdened-by-conscience Rethugs. Whatever one may think of their politics or stands on individual issues, I rather suspect we’d fight the strategic battles better with Speaker Emmanuel and Majority Leader Schumer. They both seem tougher, more willing to get down in the mud with the R’s.

  • As angry and disgusted as I am today, I still like lyn5’s response (#9), and would like to extend it a bit to just plain damned. Al Gore’s book Assault on Reason spends considerable time discussing the physiological response to fear, and the fact that it overwhelms the reasoned response. The reThugs have just been out on an utterly shameless fear offensive of the first order on this bill. Read any story or watch any interview and the fear talking points are on full display. If the voluminous psycholgical and physiological literature cited by Gore is correct, the real challenge for the Dems in this environment (beyond growing a spine, of course) is to find a model of response that effectively counteracts the physiological response to reThuglican fear rhetoric. And I don’t know that that would be. I’m not sure Americans are more afraid of Bush, Cheney and Abu than they are terrorists yet. They should be, but they’re not.

  • What reason did the administration give for wanting these changes to the FISA law? What reason? What reason? Because a ten day window for retroactive warrent is too long? That’s not a reason and it’s totally false! What reason?

    It’s because of their chokehold on the media. See Bill Moyers’ Selling The War. The Beltway media is nothing but an echo chamber of Bullshit. We were lied into a war. Lied into a war. The president never offered evidence for any of his claims. The evidence he did cite was bogus. Chalabi is not a credible source. The NIE contradicted the administration and media reports, and the UN had inspectors on the ground in places Powell complained Saddam was hiding.

    This is naked, unchecked aggression.

    Hillary absolutely did not “do the best she could with the information she had.” I’m still going to vote for her though. Ron Paul in the primary. Hillary in the general.

    The PNAC people called for a new December 7th and that’s exactly what they got.

    The last two presidential elections have been stolen.

    Habeus Corpus is gone.

    We torture.

    Our unions are dying and we’ve outsouced elections to private companies who consider the votes cast them proprietary. Huge protests barely get covered on TV. The Public Airwaves are about to be auctioned and you know the highest bidder will also be the most evil.

    The voice of the people is not heard. Most of us are broke and in debt. We’re expected to work all the time. A very high percentage of our people are in jail. And we’re isolated from each other. We only know of other Americans what the media tell us. We let a whole city be destroyed, and we can do nothing about it as a people. Why wouldn’t we build a catergory five levee? I NEVER heard that OBVIOUS plan in all the “coverage” of a city that still lays wasted right now. What was the official death toll from New Orleans? 3000? I bet you believe that, don’t you?

    America’s constitution is being raped, beaten and strangled in the name of national security. And what are we going to do? Hope for our spineless “leaders” to do something about it? Go on a general nationwide strike? Yeah right! This isn’t Gadansk. We can’t organize ourselves like that in America today. We’re all too broke and employed at the will of our bosses. The corporations have us and our government by the balls.

    It’s upsetting.

  • It’s not politics as usual, and it’s not fear of the GOP smear machine. Many Democrats believe in President Bush’s approach and it’s very important to remember this.

  • ZAK822 SAYS MANY DEMOCRATS BELIEVE IN THIS. He’s right of course. We need better democrats. Down with Tyranny found a silver lining “And a little good news on this dismal night. Every single Blue America endorsed candidate– no exceptions– voted against Bush’s unconstitutional power grab.”

    So that’s a big part of the answer. Change the party. Although seeing JIm Webb vote for this on the Senate side was a huge let down. I will continue to support him, but givemeabreak.

  • Haik asks a question that has long fascinated me. In central and eastern European countries, and others scattered around the globe, offensive governmental decisions, policies, actions, electoral games and the like are met with massive protests and civil disobedience – general strikes are one of the tools in the public’s tool kit for redress of grievances against the government.

    So why do those things simply never happen here? In Ukraine, Poland, Romania, there are loosely organized, short-notice marches and demonstrations that draw 100,000 people in countries where that is a much, much higher percentage of the population than it would be here.

    For a long time, I assumed it was because at the end of the day we are, for the most part, too fat and happy, too comfortable and complacent. Most of us don’t have any family members or acquaintances who have been disappeared. We make, on a global-relative scale, seriously good money. And we have stuff – video games, TV, and yes, computers to enterain and distract us.

    But I am beginning to think – and Haik’s post hints at this – that another possible explanation is that the opportunity cost is in some ways higher here. If I am in a country with 25% unemployment, low wages in terms of purchasing power, few things to purchase in any event, and strong unions to help protect my job the risk of job loss (and the potential opportunity cost of job loss) is much lower than here where unemployment is 4%, job competition if prevalent, pay is high enough that missing a day has a big value, and my protection in my job is non-existent.

    Not to give the passive American public a pass, or to deny free will, but it may be that “we” are more under the control of the corporate establishment than it appears at first blush, even to the point of subtle cultural parameters that prevent mass protest against being screwed by government.

  • zeitgeist

    I think there’s one more factor as well. I think the Bush administration has convinced Americans that what they want really doesn’t matter, so no amount of demonstrating or public protest will have one iota of effect.

    In my younger days back in the 70s, those things DID make a difference, perhaps primarily with “local” legislators, but eventually there were enough local legislators who listened to make a difference at the national level. The Vietnam War, the civil rights movements for women and minorities, while not new, really began to show results after years of protest. But we should keep in mind that those results sometimes occurred only after violent confrontations with the government — Selma, Alabama, Kent State, etc.

    I don’t know about others, but I’ve concluded that the ONLY thing short of violence that will make a difference is elected legislators, and if they refuse to listen to their reasonable constituents, then something else must create change. And that change historically has occurred only after violence rears its ugly head, never from “reasonable” discourse. Who is willing to give their lives for American freedom any more? I think we’re still at the stage of hoping that reason and courage among our legislators will prevail.

  • Zeitgeist: As you posted the other day the majority of American’s believed that invading Afgan was the proper thing to do, so the War on Terror is military driven which drives our foreign policy objectives and our national spending objectives, both major parties favor this approach. If not they get the label of Nuts, Moron etc, kinda like many comments directed at some posters on this blog.

  • I hear over and over that Dems were reluctant to go back to their home bases without having shown support for the Sekurity of das Homeland. They didn’t want to be accused of being “soft on terrorism”.

    Well I wonder what they’ll think about arriving home and being roundly and accurately accused of being soft on fascism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism right here in das Homeland. The obsession with fighting Islamowhateverism all over the globe is just a sham facade and distraction from seeing the dictatorial corporatism born and bred right here in the crumbling USA.

    Shruby told them to stay in place and finish his business so they did. Yes sir. Right away sir. Shine your shoes sir? Any blemishes on the royal commode sir? You may spy on who you wish now sir. May we leave now sir? Thank you sir. Thank you very much sir. We’ll be back soon sir. Be thinking about what you’d like next sir.

    (The sound of bowing and scraping and jostling as the chastened and humble Dems back clumsily out of the royal chamber is accompanied by the sound of soft thunks as the retreating Dems are pelted with half eaten turkey legs and laughter on their way out.)

  • Maybe it’s just an impression created by the press, but Bush seems to have had more victories since the Congress changed hands than before when it was Republican owned.

    This is the desired effect. What are being called Republican ‘victories’ are a.) vetoes, b.) veto threats, c.) GOP filibusters, c) proceduraly blocked legislation, via holds, etc, and d.) administrative actions that Congress is unable to directly effect.

    You’d never know that anything had actually been passed.

    But then, why would the media — more accurately, its owners — want you to find out?

  • Pelosi’s answer is to join with John Conyers to offer legislation to amend the newly passed bill “as soon as possible.”

    Translation: After allowing the horse to leave the barn, Pelosi and Conyers hatch a plan to close the barn door.

    Words fail me.

  • Anne

    Yes, and Bush will veto any amendment to the bill passed yesterday. The Democrats are apparently trying to position themselves on “high moral ground”, a silly and ineffectual waste of time, rather than stopping him.

    I, too, am sick of the Democrats’ spinelessness, feel as trapped in a nightmare by their actions as Bush’s actions.

  • I’ve always said that I would vote for an old yellow dog if he will caucus with the Democrats. And I’ve always said that there really is a difference between the two major parties. I still stand by both statements, but this is the sort of thing that gives credibility to Nader and Kucinich when they say that there is no difference. Elections may have consequences, but sometimes not as many consequences as we would like.

    It’s no surprise that approval ratings for Congress are even lower than Bush’s ratings. Republicans hate the “Democrat” Congress just because it’s controlled by Democrats, and the rest of us are disgusted with them for continuing to allow Bush to play them like violins. The spineless morons are too afraid of being labeled by the Republican smear machine as “soft on terrorism” to stand up and do what they know is right.

    I suppose I should be grateful that my worthless Congressman (Dan Boren, DINO-OK) is a Democrat at all in this conservative part of he country. Tom Coburn (now one of our US Senators along with Crazy Jim Inhofe) used to represent this same district, and Coburn is about as bad as Republicans get.

    Tomorrow morning I will write and call Congressman Boren to tell him how disgusted I am with him. I will tell him that I plan to support his opponent in a Democratic primary (although no one is likely to oppose him). I urge everyone who reads this to send the same message to your own Congressman or Senator if he or she is another DINO.

    And then I will vote for the Democratic nominees in November 2008, even if they are old yellow dogs. In Dan Boren’s case, an old yellow dog would be an improvement.

    This is so very frustrating!

  • Okie, maybe you should oppose Dan Boren. You’ve got fire in the belly, are well informed and well spoken. It’s not about winning, it’s about speaking the truth and having a forum that can make a difference which, as much as I love this nabe, isn’t going to happen by complaining here…just sayin’…

  • The neocons (primarily Republicans…but includes some Democrats) should not be allowed to define the problems. We all need to start talking about the true terror that has already invaded our country.

    The terror within is far more lethal than that without. Corruption of our Constitution, Bill of Rights and separation of powers are the only things that can destroy our country. Our Country is neither flag, nor building; it is Constitution and people.

    To make this more apparant we need media exposure. Unfortunately the preponderance of the media is now corporate and the corporate interests are what are driving the takeover of our government from within.

    We are morphing into an America by and for the Corporations. Driven into it by propaganda and rhetoric that uses fear, hate and lies wrapped in emotionally charged oneliners.

    If people are now only able to think via one liners we need some powerful oneliners/bumperstickers to compete in this sitcom world.

  • What will it take?

    Well, if we’re serious, there needs to be repercussions when Democrats break with their party. The most reasonable of these is to make it clear that party organizations that dole out money to campaigns will withhold, and to follow up on that.

    Republicans have been very good at this, and seem to recruit those who place loyalty first.

    There are dangers to this approach, but it is effective.

  • Catherine – first the Democratic party has to figure out what it is and what it stands for in order to be able to identify who is or is not breaking with it; I really do not see a whole lot of unity of purpose or spirit among the Democrats in Congress, which puts them a few steps behind the rest of us.

    To use some sports terminology, and in keeping with the almost-start of football season (Yay!), the Democrats need a lot of work on their 2-minute drill, and their play inside the red zone. We seem to be able to get the ball down inside the 20, and then, we fritter away all the opportunities to score 6, and either settle for a field goal attempt, or we turn the ball over. We are, effectively, in the last 2 minutes of this game, and we can either try to win decisively, or make a weak attempt not to lose. You’s think we would want a decisive win as we go into the next game – the battle for wins in November, 2008, but it seems more like we have already decided there is no way we can lose, so we are just going through the motions.

    When football teams do that, it often ends up biting them in the butt. If this were a “game,” I wouldn’t mind so much, but it’s anything but, and our “leaders” in Congress do not seem to be able to see that.

    [Apologies to those of you who aren’t football fans]

  • What will it take, exactly, for these Dems to stop cowering every time the GOP shouts, “Weak on terror”?

    It is now clear that “these Dems” never will. There is no vote too easy for “these Dems” to get wrong.

    “These Dems” are every bit as soft, waffly, and flip-floppy as the GOP has always accused them of being.

    “These Dems” stand for nothing.

    “These Dems” aren’t Dems at all. They’re just officeholders. Sinecures.

    We were all sitting around, fat and happy, looking forward with glee to the next few congressional election cycles. We were wrong. We have a lot of work to do. Not just to defeat the GOP, but to clean our own house.

    “These Dems” have got to go.

    All of them.

  • Thanks, Frak. (#26) But I write much better than I speak, I have no qualifications, and I have even less money.

    When Boren was first elected he ran in the Democratic primary against a DYNAMITE candidate, Kalyn Free.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalyn_Free

    Boren won because he has a famous name – his father David Boren is a former Governor and US Senator, and now President of the University of Oklahoma. And young Dan has strong support from “Sportsmen (i.e. gun enthusiasts) for Boren.”

    If Kalyn couldn’t beat him, I can’t imagine who ever will.

    It’s so frustrating!

  • The point of CBs post that I find most pertinent is that the FISA measures were not passed by Democrats — they were passed by Republicans plus a few Democrats. We can blame those individual Dems who supported the measure, and we blame leadership for not being able to reign more of them in, but we can’t blame Dems across the board. Most voted in opposition.

    Had Republicans voted for the measures in the proportion Dems did, they would have passed with veto-proof majorities. As disappointing, disgusting, depressing and incredulous as the FISA passage is, there remains a difference between the parties as a whole.

  • Looking back at your comment, Okie (#25), I still think there is a real difference between the parties. Unfortunately, as those parties are currently represented, that difference is: the GOP stands for something, and the DP doesn’t.

    We’ve got one party that stands for the wrong things, and another that doesn’t stand for anything.

    Since the ’06 election, I’ve been saying to GOP acquaintances that the Dems learned a lesson that the GOP, with all the “RINO” talk, had forgotten: that just having more people in your caucus is a win, even if some of them often break with you on individual votes. I can even say that about Joe Lieberman, if I hold my nose.

    But this vote. This wasn’t a “I have to vote against taxes” issue. It wasn’t a “I can’t appear to be ‘promoting alternative lifestyles'” vote.

    This is fundamental, structure of government stuff. Separation of powers and protection of basic civil liberties stuff.

    This was a stand up for the Constitution vote.

    I’d vote for an old yellow dog before I’d vote for somebody who can’t get that one right.

  • I and so many of my friends all emailed our Senator…Senator McCaskill whom we had great respect for…whild the legislation was in the Senate before the vote was taken. We strongly asked her not to succumb to being bullied or blackmailed into giving Bush more power without oversight and anything involving AG should be denied as he was one step ahead of impeachment. Bush has no credibility we said. He can’t be trusted. All was in vain.
    McCaskill voted against her own party, against 33 other senators of her own party. Voted with the Republicans…the same republicans like Trent “run for your lives, obstruct everything Lott, …John “boo-hoo pass the scotch so I can take ’em on” Boehner…and fellow state republican senator Kit “I was enthusiastically wrong for 3yrs, but I’m right now” Bond from MO. I too wrote her a scathing letter as did my friends but I’m still so disappointed and discouraged. I thought we could trust our one Democratic senator not to support Bush’s grab for more power to abuse. So what do I call McCaskill now?

    Senator Webb also was a big disappointment but not a surprise. He overcomplicates issues and overlooks the obvious. He’s so gun ho on “security” that he overlooks the nature of Bush as exampled by Bush wanting to put Gonzales in charge of oversight…that should have set bells ringing in alarm…that in itself means abuse and corruption,…Gonzales?…an AG loyal only to Bush, whom he can control and manipulate, who will lie and cover for him…the same ambush Ashcroft in the hospital room Gonzales? What the hell is wrong with these people? There is no justification or explanation that could stand up under scrutiny. What happened to these Senators?

  • Beep52 — I agree, and I don’t. Even the Dems who voted against this thing didn’t go to the mattresses over it, as they clearly should have. Where was the arm twisting? Where was the filibuster?

    Even if opponents knew cloture would be invoked, they still should’ve filibustered it.

    Nobody was willing to do that. If they’re not willing to “remember the Alamo” on this, what would they ever be willing to make that kind of stand on?

  • We must have elected a bunch of morons to the membership and leadership of both houses in order for the minority to govern the majority every time. The whole thing’s a very sick joke.

  • Congressional Democrats do not know how to parry the tactics of George W. Bush and his minions. For the past few weeks we have been treated to renewed rhetorical drum beats of OSAMA – OSAMA – OSAMA. Michael Chertoff feels in his “gut” that OSAMA and his followers are planning yet another spectacular attack inside the US. Suddenly Bush’s speeches are filled with ALL OSAMA / ALL THE TIME. Clearly this tactic was laying the foundation for addressing a “problem” FISA Court has with the Constitutionality of the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.” We know that the Court had a problem with it courtesy of John Boehner and Fox News. If John Boehner knew about the FISA Court’s objections to the program, Reid and Pelosi knew, as well. Did they not sit down to map out any sort of strategy for response to what they should have known was coming? Supposedly they had reached an accord with What’s His Face – the DNI – and then Bush reneged. Why not spend a week (or two) hammering that home? Why not make the DNI – Mike McConnell – answer why what was good enough for him suddenly isn’t good enough for the President?

    They should have stayed in session and worked through it. They decry the Iraqis for taking a month off while our soldiers die. They are no different. They looked like they could not wait to get away for “recess.” And in order to leave, they had to make sure they they could not be tarred with a brush that is the equivalent of “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the US.” What if there is another spectacular attack in August or early September? That question could destroy any Senator’s enjoyment of his/her Mint Julep. No, it would be better to be “safe,” and vote “Yea” on some crappy bill that will allow you to say that you did all you possibly could to stop the terrorists. That will help the Mint Julep go down smoothly.

    I wrote to both my Senators – Cantwell to thank her for voting “no,” and Murray to express my disappointment and disgust that she did not vote. I also wrote all the Democratic Senators who voted “Yea” and told them that S 1927 was a triumph of fear over the Constitution. I plan to pay a visit to the offices of both Murray and Cantwell during August. It may be a waste of my time, but I am determined to let them see the face of a constituent who is losing faith with the process and questioning the judgement and courage of all national political leaders. Bush / Cheney and Co are a cancer on the Republic. They whisper to us all that we must be afraid, and we must give up some of our civil rights in order to stay safe. They keep many of our elected representatives and our “bored by politics” fellow citizens afraid and thinking that allowing the government great powers to spy on us is the only way we can protect our way of life. They have perverted how many people think of “our way of life.” Somehow a President who wields fear to arrogate power to himself is keeping a promise to the citizens that they can enjoy “Freedom From Fear.” “I must make you afraid to keep you free from fear.” is the new “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Welcome to the “land of the not so free and the home of the afraid.”

  • bjobotts – I thought you sounded like a fellow Missourian.

    I left something in Senator McCaskill’s inbox as well. It was my bad that I figured opposing this piece of legislation was a no-brainer and the email I sent was after the fact.

    I spent a lot of time prior to the last election convincing various friends and relatives who were fence-sitters to get out and vote to get Talent out of office and now this. *sigh*

  • TuiMel – where did you find info on which 12 failed to vote? senate.gov for some reason has not updated to include the spy-on-Americans bill yet.

    I think the amount of internal house cleaning we focus on is a relative thing. I have some sympathy for McCaskill – a nailbiter election, in a generally Red state, is not exactly a strong hand to play. I would be reluctant to write her off just yet. Boren, despite the Red state, doesn’t get the same break because he votes against party on nearly every major bill. With Webb we all got exactly what we bought: a former Republican with no real track record as a progressive who was an articulate and perfectly credentialed spokesman on a single issue – Iraq. (I thought the party’s behavior in backing Webb over a lifelong activist Dem was atrocious from the start). Hard to blame Webb for being exactly who he’s always been.

    The ones the frustrate me are Mikulski, from whom I expected so much better, and Klobuchar, whose state is traditionally Blue and who could have easily taken a stand. On the House side, Boswell broke ranks when the other two D’s from Iowa (at least one of which has a tougher district) voted with the party. But can you really afford to toss Mikulski – who is strong on so many issues – overboard on this? How much purity do we require? Do we throw someone brand new like Klobuchar over? Now Boswell, he’s had plenty of chances and votes wrong a lot, so in his case a housecleaning may be just what is needed. But my point is that this housecleaning/primary challenge decision – particularly because it burns resources that could be saved for the general – is a fairly complicated matter.

  • urbino (@35)… Deciding between an ideological stand and pragmatic action is a tough one in politics. The Alamo might have been a courageous stand, but they all died — sometimes, it makes sense to retreat to fight another day. I don’t know what went on behind the scenes here and I’m not arguing that the majority of Dems did the right thing by not taking a firmer stand. Just that Republicans played the far larger role in passing these measures — something that’s often lost in the discussion across the blogs.

    What I find particularly curious is that most Dem members of the Senate Intelligence Committee seemingly supported the FISA changes. I’d love to know what went on there. Nothing that I can imagine would justify involving the AG in any way.

  • Ed Stephan, you’re a historian. Do you know when and why did Americans stopped tar & feathering politicians? Just wondering.

  • Perhaps the moderate dems put policy over politics and truely believe this vote was in the best interest of all Americans’ security.

  • Zeitgeist – Mikulski is my Senator, and while she has been generally reliable on issues, she’s also getting older, has had some off-and-on health issues, and could be vulnerable next time around. There have been whisperings of Bob Ehrlich running to take that seat, and I think he could actually do that if the circumstances were right (even typing that makes me a little nauseated). If there were a younger, reliable Democratic primary challenger, I might have to think about looking to the future.

    But, she will be hearing from me about her vote on the FISA bill – count on that.

  • Quite simply…I feel that when Americans (and our politicians) desert our country’s ideals and the constitution in favor of spying and torture… It is no longer the United States of America, but some regression in time to a pre technological third world state of mind.

  • Perhaps the moderate dems put policy over politics and truely believe this vote was in the best interest of all Americans’ security.

    On defense issues, I’m a moderate Dem. Between the invasion of Iraq and late last year, I was to the right of most Dems. (I opposed the invasion, but once we were there, I thought we should make a full national commitment.)

    There was no “moderate” way of supporting this FISA bill. There was no way to split the difference. It was wrong. Fundamentally wrong.

    And sincerity doesn’t feed the bulldog. I happen to think a good many neocons “truly believe” what they’re doing is “in the best interest of all Americans’ security.”

    True believers are not in short supply. People who can tell a good idea from an outrageous one are.

    And if you can’t do that, I don’t care what party you’re in or how sincere you are, you’ve got no business setting national policy. They have to go.

  • I happen to think a good many neocons “truly believe” what they’re doing is “in the best interest of all Americans’ security.”

    I should add that I also happen to think they are HUGELY wrong.

  • The Alamo might have been a courageous stand, but they all died — sometimes, it makes sense to retreat to fight another day.

    I completely agree, beep52. But the congressional Dems seem unable to locate that “other day.” All they do is retreat and retreat and retreat. They didn’t stand and fight when they were the minority, and now that they’re the majority in both houses, they still don’t.

    Sooner or later, you have to stop retreating to fight another day and fight today, even if you know you’ll lose, or else you simply become irrelevant.

    And if “these Dems” can’t stand and fight on this one, I sadly just don’t believe they ever will. Ever.

  • Jim B (#42),

    I think it just petered out, apparently quite recently if you check out the Wikipedia article (which does contain a fair listing of historical tar and featherings).

    Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, but the site was down when I tried.

  • #49 Ed Stephan said,

    I think it just petered out, apparently quite recently if you check out the Wikipedia article (which does contain a fair listing of historical tar and featherings).

    Thanks, Ed. I don’t know where I got the idea politicians were tarred and feathered. I should of known better.

  • Maybe it was from Chapter 33 of Huckleberry Finn, where there is a description of “the Duke and the Dolphin” (two theatrical charlatans) having been tarred and feathered:

    On the road Tom he told me all about how it was reckoned I was murdered, and how pap disappeared pretty soon, and didn’t come back no more, and what a stir there was when Jim run away; and I told Tom all about our Royal Nonesuch rapscallions, and as much of the raft voyage as I had time to; and as we struck into the town and up through the — here comes a raging rush of people with torches, and an awful whooping and yelling, and banging tin pans and blowing horns; and we jumped to one side to let them go by; and as they went by I see they had the king and the duke astraddle of a rail — that is, I knowed it WAS the king and the duke, though they was all over tar and feathers, and didn’t look like nothing in the world that was human — just looked like a couple of monstrous big soldier-plumes. Well, it made me sick to see it; and I was sorry for them poor pitiful rascals, it seemed like I couldn’t ever feel any hardness against them any more in the world. It was a dreadful thing to see. Human beings CAN be awful cruel to one another.

    • Comments are closed.