Dredging up what is now ancient history, I think one of the funniest aspects of the Beauchamp spectacle from last year was the way the New Republic became branded as a hard left, America-hating magazine for the dirty fucking hippy set, when in reality it is a center left magazine (and many times marginally that) that was pro-war and has featured as editor such left-wing luminaries as Andrew Sullivan and Michael Kelly. The whole thing was absurd.
The reason I mention this is because today, by way of discussing the Democratic cave-in on FISA, Glenn Greenwald talks about the TNR’s past pro-war support and names a new disease:
More importantly, it’s a perfect museum exhibit to illustrate how the Democratic Party failed completely to provide any meaningful opposition to the extremism, excesses and abuses of the Bush years, instead enabling and endorsing those abuses when they weren’t standing by meekly and quietly allowing it all to take root. Throughout the Bush era, the Democratic Party has been dominated by The New Republic Syndrome — Democrats who are either petrified of meaningfully opposing the right-wing agenda that has dominated our country or who support virtually all of it, while eagerly volunteering to serve as the most vocal demonizers of those who want our country to have a real opposition party.
Despite those forced mea culpas and reversals, TNR never actually learns. Today — in a post bearing the very sensible and Serious title: “Keeping FISA in Perspective” — TNR is here, via Josh Patashnik, to tell you that there’s nothing truly disturbing about the FISA bill that is about to pass…
***The reason these posts are worth noting is because they so perfectly capture the mindset that needs to be undermined more than any other. It’s this mentality that has destroyed the concept of checks and limits in our political system; it’s why we have no real opposition party; and it’s why the history of the Democrats over the last seven years has been to ignore and then endorse one extremist Bush policy after the next. It’s because even as The New Republic Syndrome has been proven to be false and destructive over and over — even its practitioners have been forced to recognize that — it continues to be the guiding operating principle of the party’s leadership.
The defining beliefs of this Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right’s agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right’s national security premises is too scary and politically costly. Those campaigning against Democratic politicians who endorse and enable the worst aspects of Bush extremism are “nuts,” “need to have their heads examined,” and are “exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s.” Those who oppose totally unprovoked and illegal wars are guilty of “abject pacifism.”
It’s exactly that mentality that has brought us to where we are as a country and a political system today.
In that light, it is easier for me to understand why many think Obama has cut and run on FISA, despite maintaining he will work to remove immunity. From my perspective, I don’t see much of a capitulation, but more of a recognition of the realities, but if you look at what Glenn and I are both arguing (and neither one of us supports the FISA bill), it seems like the difference between the two of us is really in what we think of as the long-term strategy. For me, the long-term is in the context of the election, and November is the end-game. With my mindset, you look at the political realities, realize you are right on the issue but the politics are against you, cut your losses and keep working towards changing the game in November. I just don’t see anything in the works that will be game-changing regarding this piece of legislation- it is going to pass, no matter what Obama does.
For Glenn, the long-term means the fight must start now, and if you fight now, the election will turn your way, as it will be a reflection of the public’s embrace of your willingness to fight. Any of the short-term political concerns that I noted here are of little relevance, and your larger message will carry the day. In essence, Glenn is arguing that the reason Democrats keep losing is because they refuse to fight, and I have to admit, there is a helluva lot of truth to that. With that in mind, I can fully understand why many feel let-down by Obama’s “capitulation.” Again, I do not see it as a capitulation, but a recognition that the fight is lost and there is no point wasting political capital on the issue, but if you work from Glenn’s frame, anything other than a barn-burning rebuke of the FISA garbage that just passed the house is capitulation.
In short, in my way of looking at things, nothing changes if we lose in November. Glenn believes nothing changes unless we change the way we fight, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next week with FISA being presented in the Senate. The bill is going to pass, but how Obama fights the immunity provision will go a long way to demonstrating what he thinks the best general election strategy will be for his team. Personally, I think Obama has already shown a willingness to fight and to engage, and that he realizes this issue is lost, but it remains to be seen if that will satisfy those who want a bolder strategy.
This post got a lot longer and much more rambling than I had intended…
over_educated
This is a savvy move by Obama. It cuts off the “weak on terrorism” line of attack while burnishing his credentials to middle America as a “compromiser.”
Kerry stuck to his guns by not running negative advertising during his campaign. We see how well that worked. At this point I think the Bush administration is so bad for the country that I would support Obama if he was a closet Nazi and drank fetus milkshakes. At least he doesn’t have a reverse Midas touch.
Warren Terra
Wasn’t it Michael Kinsley, a man obviously well-informed about conventional wisdom and especially about The New Republic, who said during the 80’s that the magazine really should be renamed to concord with the way it usually came up in policy conversations, i.e. the magazine’s name should be Even The Liberal New Republic?
And of course TNR became a weasely Blue Dog, NeoCon rag under Andrew Sullivan and especially from 2000 through, oh, 2005 (with frequent relapses since). It employs good people (Chait comes to mind), but I cancelled my subscription when TNR applauded the Supreme Court’s Bush V Gore decision, and I haven’t often regretted the decision since.
D. Mason
I also don’t see this as capitulation. This is the Democrats getting what they want. It is their bill after all.
Splitting Image
I haven’t commented on Obama yet because I’m waiting to see what he does when it reaches the Senate.
A lot of people see the two houses as two parts of the same thing (which is understandable), but having a Senator intrude on “House business” is Not Done. If Obama had rebuked the House Democrats in any meaningful way, they would have told him to MYOB.
I think, unfortunately, retroactive immunity is a done deal. But we shall see.
NR
Seeing how many Democrats in Congress are willing to roll over for the right has made me think that even if Obama wins, we’re still going to be in serious trouble.
It’ll be a debacle, like Carter’s term, or the first two years of Clinton’s first term. During those six years, the Democrats had bigger Congressional majorities than they’re likely to have in 2009, and they were still unable to accomplish anything, unless massive airline and trucking deregulation, huge increases in defense spending (forget Reagan, it started under Carter), a bad labor law, and NAFTA count.
It doesn’t matter how big the Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate get – there are still way too many conservatives in them for us to get much of anything done. A commenter over at Greenwald’s place said it best – forget the Republicans, if Obama wins, the bloodiest battles of the next two years are going to be between progressive Democrats and conservative Democrats. And unfortunately, our leadership has already shown us what side they’re on.
Sloegin
Just remember to call that rag “The New Republican” and you won’t get confused nearly as much.
Doug H. (Fausto no more)
Dammit, John, you’ll never get another 100 comments out of Soj and MyCain by being reasonable!
Wilfred
Thus the Dem leadership on Lieberman – it’s a fair summation of what politics has always been about. For the FISA diehards who think that Dem capitulation means surrendering civil liberties etc. well, then that’s your Shall Not Pass Moment. If you don’t know why everyone isn’t as passionate as you, just remember your disinterest when somebody else’s ox was gored.
One man’s thoughtful consideration is another man’s wanking. Personally, the silence of Americans of both parties on American enabling of the occupation of Palestine and its corresponding abuses makes FISA look like college freshman bullshit. To each his own.
The Other Steve
More GOP funnies. Candidate in Oregon pressured girlfriend to get an abortion, yet is touting his right-to-life credentials.
4tehlulz
>>being reasonable!
There’s no reason to smear John like that. Such an accusation might get him thrown off the Intertr0nz.
handy
I made the point in the other thread (before it got hijacked by the Hillary trolls) that I wasn’t putting any expectation on Obama to be the force of change in the Democratic party.
That kind of change has to happen from the ground up. D. Mason is exactly right: the majority of Democrats in Congress wanted what they’ve got. And unless we plebes throw them out by their collective ear, nothing is going to change on that front.
Would it have been nice for him to take charge and demand no immunity on FISA? Absolutely. But he didn’t. Big surprise: everyone this side of Dennis Kucinich knew he’s an MOR politician.
But even if he wants to transform Washington the way he says he does, he still will have to contend with the TNR/Blue Dog/DLC crowd, not to mention the Repugs. Which brings me back to my point: change happens local, then national.
Joshua Norton
Unfortunately, there’s too many people out there who find it hard to wrap their brains around Bewitched having 2 Darrins, let alone understand what a cluster-fuck this country has become under Repug rule. All they need is a simplistic “solution” thrown at them and they’ll start screaming for it without even knowing what it means or how it will work out.
9/11? Solution: Bomb someone.
Terrorism? Solution: Illegally spy on the whole population.
Energy? Solution: Drill anywhere.
And these are going to be their upcoming campaign issues.
It’s akin to the Underpants Elves business plan.
1. Steal Underpants.
2. ??????
3. Profit!!!
Bush Administration:
1. Do something stupid.
2. ??????
3. Success!!!
And they fall for it every single time.
Jorge
The past 4 years have all been about the Democrats allowing people to fully suffer from the Bush/Delay days while not giving the right-wing hacks too much ammunition. As much as I hate to live in these times, I can’t argue that they are not effectively leading the country towards a Democratic majority on the state and national level.
I know what Obama’s agenda is and I am looking forward to it. I can handle a few more months of this crap if it will help to ensure the next 8 years.
slippytoad
Obama is caving to the fetus milkshake lobby.
/snark
/hivemind
/omg /ohnoes
Svensker
Wilfred, word.
Did you see Bernard Chazelle’s 6/22 Tiny Revolution piece on the Two State Solution? Not that it’s anything you didn’t know.
That said, I’m with Glenzilla on this one. There’s only so much pragmatism that can be absorbed before the sponge is just as wet as the water.
Big E
RE: “nothing changes if we lose in November”
I’m losing faith as to whether there is any real difference anymore between the Dems & Repubs….. the programs the Dems champion are losing ground to Pharm, Oil and other biz special interests..I’m not sure despite the rhetoric, if the Dems have the resolve.
Joe Beese
Nothing changes if we lose in November.
And nothing changes after Obama makes the identical argument as Bush: that the government has to take your Constitutional protections away to keep you safe from the boogeymen.
Say this for McCain: At least he had the courage to stab me from the front.
Elvis Elvisberg
O/T: McCain aide: “John McCain is aware of the internet.”
Sorry, Senator. That falls short of what we expect from right wingers.
Batocchio
Thanks, John, I think that’s your most thoughtful post yet on the subject. I don’t blame anyone for being disappointed by Obama, given how horrendous this bill is. We’ll see what happens in the Senate. But alas, in this case, almost all of the Dem leadership is on the wrong side of this, and used the backroom, lie-in-public method precisely to avoid earlier opposition from the netroots and greater public, who polls show didn’t support this. I agree with your point that Obama might not be able to win this specific fight, and must plan for November, but I also agree with Greenwald that this overall pattern has to change, and one way of doing that is challenging and ousting officials who support this crap. If nothing else, it’s important to continue to establish a voice more liberal and sensible than the New Republic crowd, who are occasionally insightful, but are mostly smug, obtuse, and barely liberal folks who suck-up to conservatives – much like some of the worst Dems in office. Obama has been pretty good about smacking down plenty of the usual GOP BS. I also don’t think opposition to this specific bill should stop in the slightest, and if it’s passed into law, efforts should continue to repeal it, as well as efforts to hold investigations into who Cheney and the gang were spying on. This vote, though, does point to the problem with even veto-proof majorities in both houses. The Dems have enough craven and corrupt people in office to derail many worthy initiatives. It’s not as if we have a representative or responsive Congress, either in terms of the Democrats or the general public. The long game requires plenty of thought, and action.
Brachiator
You’re both right. There is no point in holding Obama singularly responsible for the failures of the Democratic Congressional leadership, and sheer folly to lose sight of the main goal — win in November.
But Glenn has a point when he notes that “the Democratic Party failed completely to provide any meaningful opposition to the extremism, excesses and abuses of the Bush years….”
In his majority decision on the Gitmo habeas corpus case, Justice Kennedy patiently recapped the entire goddamn history of civil liberties in England and America. Justice Souter, in his concurring opinion, demolished every phony point that Scalia raised in his dissent.
The more rational wing of the Court is trying to provide the historical and ammunition that the Democrats need to battle the GOP’s consistent bleat that 9/11 changed everything and requires that the nation in effect suspend the Constitution.
A recent NYT piece details how the Supreme Court has turned back Bush Administration claims to sweeping authority (Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President):
But instead of taking advantage of this change in the tide of judicial opinion, the Congressional Democrats ineptly ply a strategy which is based on capitulation.
So I am not convinced that the Democrats had to cave on FISA, but at the least they should do a much better job of pointing out to the American people why it is a flawed piece of legislation, and to lay the groundwork for its swift repeal.
Elvis Elvisberg
OK, now, on topic. Glenn et al believe that Democrats are too afraid of the GOP. Right now, the public trusts the Democrats over the GOP on national security (admittedly by a small margin). So, pass a bill with any necessary fixes (on int’l to int’l calls routed through the US), and let Mr. 23 percent veto it for its lack of immunity.
I’m not buying the argument that the story begins with the House’s passage of the bill. But even if so, I’d at least want him to vote “no.” This isn’t a popular bill, it isn’t essential that something be passed, and the era of caving into the jingoist Republicans on everything plausibly related to national security is over. I don’t think there is much down side to voting against it.
But we’re at “agree to disagree” in this point in the conversation.
crw
The thing is, we don’t know what Obama is going to do at this point. He expressed support for “the compromise” sans telecomm immunity. To my mind, he may be trying to thread the needle here. That is, yes he supports expanded wiretap powers under FISA in theory, and without telecomm imunity this compromise would be acceptable. But with telecomm imunity, it becomes unacceptable and he has an excuse to vote no. Before we hyperventilate to death, lets see what he actually does.
Bear in mind, a lot of the anger over this issue is based in the perception that the Democrats at letting war criminals get away with it. It’s not so much about expanded government power (though that’s bad), but more about the truth being covered up by dismissing civil lawsuits where the discovery process could bring a lot of evidence into the light. The thinking goes that once this evidence comes out, the country will magically swing around toward supporting criminal prosecution of the Bushies. I’m skeptical that would ever happen anyway, which is why I don’t get particularly worked up over this issue. But the anger is understandable.
Lee
I’m not really sure where to start here, but first off I will admit that I had, after some initial hesitation with him, hung all my reform hopes on Obama. Not fair to him and obviously, over time, a disappointment for me. I think he’s better than Hillary Clinton would have been but that doesn’t make him the savior of democracy in America.
However, having come to my newest realization that Obama is not single-handedly going to save America from the downward spiral into fascism that I greatly fear it’s started on, I have to say that I am tired of Democrats (and Obama) “keeping our powder dry”.
At what point do they really start fighting? After Obama is elected? What’s to stop him from caving later, when certain blue dog Democrats and Republicans unite to oppose whatever he is wanting? When reelection time for Obama rolls around again are we back to square one?
I guess I take the longer view, along with Greenwald, that the fight has to start now. Our democracy is dying the death of a thousand cuts. With each cut, the fight to right all the wrongs becomes that much harder. The only thing holding the line right now is the judicial system. And with 5-4 decisions on the Supreme Court, I don’t know how much longer we can count on the judicial branch to keep us from sliding into some form of monarchy, dictatorship, fascism, whatever the end result of all this is going to be.
Taking the long view, aka “Keeping our powder dry”, simply has not worked so far. It’s just an easy way, imho, to not engage for another week/month/year.
HyperIon
I just want Obama to vote NO.
That’s all.
Point out the many problems with the bill and vote NO.
Is that too much too ask?
mrmobi
Really good post, John. I think Glenn has a point, but I don’t see this group of Democrats having enough gumption to oppose Bush with such slim majorities. I don’t think this is a fight we can win, it sucks too much political oxygen to pursue that fight, and gives the Republicans a national security issue to run on in the fall.
We’re already in serious trouble.
The biggest, most intractable problem of all, I think, is Iraq. For any of Obama’s other priorities to get the required funding, the war has to be wound down and ultimately, ended.
Getting out of Iraq won’t be easy, absent a pure “cut and run” strategy (like that of Gen. Bill Odom) and that clearly isn’t in Obamas play-book. IMHO, the Iraq war is to the US as the Afghanistan war was to the USSR. The sooner we recognize that, the better it will be for us.
Of course, that assumes Bush doesn’t attack Iran before the end of his term. I shudder to think what a third conflict does to the equation.
Clearly, the next president, whoever he is, will have a full plate, a mountain of debt, a government staffed with incompetents and religious nuts, a broken military, an an electorate looking for immediate relief.
What could go wrong?
BH-Buck
I think what it really boils down to is there are some who are more optimistic and trusting than others.
2006 was supposed to be about change. Look how beautifully that worked out. People felt betrayed and for a damn good reason. Started off with impeachment being taken off the table, and went downhill from there.
Well, here it is 2008 and already a sense of betrayal (which you can not deny) hangs thick in the air. Of course people are upset. And rightfully so.
Calling them idiots and telling them to fuck off really helps to keep the party together.
NR
Even the metaphor is flawed. Standing up for what’s right isn’t like powder that gets used up, it’s like a muscle that gets stronger every time you use it.
Grand Moff Texan
It’s simple, really.
The money defines the politics.
The powerful define the conventional wisdom.
Those who would be conventionally wise define the establishment narrative.
The establishment narrative acts as an assignments editor to those who wish to break into the punditry.
Through a fairly straightforward series of exchanges, big money defines the big narrative, and all else must be marginalized. It’s all about sucking the most expensive cock in the room, hoping to get ahead.
And no, that’s not supposed to be a pun, but it may be darkly funny. The New Republic = whores-in-waiting.
.
Punchy
What s/he said.
If Obama votes no, you’ll see 15+ variations of the same commercial: “Obama voted NO to protect your family and children from terrorists. He lacks what it takes to keep you and your family alive! A vote for Obama is a vote for sure, torturous, painful death for every one of your kids, one at a time. Picture them crying while being beheaded and eaten by evil Obama-supporting terrorists! Vote McCane istead”
And it’ll work on the rubes. No way O takes that chance.
JC
John,
This post, and your comment in a previous post you point to, are both very thoughtful and fair.
I have no idea about which is right, which isn’t. Obama is definitely a pragmatic politician, rather than idealistic (but of course he can talk the idealistic talk like no one else).
This bill is clearly the leadership’s bill. Hoyer and Pelosi.
I hope we find out the why’s for this. I think the “CYA” about covers it, but I’d like to know the real story, one day.
Still – what the hell is it about these Democrats in Congress? I mean, the Republicans in the 90’s made Bill Clinton’s life a living hell off of bulls**t, and yet, this Congress rolls over and plays dead when it comes to holding the Bush team accountable.
Maybe they’ll send a sternly worded letter, but that’s about it.
The Republicans always talk about democrats as “weak” on national security. It’s always been a load of crap.
But if a democratic President, laid down for a foreign power, like the Democrats lay down for Bush, well, for the first time, I can understand that perspective.
BH-Buck
JC, sadly, I have to agree.
jibeaux
I don’t exactly know what to think about this yet. I don’t know why the Dems keep rejecting their spinal transplant tissue, and I know exactly why they’re even less popular with Democrats than they are with Republicans.
On the other hand, I think it is entirely possible that Barack Obama has better political instincts than nearly everyone, even Glenzilla.
BH-Buck
Funny. I can see McCain’s latest ad using that argument:
If Obama was too weak to stand up to Bush – He’ll be too weak for Ahmadinejad!
Neh, he wouldn’t go that far. Surely!
Jiggy
Good post, and a thoughtful look at the differences between the two sides.
I think I side a little more with Glenn on this, but it’s simply because I’m tired of the game being played. One of the things that has led to my current disgust with the Democratic party is the sense that they keep playing for some futuristic end-goal – one that never seems to make much difference when it arrives. It’s always about regaining the house in the next election, or putting the Democratic candidate in office. In the meantime, the Democratic party continues to lose on important policy measures. I’ve come to the opinion that both sides, R’s and D’s, are more interested in playing the game (i.e. getting elected) than actually doing anything important while they are there.
Personally, I’m a little tired of it, and ready to see somebody actually do some fighting.
Zifnab
I disagree. They tried this FISA bullshit in the three deep red special elections since 2006. Each time the seat got flipped in the GOP’s face. People aren’t buying the scare tactics like they used to and “fear of terrorism” isn’t a primary concern when so many people are suffering from higher gas prices and loaming home foreclosures.
The single mother with a second job and three kids living in too much house with an ARM that’s about to reset isn’t going to smile on the McCain “Iraq now, tax cuts forever, fuck the poor” mentality. Obama’s FISA vote isn’t going to change anyone’s opinion.
But that’s just the thing. Obama is now the nominal leader of the party. He’s got a real leadership position and heavier sway over a Senate that will be facing his veto pen after January. Does Obama want to “keep his power dry” or “flex his muscle”? Will he suffer for losing, suffer for winning, or turn into increased momentum for his candidacy – win or lose?
Given the people who’ve been pushing the Obama campaign from day one, I think he has a great deal to gain by fighting this tooth and nail. The more blows he gets against the opposition, the more the campaign dollars will flow and the people will sing his praise. But I’m not crunching the numbers on Obama’s campaign staff. I don’t know what the smart political position is. I just know the position I want him to take.
Chuck Butcher
I laugh at the people who stamp their feet regarding FISA and ignore RICO or attacks on the 2nd and the 1st without recognising that exactly the same reasoning is employd. Sure FISA matters to me, the entire BOR matters to me, but the hypocricy of some is epic.
srv
Shorter Glenn: The Republicans set the agenda regardless of who is in power.
Even Shorter Glenn: Clue.
Amazing. Dem subservience is something I figured out, oh, back in 1981 or so, is now discovered and classified for the DSM-IV by Glenn.
I wonder what the Dems will do when Obama doesn’t withdraw from Iraq. I know, they’ll blame the Republican minority.
BH-Buck
jibeaux, I hope you’re right, and that your trust isn’t misplaced.
For if you’re wrong, building trust in Hillary (or whoever the hell in 2012) is gonna be laughable… and pretty much impossible.
Joe Max
Remember, the whole point of branding TNR a “hard left, America-hating magazine for the dirty fucking hippy set”, is not simply to alter the general public’s perception, but to alter the perception of the editors of TNR directly. It makes them more reluctant to publish the next Beaucamp that comes along. It makes them tack to the right (as we see them doing) to try to counter that false perception.
Mission accomplished.
Wilfred
LBJ used to say that the price for the Great Society was Vietnam, meaning that the only way he could get the support of the Russell wing of the Democratic Party on social issues was to cede to them on right-wing causes, which in those days was the Cold (sometimes hot) War.
What’s different today? Ask Greenwald if he’s willing to give a little on FISA if it means getting a green light on, say, gay marriage, of SCHIPS. How about backing off on Iraq in exchange for a real health plan for all Americans?
We live the politics of Dilemma – individual and collective. Give me space for 5,000 words and I’ll even show how it happened but there’s no way of getting round it. Part of the charade is to pretend that there is no dilemma, of course.
John Cole
I will give you a user name and an account and you can post it if you want.
ezsmirkzz
Good post John. Glenn is first and foremost a defender of the Constitution, and you of common sense. Usually you’re both right.
BH-Buck
Is kinda like saying “
WeSome of the people of the United States, in order to form…”I suppose we should all fall in line and keep hoping.
Tsulagi
Leaving aside telco immunity, Obama said he’s fully on board supporting the changes to FISA as necessary to counter “grave threats.” Apparently his ears have now opened and hear the ticking every patriot warrior knows is deafening. So to quiet some of those sounds and fears in their heads, like Bush, seems Obama is man up to kick the shit out of the 4th Amendment and torture probable cause. Good to know.
Napoleon
Good post John.
There is a reason that 4 years ago I determined that any money I contributed to political campaigns would be in Democratic primaries to beat other Democrats and that Obama’s failure to fight the FISA bill is just over the line for me.
The saying is “live free or die” not “live free, but for heavens sake don’t die trying – live to fight another day”. If Dems don’t win elections standing up for what is right on such simple central concepts to the American way of life like no searches without cause and law breakers should be accountable for their actions why does anyone think they after they have won?
nightjar
I’m not going to argue anymore the fine points of who is right or wrong in this debate. People are pissed (as I am) that warrantless wiretapping ever got started in the first place. It wouldn’t have if democrats had the WH, but absent vote stealing accusations, the American people selected wingnuts to be completely in charge of things from 2000 till 2006, and only returned congress to dems with the slimmest of margins.
My own take on Pelosi’s (and maybe REid, we’ll see) motivations are not of giving in to fear of republicans, but more residual and misplaced electoral fear of losing congress again. I think they sell short the voters awareness of the situation and of their repulsion of wingnut governance on just about every level (even in Blue Dog districts).
In my mind, it’s OK, although misplaced, for those whose want to vent their frustrations toward Obama and we shall see what happens in the Senate. But what got me fired up on this was initially the talk of giving up on Obama, either by withholding monetary support, or not voting for him. It seems though that much of that talk has diminished which is a good thing.
And I am confident that the voting public will deliver in NOV the political power necessary to begin repairing all the damage done by Bush and the neocons. The only thing that can stop this from occurring is democratic disunity and too much infighting.
NewUnansweredQuestions
It’s a fine post, John, and it combines with this excellent piece by Kevin Drum to create what I would consider a calm and rational view of the FISA “crisis” as ginned up by the Loudmouth Left.
Yes, it’s a problem, but it is not THE problem we need to be working on right now, not by any stretch.
NewUnansweredQuestions
You big teaser! 5000 words from Wilfred?
Christmas came early this year.
BH-Buck
I guess it’s a good thing that no one in the Bush administration reads these blogs.
For if they did, the period between now and November would really suck!
scarshapedstar
I sure hope you’re right. I remember the drinking and high-fives in the College Democrats suite on Election Night ’06, when it became clear that the congress was Ours.
Sadly, 2 years of Harry “Bitch” Reid and Nancy “Off The Table” Pelosi make me question what, if anything, we accomplished.
qkslvrwolf
@mrmobi:
This is wrong, though. In 2006 AND in all three recent special elections, republicans attempted to make this an issue and they got their asses handed to them in general and on this issue specifically. There is NO major demographic in this country that really wants this bill or the immunity. There are plenty of folks who don’t care, but no one actually wants it.
So this is an easy fight. This dkos:hunter diary does a really good job of laying out why this one is so damn important to us.
BH-Buck
qkslvrwolf,
Hunter’s recent post “Requiem” is one hell of a read! I recommend it for everyone.
NewUnansweredQuestions
Oh brother. What was “ours” was a razor thin majority in the upper body and a signal that 2008 might be a great year for Democrats.
That’s all. Congress is a venue where two political machines are in collusion for most of a century, to bamboozle the electorate and dodge accountability for things like illegal wars in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. To build a giant power structure behind a steel curtain of “national defense” and protect it from view.
You aren’t going to make that go away with the election of 2006, not even close. We might actually start making a run at next year, but only if we gain complete domination of congress and the executive. And can focus on it, which is not likely, given the economic and other issues that loom.
Zifnab
The New Dems that got swept in during 2006 aren’t the primary problem. Take a look at where Webb, Tester, McCaskill, Brown, Casey, and Whitehouse have been on any of these issues – especially compared to the two Nelsons or Feinstein or even Reid himself. Same with the House voters – many of whom received backing from the netroots. These new guys have been on the right side of so many of our issues, but they’re new and Congress rewards incumbents first and foremost. It’s hard to get in front on an issue when you’re just a single voice in your delegation, or you’ve got the word Junior before your title of Senator.
Also, I’m not nearly so pissed at Pelosi as I am Hoyer. That guy has been the real poison pill in House Dem Caucus. Check every bad bill that comes out of the Democratic House, and I’ll be shocked if you can find one that Hoyer hasn’t backed zealously. Pelosi is playing politics and she’s not afraid to compromise away on principle, but Hoyer’s been acting against the progressive wing of Congress from the freak’n get go.
Dennis - SGMM
For me, voting for any first-time president is largely an act of faith. While I may know what they’ve said and what their record was in other elective office I have no fucking idea what they’ll actually do once elected. Did Republican voters know that Bush would launch a disastrous war when they voted for him in 2000? To draw inferences as to what kind of president Obama will be from his stand on this bill strikes me as foolish – particularly when a substantial segment of the public thinks he’s a Muslim and an even more substantial segment are racist to varying degrees.
Svensker
Um, Drum is saying that the basis of the new FISA bill is worse than telecom immunity. How does this contradict the “Loudmouth Left”? (And thanks for the gratuitous smear job, always helpful for an argument.)
Drum — with whom I frequently agree — also makes the dumb “this bill is good because it makes it the only way wiretapping can be done” argument. While pointing out that exclusivity was already the law, which Bush broke. And no one has done jack squat about it. I’m sure Bush, Obama, whomever is president will be paying real attention to that exclusivity thing from Now On!!
The whole thing is maddening. The truth is, the Bush Administration — with the COLLUSION of many members of Congress — has been breaking the law for years. Because of that collusion, no one is going to do anything about (see Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Hoyer, et al).
The colluders have just rubbed their collusion in our faces with this FISA thing. It pisses me off. If that makes me a Loudmouth, then good. I intend to get louder.
Dreggas
Eh, we’ll all be eaten by our very own blackhole soon anyway
NewUnansweredQuestions
Because the LLeft barked mostly about the immunity aspect, which is not nearly the most important aspect of the bill. And because the legacy that produced FISA — long ago — is part of a vast swamp of power grabs and deceptions foisted on the country under the guise of “defense” and “security” and this bill doesn’t even begin to unravel, expose, or reverse the effects of that. Railing over FISA is basically a smokescreen ginned up by Republicans to keep people barking about small potatoes while the burglars are taking truckloads of legality out the back door while nobody is looking … a point of view described by Republicans themselves, earlier this year. The GOP was hoping to lure Dems into a fight over this small potatoes legislation as a political red herring this year, and the Dems have wisely avoided the trap.
Yeah, well I am not impressed by the phony outrage .. not yours necessarily, but the whole package of it we saw from last week. For the reasons already stated. This is not the right hill on which to fight the battle for liberty. Nor is it the right timing to do so.
Read last week’s threads for more, there are probably 500 posts out there on the subject, let’s try not to reprise it all today. I mean, if you have all the outrage out of your craw yet. Please, continue ranting.
dslak
This is false. Clinton was pushing for a lot of this stuff back in the 90’s.
John Cole
A lot of people forget that a lot of stuff that went into th original patriot act was stuff that the security apparatus and Clinton wanted enacted post-Oklahoma City, but were shout down by the GOP congress and folks like Bob Barr.
pw
You’re both right, but I see something else at play here.
Even if they’re ‘afraid of what the republicans might do’, Pelosi, Reid, and Hoyer didn’t push this through out of fear. They didn’t push this through because of money-the Dems are going to be getting tons of it from BigCorp because they need to buy a place at the table.
I suspect there’s something the survailance has found they are afraid of. Something that puts them or the party in a bad light. Now, I can’t think of anything that would be so bad as what Bush has already done, but something w. some sex, some corruption, I could see that putting the fear in them.
NewUnansweredQuestions
Because of that collusion, which I have described manyt times on these pages, there is an entire power structure in Washington that cannot and will not tolerate the unraveling of it. And FISA is not the bill, and June 2008 is not the time, to fight that battle. It’s the wrong battle and the wrong time. And even if some were foolish enough to try to do so, it would have no effect except to marginalize those people. Timing is pretty much everything in this context.
Again, 500 posts on the subject since last week. I suggest reading them and seeing if there is really anything to say about it that hasn’t already been said.
Dennis - SGMM
Saw a special on that collider. One of the physicists working on the project said “It’s almost impossible for this project to create a self-sustaining black hole.”
Almost?
Rick Taylor
Atrios, via SusanG at Daily Kos:
Dreggas
Oh I remember the term “Big Brother” being used ad-nauseum then.
Dreggas
IIRC there was concern about essentially the same thing with another super collider, I believe one of the first ones to come on-line. Given what occurs in the collider and what would be required to make a self-sustaining, and growing black hole it seems silly that it could happen. But if they are saying it’s almost impossible, but their own science depends on such low probability work, who knows.
Xenos
Uh, guys, the senate already passed an even worse version of this bill. IIRC, both Obama and Clinton did not vote, due to being on the campaign trail, which was awfully damn convenient for both of them.
So this goes now to the conference committee. Reid might allow for the immunity to be stripped out in the conference committee or voted down when out of committee, but don’t expect miracles. 10$ says Reid will leave the immunity in, and then will schedule the vote on the same day as Obama’s trip to Iraq.
Wait, maybe we should just work out all the ways for this to get rammed down our throats with cover for Obama, and set up a pool.
JR
Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to keep talking and talking about the Democratic Party’s ongoing “failures” and “weakness” and wonder what’s up and make guesses and yet somehow just never positively mention the name of … Nader?
Lesson #1 – Nader was not naive.
Lesson #2 – The corporations and the Repubs could never put Nader away … it took the Democrats to do that.
Sure, let’s talk about betrayal. What the Dem “progressives” did to one of America’s all-time great Progressive LEADERS was betrayal. What the Dem Party does and is going to do to the little-p “progressives” in their base is called karma.
When you guys get serious we can move on.
nightjar
I believe you may be talking about Clinton’s promotion of the Echelon Program. However, nothing Clinton proposed was to be done outside of FISA and it’s warrant requirements. And he certainly didn’t claim the Unitary Executive right like Bush has.
dslak
I’m sure those corporations and GOP supporters were funding Nader because they agreed with his agenda.
liberal
John Cole wrote,
Depends. There are some domestic issues where one might argue that they’re somewhat (not too much) left of center.
But for foreign policy, TNR’s algorithm seems to be to link whatever issue is at hand to Israel and proceed from there. In that sense they’re neocons.
nightjar
God, I hope nobody told Bush and mini-me about this machine.
Breschau
Close, but not quite.
Their fear is in the public disclosure that they knew all about the illegal wiretapping program while they were happening, well before the NYT exposed it – and they did *nothing*. Hoyer, Pelosi, Reid – they knew, the records will show they knew, so they want those lawsuits thrown out and ignored.
This is a simple CYA move for the leadership of both parties.
Katherine
If he doesn’t filibuster, he’s broken one of very few concrete promises he’s made on rule of law issues. I won’t trust him, and I won’t donate or volunteer for a candidate I don’t trust. If he does filibuster, I think he kills the bill. So.
Karmakin
Politically, I agree with the idea that the Republicans may try to do a double-fake on this once Obama takes office, however I think that it might give their base a severe case of whiplash.
I don’t think they’ll be able to. The whole YouTube problem and all that.
Dreggas
That’s my theory as well. They all knew damn well what was going on and they looked the other way. Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, Hoyer, and others all knew about it.
nightjar
I believe they’ve said they were briefed about it. But that they didn’t get all the particulars from the Bush briefers and told it was so classified they couldn’t tell anyone without divulging classified materials.
Given the level of lies, deception, secrecy and general skullduggery by the Bush Admin., I would tend to believe the dem leaders on this. And you can believe whatever the fuck you want.
liberal
Warren Terra wrote,
That’s not an accurate summary of the history.
TNR started moving rightward (particularly on foreign policy) after Marty Peretz bought it in 1975 or so. Peretz is also the reason the mag has (in the past 3 decades) decided its position on foreign policy issues by asking “Is it good for Israel?” regardless how remote the conection to Israel is.
Anyone who read what the rag had to say about the contra war against Nicaragua in the 1980s remembers how execrable it could be on foreign policy.
John Cole
I think I speak for everyone when I say that I am excited about the possibility of this thread devolving into a discussion of election 2000 and nader’s role.
When we are done, how about Apple v. Mac?
liberal
John Cole wrote,
But remember: this is against a backdrop of the Dems in Congress doing essentially nothing to get us out of Iraq; doing essentially nothing to prevent Bush from bombing Iran; and not even having real hearings on how Bush lied us into war in the first place. (“Real hearings” means using the subpoena power. I, for one, think they should have subpoenaed all the damn spooks and idiots/monsters at DOD/DOE who had input into the “aluminum tubes” lie.)
nightjar
That sentence was unduly harsh on my part. Sorry.
I’m trying to be a nicer person but sometimes the inner asshole is in control.
CJ
Since most here seem to agree that the Democratic party needs to fight, can anyone tell me when the spinal implantation procedure is to take place? What are the criteria for an issue that it is safe to fight for?
I agree that there is a desire to fight for every little thing just now and that the important stuff can get drowned out. The fact is though, that if the Democratic party doesn’t come to like the taste of blood pretty soon, it should quit pretending it can or should run this country.
CJ
liberal
mrmobi wrote,
But a lot of people (probably including Glenn) claim that the House rules are such that the majority leadership there can control pretty much anything. (The Rethuglican leadership certainly did, and their margin wasn’t all that huge.)
So why even let the bill move forward? Why not just renew the status quo as far as FISA/etc was concerned?
Svensker
Well, gee, I guess you know what should be done to fight the power grabs by Bush & Co. (much of which started under Clinton, and which the Dems under Bush helped enable). So I’ll just go back to my good girl corner and let the Serious Grown Up People tell me when to open my mouth.
Pray tell, oh Wise One, when is the right time? And which is the right hill?
srv
Yeah, ppGaz thinks he’s serious because all of GW’s FISA ploys were now originally a smokescreen (back to the days we were railing day-to-day wars with Darrell over this very topic) and the fact that the crazed blogosphere focused on the only possible opportunity to uncover the rats nest makes them unserious.
The crazed blogosphere knows the only way “change” will happen is if the courts get to sink their teeth into it. They’re the only group that shares at least a sliver of common interests with the general public.
And come January, with Obama in, it will quickly sink from any interest, because it’ll be his guy with the powers and there will be all sorts of other great diversions.
BFR
I still think one reason was to prevent the lawsuits from reaching the Supreme Court in any fashion.
You’ve got some people in CYA mode (because they were involved), some people scared of losing their seats in November and some fear about what the court might rule and presto – you have enough to get this passed.
Tsulagi
That is a good read.
Like Greenwald, seems Hunter too, I am so disgusted with that now completely threadbare “you pick yer battles” meme from Dems almost always delivered with a sagely-raised eyebrow to let you know they see the big picture. When another day dawns, there’s another day for Dems to deliver rationales, excuses, or anything they can dream up as this is not the day to fight.
This weekend I thought of Condi’s 9/11 commission testimony. The part where she was asked why for all appearances and evidence the admin was asleep during the eight months leading up to 9/11 when there were plenty of reasons not to be.
Don’t recall if she delivered it with a sagely-raised eyebrow, she said during those months the admin wasn’t asleep, they had been hard at work developing grand forward stratergery because they were “tired of swatting flies.” A lot of wingnuts at the time were getting real fond of that “we’re tired of swatting flies” meme. In an awesome reply, Kerrey asked “Madame Secretary, tell me, which flies HAVE YOU SWATTED that made you so tired?” Of course there were none. That “swatting flies” line died right there.
Seems the Dems battle plan has also been not to swat flies, let alone fight battles. Their battle plan after the last mid-terms has been to validate the Bush presidency. FISA now set to be just another example. Now that’s grand stratergery at an epic level. I’m sure all the sagely raised eyebrows would agree.
Can just picture Bush after he gets this one too. Mixed in with his giggling and farting, he’ll point at the Dems laughing “And they call me stupid and incompetent!” Amazing.
Napoleon
By the way here is how my one Sen. Sherrod Brown responded to my inquiry as to his position:
Dear Mr. XXX:
Thank you for expressing your views on the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program.
In December of 2005, it was first reported that President Bush had authorized the NSA to monitor communication between U.S. citizens and terrorist suspects outside the United States without first obtaining a warrant. Serious questions arose about the legality of this program and its compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
Congress recently passed revisions to FISA expanding the authority of the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to conduct surveillance of foreign targets. Under this legislation, which I opposed, the administration is permitted to conduct surveillance on individuals overseas, including American citizens, without a warrant. Upon initiation of surveillance, the administration must submit information to the FISA court on the measures used to select targets; however, the court’s review is limited to determining whether the government followed its own procedures. In addition, the bill provides retroactive immunity from civil liability for those telecommunications companies that participated in the unauthorized wiretapping program.
While I agree that developments in technology may require some modifications in our intelligence laws, this legislation overreaches and infringes dangerously on the basic rights of American citizens, while removing their right to seek legal recourse. The United States needs to ensure that its citizens are safe and secure, but the administration has provided little evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of the surveillance program and the necessity for such an assault on our civil liberties.
Thank you again for writing to me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
srv
You know, I do have to give Darrell props. He did always insist none of the “crazy” FISA change theories from the local serious folk could be true unless the Dem leadership had been fully read into them.
Perhaps we need a new troll category: Serious Troll
JC
Given this particular collapse, we really should start looking at what we’ve gotten from the last two years of a Democratic Congress – that wouldn’t have been gotten from a Republican Congress. What, that was really egregiously passed by the Republican Congress, has been rescinded by the Democratic Congress?
There was that 1st 100 day agenda last year, passed by the House – but isn’t it the case that the accomplishments were watered down, by the Senate, before stuff got passed?
At Wikipedia, here is the link of legislation:
We’ve got:
Minimum wage up
Protect the pages act (clearly NOT a major piece of legislation – but better than the Republicans did!!)
I don’t think the “independence of attorneys” is a real “Act” is it?
9-11 Commission Act, is probably a no-brainer for either party
More disclosure for lobbyists, transparency for earmarks
“Protect” American act – enough said.
Continuation of Farm Bill – not much change
The energy Act was good – raising the standards. But isn’t the “phase in” time glacial?
Water bill – some form of this would have been passed by a Repub Congress, or not?
What are the unmitigated, unalloyed goods, we’ve gotten from a Dem Congress?
BH-Buck
Fine. But I guarantee, no matter what the argument, roughly fifteen regular posters here will be unconditionally, absolutely right in their argument, while everyone else in the known universe will fall to the side of utter and complete stupidity.
Could you imagine what a wonderful place this would be if only that 0.00273% of the populace (the way-smart people) were allowed to make the important decisions? Makes me shudder.
handy
Would that be like Honda vs. Accord?
occam
Obama CHANGE campaign slogans:
CHANGE … what you’ll have left after I raise taxes.
CHANGE … your gas prices upwards, but gradually
CHANGE … my hat size because every day my head gets bigger
CHANGE … the national motto to: In Obama We Trust.
CHANGE … what I do to my story depending upon whom I’m talking to.
CHANGE … what I do every day to my foreign policy
CHANGE … what I do to my trade policy depending upon whom I’m talking to
CHANGE … your lifestyle because the rest of the world doesn’t like you
CHANGE … my friends when they turn out NOT to be “The person I knew”
CHANGE … what my radical left-wing ideologue handlers have in store for you
CHANGE … what I do to facts to suit my needs.
CHANGE … FISA line that we crossed but I have now moved back
CHANGE … from public to private campaign financing because I can raise more money
CHANGE … I’ll debate John McCain anytime, anywhere; except when and where he asks me.
CHANGE … the words of others and claim they’re mine, because words count.
CHANGE … more of you into victims of something and build government programs to take care of you
CHANGE … you into a ward of the state so that I OWN you and your vote
CHANGE … your mind and believe in me for I am the Obamessiah come to save you
CHANGE … into giggling sycophants; liberal mainstream media do under the spell of the Obamessiah
CHANGE … the chant I use to control the weak-minded Obamanized masses
CHANGE … into an Obamatron; join the cult, repeat the chant: CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE …
CHANGE … what I plan to do to America because it’s the greatest country on the planet.
CHANGE … the national anthems of all the nations of the world to Kumbaya using my messianic foreign policy skills
CHANGE … into mumble-mouthed idiot when I don’t have prepared speech to read.
CHANGE … what I said because my rhetoric was overheated and amplified
CHANGE … but not for us, not the left-wing liberal elite, CHANGE is for YOU.
CHANGE … anything and everything I’ve said or done in my life if it will help me win
CHANGE … the definition of change to: What I say, when I say it, to whom I say it.
CHANGE … I can CHANGE when it suits me
CHANGE … you can believe in for a day or two
CHANGE … you can’t keep up with
CHANGE … your underwear because you’ll defecate in your pants when you wake up to find out what the left-wing liberal ideologues have done after gaining complete control of government.
CHANGE … you better freaking BELIEVE in because it will WORK you over.
Obama: the AUDACITY to count on you and I being DOPEs
handy
Well, you and Grampa McSame will have even more in common then.
nightjar
Some body escaped the wingnut asylum. Your mother says you should turn yourself in Occam.
Xenos
I look forward to a lot of people now working in the executive branch crapping in their pants once they realize that they are facing serious time for their crimes. Looks like the telecom companies got away with it, but they are coming for the corporatist butt-boys, sure enough.
4tehlulz
CHANGE … your stale copypasta.
Crust
John, thanks for addressing the other side of this. Much appreciated.