By Anonymous Liberal
Sometimes it's all so predictable. Yesterday I wrote that despite the bipartisan consensus that President Bush acted illegally, Sen. Feingold "will undoubtedly be labeled as a rabid partisan by the GOP, someone 'extreme' and 'out-of-touch.' And if history is any guide, this characterization will be reinforced by Feingold's Democratic colleagues who will immediately try to distance themselves from his proposal in order to be seen as 'reasonable.'"
Sure enough, the AP story opens with the following:
Democrats distanced themselves Monday from Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold's effort to censure President Bush over domestic spying, preventing a floor vote that could alienate swing voters.
The article goes on to say:
Throughout the day, Feingold's fellow Democrats said they understood his frustration but they held back overt support for the resolution. Several said they wanted first to see the Senate Intelligence Committee finish an investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program that Bush authorized as part of his war on terrorism.
Well, that's going to be a long wait because the always reasonable, never extreme Republican members of the Intelligence Committee voted last week NOT to investigate. Did these Democrats sleep through all of last week? The Washington Post leads with this:
Some party strategists, however, worried that voters will see the move as overreaching partisanship, and Republicans pounced, practically daring Democrats to vote for the measure. "The big question now," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), "is how many of his Democrat colleagues will follow him over the cliff?"
As usual, blowhard idiots like Cornyn, who have never worried for one second in their entire political careers about being seen as overly partisan, are able to scare Democrats into submission with a series of childish taunts. The article continues:
Several Democratic strategists said surveillance issues are not Bush's most vulnerable spot, and they fear the party may appear extremist.
Maybe someday these "strategists" will learn something by watching how their opponents operate. When was the last time the Republican party let fear of appearing "extreme" stop them from doing anything? And they now control every branch of government. GOP strategists long ago realized that, in politics, the only difference between an "extreme" idea and a "reasonable" one is the number of politicians willing to endorse it.
The reason the John Cornyns and Bill Frists of the world are so sure this will backfire on the Democrats is because they know the Democratic party, true to form, will not stand together. They're confident they can bluff their way into another disjointed, fractured vote. If the Democrats would just stand together and say what every single one of them thinks (and what many of their Republican colleagues think but lack the courage to say), there is no way the Republicans will succeed in painting them as "extreme" or excessively partisan.
Do these "strategists" read the polls? Yesterday--while all this was going on--Gallup reported that the President's approval rating hit 36%, an all time low. Those are close to Nixon levels. And a recent Zogby poll found that 52% of Americans support impeachment if the President is found to have wiretapped American citizens without court approval (which, by the way, he has admitted to doing). If that many Americans are willing to support impeachment, doesn't it stand to reason that even more would be willing to support the far less drastic step of merely declaring, for the record, that it's not okay for the President of the United States to openly defy a criminal statute?
We're faced with a situation where the President has admitted circumventing a longstanding criminal law designed to protect the constitutional rights of the American people. The White House has successfully strong-armed its Republican colleagues in Congress into abdicating their oversight responsibilities and thwarting any investigation into the administration's surveillance activities. If the Democrats in Congress believe the President has violated the law (and I'm confident every single one of them does) and there is no possibility of further investigation (which there isn't), seeking censure is the responsible, principled thing to do.
If the Democrats would just speak with one voice, confidently, clearly, the American public will respond. This isn't a difficult concept to explain to people. Most people no longer trust this President or his apologists in Congress. Most people believe strongly in the rule of law. This scandal has percolated long enough for the national media to understand it, and they will only treat this resolution as "extreme" if large numbers of Democrats shy away from it.
And like it or not, Senator Feingold has put this proposal out on the table. It can no longer be ignored. Either the Democrats will vote their consciences and come across as confident and principled, or they will once again look fractured and cowardly, uncomfortable in their own skin. The GOP did not take back Congress in 1994 by shying away from what they believed or pulling their punches when it came to criticizing an unpopular president. They were vocal and confident and combative. People weren't sure what GOP leadership would be like, but they knew it would be different and they could sense that the Republicans were sure of themselves.
Democratic strategists always seem to think that swing voters are looking for some milquetoast moderate to vote for, someone agreeable, someone who doesn't rock the boat. They're wrong. Most independents are just as fed up with the way things are going as liberals are. Look at the polls. What these voters are looking for is brand differentiation. They want to vote for a party that seems competent and confident, a party with courage of conviction and a plan for change. They won't be scared away by strong words or harsh criticism.
This is a pivotal moment for the Democratic party. The Democrats can either play by the normal script and feed every negative stereotype about the party, or they can chart a bold new course by voting together for something they all believe to be right. Fortune favors the brave.
UPDATE (by Glenn): Illustrating the challenge astutely described by A.L. is this amazing post from Elton Beard, which details the aggressive support given by Sen. Diane Feinstein to the Censure Resolution . . . . . which she introduced in 1999 to condemn Bill Clinton's conduct in the Lewinsky affair (including a clause specifically condemning him for his "inappropriate relationship"). That's contrasted with her noncommital stance as to whether the current Republican President should be censured for eavesdropping on Americans in violation of the law.
Similarly, Digby contrasts the statement yesterday from Joe Lieberman that he'd prefer to look to the future rather than "scold" Bush, with his pious insistence in 1999 that Clinton's behavior "is wrong and unacceptable and should be followed by some measure of public rebuke and accountability." What more can one say about a political party whose politicians want to censure a President in their own party for his role in a sex scandal, while fearfully refusing to censure a President in the other party for breaking the law -- repeatedly, deliberately and proudly -- while spying on American citizens? This is a real crossroad for Senate Democrats, each of whom will be forced -- thanks to Russ Feingold -- to reveal their true character.
UPDATE II (by Glenn): Here is the breakdown of the House Judiciary Committe's vote on the resolution to censure Bill Clinton, which was rejected 22-14. Fourteen out of sixteen House Democrats (including Chuck Schumer) voted for it, and all Republicans voted against it (because they wanted impeachment, not censure). So, unlike Feinstein's censure resolution (which was introduced after the Senate acquitted him on the impeachment charges), these House Democrats supported censure as an alternative to impeachment. Still, they did not have to vote for it, and at least two of them refused to do so. How can any Democrat who voted in favor of censuring Bill Clinton - such as Schumer - possibly even have to think about whether to support Feingold's resolution to censure of George Bush?
UPDATE III: An encouraging sign: Donna Brazile, who is usually one of the most conflict-adverse and fear-based Democratic consultants, has written a shockingly impassioned article for Roll Call urging national Democrats to join the blogosphere in supporting Sen. Feingold's censure resolution. The article is for subscribers only but here is a representative excerpt:
The progressive blogosphere is on fire right now. Web loggers are pumped up about the effort by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to censure President Bush for breaking the law on domestic surveillance and taking matters into his own hands. . . .
As a Beltway insider, I am convinced that we cannot continue to tell those who have loyally supported our Democratic leaders to wait. Wait for what? Wait until our pollsters give us the green light to speak up? Should we continue to wait, hoping that the Republicans will finally invite Democrats into the room when important decisions affecting our national security are made?
All I know is that people outside the Beltway have grown deeply impatient with our focus-group style of politics. They want to see some bold changes and some new leadership.
It's time to break with the same-old, same-old and use the Feingold resolution to force the Republican-controlled Congress to commit to serious oversight of the controversial, but increasingly popular, surveillance program.
The message from the left-leaning blogosphere is clear: Democrats should understand the real issue. The point is not censure or impeachment; it is Congress' lack of oversight and its failure to hold anyone accountable for major mistakes or missteps. And especially, it's about clearly misleading the American public. . . .
Oversight is a fundamental responsibility of Congress, which until the Republicans took over was a coequal branch of government. It's long past time for the Republican Congress — and in particular the House and Senate Intelligence committees — to stop protecting the administration and start doing more to protect the American people.
If Donna Brazile is saying things like that in Roll Call, there is hope that this message is starting to penetrate the previously impervious Beltway walls.
The Dems just don't get it.
ReplyDeleteTheir timid, embarrassing position isn't based on principle, and it's bad politics to boot.
And these are "professional" politicians?
The Media doesn’t take the Democrats seriously either. I watched ABC Nightly News last night and it covered this story in 3 sentences: Feingold introduced a motion for censure. He wasn’t supported by his party. Dick Cheney called it “outrageous.” End of story.
ReplyDeleteAs Eric Boehlert points out the GOP decides what is news.
He points out that the only reason the port story became a “big” story was that the Republicans turned against it. If it was only the Democrats, it would have been nothing. He also points out that even when the Republicans were in the minority it “didn't stop reporters from camping outside GOP Congressional offices during the Clinton years, eagerly amplifying whatever allegation the caucus had hatched the night before.”
The Democrats, by standing up for principle, have an opportunity to make themselves relevant. And what better issue to have than the President openly defying the law and the Constitution?
If the Democrats find their spine, stand up for principle, they will make some news. And it’s time to do just that.
A.L.: Excellent post. I completely agree that the Democrats should be lining up to sign on to Feingold's censure resolution, and the apparent inability of the average Democratic congressperson to see the huge stakes involved in this issue is appalling.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, take issue with one train of thought: that the Republicans won Congress by being 'bold and confident' in their program, and that the Democrats would experience similar results if they did the same.
As Zack implies, the Republicans won Congress by being bold and confident in their agenda while relying on the corporate media to present it as a reasonable program being carried out by reasonable people, and not the extremist, flawed, internally inconsistent, and largely unpopular agenda being advanced by corrupt hypocrites that it really was. (With another boost very possibly coming from stacking the deck at certain polls.)
The Democrats have no such luxury.
I certainly agree we all should lean hard on the Democratic reps we have to do the right thing to keep democracy from sliding into oblivion, and that the lackluster and occasionally inexcusably ignorant performance by some Democrats is a recipe for political suicide (or, at best, self-marginalization).
My point is just that neglecting the role of the MSM in the Republican resurgence omits a critical piece of the puzzle, and in some ways subtly reinforces the 'Republicans strong, Democrats weak' meme that gives the Republicans a lot more credit than they deserve.
Ballgame, you are right. The MSM is key here. The Dems need to all, every one of them, sign on to this resolution and they need to take it to the press. THAT would be news, every Democratic senator voting for censure, and standing in front of the television cameras telling the nation WHY. They wouldn't be following Russ off a cliff. They would be climbing out of the swamp of fear and indecision and up to the summit.
ReplyDeleteSimply appalling.
ReplyDeleteIf nothing else, this is a signal illustration that we are a one party state: the Republicans, abetted by the Quislings.
There can be no hope of salvaging our Constitutional republic if, in the face of blatant, self-admitted law-breaking by the President--a terribly unpopular President--the opposition party is too craven to fight. I guess they feel if they don't lose definitively in a failed vote, they haven't lost, but are merely biding their time until they mount their strategy for victory (sic).
In the meantime, the country sees them as the cowards they are.
These contemptible "professional politicians" mouth progressive platitudes, but it's obvious they care only about their precious careers, and have no more concern for their oaths of office than does the President or his repellent Vice-President.
Of course, this was all foretold in the disgraceful surrender by Congress of its Constitutional power and responsibility to declare war, when a majority of Democrats went along with their Republican colleagues and gave Bush the authority to prosecute his unlawful war.
At this point, I despair that there is no repairing our broken country.
The NPR program On Point interviewed three people yesterday on the cost of the Iraq War. Not the human cost, the monetary cost. We are currently spending $1 billion per week in Iraq. It is unsustainable. Nevertheless, BushCo will undoubtedly begin to preemptively strike Iran prior to the 2006 Congressional elections. What the American people and Democrats think about anything will not matter as it does not matter today. And the MSM is in complete accord with Bush/Rove's plan.
ReplyDeleteThe capitalnews.org poll was interesting yesterday. It didn't start out as an Internet thing. CSpan viewers who watched the Feingold speech and the Specter speech were asked to vote in that poll right after those speeches about whether they thought the Feingold censure motion was a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThe initial response was 72% in favor of Feingold's motion. That went up to 80% after the poll was mentioned on some blogs. And CSPAN is not known to be either left or right, in terms of viewers. But I would guess it has a somewhat older audience, which dovetails with recent reports and polls which suggest that Americans over 50 are the ones most upset by these violations of the rule of law.
If the younger blogosphere can reach that older group and join hands, it could be a powerful co-alition. As Glenn has said, it's going to have to be the people who finally blow the house down. Neither party nor the MSM can be expected to lead, or even to be of much help.
Which is why it will be important information at this point to find out which Democrats can be trusted to speak and vote their conscience, and which cannot. Knowing your enemy is an important part of warfare.
These are the "last throes" of the Democratic Party--and democracy in America. We are now a one-party plutocracy. God help us all.
ReplyDeleteWhy are Congressional Democrats so adept at taking advice from their political enemies, and ignoring it from their friends?
ReplyDeleteAre they so stupid and cowardly that they trust John Cornyn more than they trust their supporters?
Sometimes the only fear I think is real for the dems is the fear of loosing the big money financiers. And the big money is for this newly formed government that seems to have learned all the lessons of history's failed attempts at elevating money to the top of social and human concern.
ReplyDeleteHow else can you explain a response that is so indecisive as those dems producing reserved judgment statements.
PS. One reason the Dems "just don't get it" is that the MSM has apparently completely failed, once again, to accurately assess the thinking of a majority of Americans on this issue, as they initially didn't on the Port deal.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, when that becomes known the Dems will rally, but of course it is discouraging that they have to wait to see how the public thinks before taking a principled stance on anything.
With headlines like this, this, and this, et al, one could get the misconception that the public media is bought and paid for by Republican lobby. However, the self-serving, tepid drivel that the Democrats are offering as their rationale for not supporting Feingold belies that notion.
ReplyDeleteThe media and the Democrats would do themselves good to take a careful scrutiny of the current polling of the electorate on the censure, the NSA scandal, the Bush & Co. fear & fantasy campaign, the Iraq war, relevance of al Qaeda to their diurnal existence, etc. One doesn’t need to read tea leaves to see that a revolution of ideas and change is brewing.
Keep up the pressure using the well-elucidated idea that this measure in NO WAY means the Dems are soft on terror. Thats what they seem afraid of. Bush CAN protect Americans from terror AND stay within the confines of the law!
ReplyDeleteMarshall Wittman says that the Dems would be foolish to back the censure because "...the American people will forgive the President for over-zealously protecting them from Al Qaeda..."
Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? What BULL!
What Feingold can hope for is "outsider" status in the same way that Murtha has gotten. Note how Blitzer goes to Murtha when the figures come out on Bush's low ratings.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that this is pretty good strategy for the longer term. Feingold and Murtha can position themselves for the next Presidential election, when things get so bad in Iraq that Bush's ratings hover around 20% and Iraq is caught up in a terrible civil war.
Feingold and Murtha can then run as the only Dems to oppose Bush's policies, which it seems all Rep runners will run on in their own way.
On the other hand, it is no surprise to see the Dems acting this way. The Dem insiders see Feingold's support as emanating from outsiders who can't be controlled as of yet. That's why there's this noise from the Dems about the blogoshere--they simply can't get a handle on how to integrate it into their ruling paradigms.
zack, and today's New York Times, shockingly, doesn't even have an editorial on this. The brief coverage, highlighting the supposed "lack of support" for Feingold, is tucked away on the bottom of an inside page.
ReplyDeleteThe Repubs, probably sensing that the public is FINALLY tiring of the missing white girl story, have drummed up this new dead white girl story, which was the lead story on Faux News, before any mention, if there was one (I had to turn because of a wave of nausea which overtook me) of the Feingold motion.
Part of the revolution that is coming is the rejection of the entrenched DLC-style leaders of the Democratic party. Only the grassroots can make the change. Power to the people, indeed.
ReplyDeleteAmazing that we have people supposedly representing us and get paid damn well to do it that apparently need saving from themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with this picture?
How are they going to save us if they can't even save themselves.
Mabe it really is time for a third party.
I don't figure I'll have to wait long for the trolls to jump on this encouraging it (divide and conquer) But even if it gets started now it won't change my vote in the coming midterms and possibly in 08 (depending on how the midterms go) because the biggest issue is to try to keep Bush from doing any more damage than he already has or at least try to limit it as much as possible
So, the dem's are afraid of negative media spin, the repub's think they can still spin that the dems's are out of touch with reality and yet we have this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.commondreams.org/views06/0311-33.htm
Titled: Buyers Remorse for Bush
Here in the “purple states” of the Rocky Mountain West, President George W. Bush’s job approval ratings have fallen lower than a rattlesnake’s belly. In five of our eight mountain states, Bush approval has sunk well below 50 percent with his standing in Nevada at an all-time low of 39 and Montana at a rock-bottom 42 percent. Even in the most crimson, conservative states in America—Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho—the President’s 2004 election night approval has now collapsed by an average of 10 percent with a dizzying loss of 14 percent in Vice President Cheney’s home state of Wyoming.
It has become clear that the buyer’s remorse here in the Rockies is due to more than simple disagreement with Bush’s policies. Westerns have developed serious doubts about Bush’s judgment and character as well.
The Democratic Party is an empty shell, waiting to be filled with people having courage to act for the good.
ReplyDeleteJustin Raimundo is correct: Only an upwelling of protest by the masses will change the political dynamic in this country.
It will take public outrage on the scale of the DPW deal to make the congress take notice. Rove learned the lessons of Terror Management Theory well. It backfired on him over the port deal. The Dems need to study it, too, and employ it to their advantage with the NSA spying. The public needs to know what they should fear from the tender mercies of an unchallenged and all-powerful (vice)president.
ReplyDeleteAnd like it or not, Senator Feingold has put this proposal out on the table. It can no longer be ignored. Either the Democrats will vote their consciences and come across as confident and principled, or they will once again look fractured and cowardly, uncomfortable in their own skin. The GOP did not take back Congress in 1994 by shying away from what they believed or pulling their punches when it came to criticizing an unpopular president. They were vocal and confident and combative. People weren't sure what GOP leadership would be like, but they knew it would be different and they could sense that the Republicans were sure of themselves.
ReplyDeleteDemocratic strategists always seem to think that swing voters are looking for some milquetoast moderate to vote for, someone agreeable, someone who doesn't rock the boat. They're wrong. Most independents are just as fed up with the way things are going as liberals are. Look at the polls. What these voters are looking for is brand differentiation. They want to vote for a party that seems competent and confident, a party with courage of conviction and a plan for change. They won't be scared away by strong words or harsh criticism.
This is a pivotal moment for the Democratic party. The Democrats can either play by the normal script and feed every negative stereotype about the party, or they can chart a bold new course by voting together for something they all believe to be right. Fortune favors the brave.
Amen.
However, I think the more apt comparison would be to 1964 than to 1994.
During after WWII, the GOP used to be the "me too, but less so" party because they knew the country was majority liberal and they didn't want to lose what power they had.
In 1964, that began to change. Goldwater ran the first completely conservative nation campaign since the 20s and Reagan gave voice to the ideas of that movement.
They got slaughtered at the polls. However, the conservatives found their voice and kept working to change the GOP and the consensus of the voters. It took 16 years, but they succeeded in starting a realignment in 1980.
The Dems are now in the same situation the GOP was in 1964. They are the "me too, but less so" party. They have no principles except to regain power.
I think you are right to attempt to take back your party and offer some principled governance if you are to regain your majority.
However, you need to realize some things...
First, you have to change your party. We conservatives took over the GOP because we started to refuse to support the so called "moderates." For example, when Ford was nominated over Reagan, I supported the libertarian. When George I betrayed his taxes pledge, I supported a conservative in the primaries and many other conservatives in our party went for Perot.
Second, you need to be prepared to lose, maybe for a long time, to accomplish a realignment. In my examples above, both Ford and George I lost their elections after the conservatives jumped ship. However, we followed with Reagan in 1980 and the GOP congress in 1994.
Third, you need to stop lying to yourselves about whether or not you will lose. You will. Just as the country was liberal in 1964, it is conservative in 2006. Don't be fooled by rigged polls. Those same polls in 1972 identified a conservative "silent majority." However, this same "majority" consistently voted for Dems and liberal Elephants.
This year, I doubt the GOP will lose more than 5-10 seats and I can almost guarantee they will still be in power after the elections. Generic polls mean nothing. Unless you can field large numbers of strong liberal candidates in GOP strongholds with a national message, nothing will change because there really is no alternative.
Well, take this for what it is worth to you. I was in your position 35 years ago. I know what I am talking about.
The Democrats' inability to stand together on this sort of issue hurts them in presidential elections. If the party can't come together, why would you want its leader to run the country?
ReplyDeleteThe ship of state is on a roller coaster ride to Hades, and I fear that all the tears shed by all my fellow true patriots may not be enough to quench the eternal flames of damnation we all will face from our children's children's children. Perhaps the melting of the polar ice cap will do the trick.
ReplyDeleteTS: The notion of "unity" can be overrated. What unifies the Reps? Values? Abortion? ... They are able to bring together several divergent themes under a coherent theory: "what's wrong with America is..."
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the Iraq war issue, along with simmering resentment at the humugus gap between the rich and the middle classes may be strong enough to "unify" Dems.
That is, if they can find a person with enough street cred that they can trust. Feingold and Murtha have gained that street cred, I suggest.
If my Senators (Obama, Durbin)don't support this I'm never voting for them again. If the Dems campaign strategy is to keep the base at homein November, thet're doing a heckuva job.
ReplyDeleteOwenz: Again, I think coordination is a bit overrated too. I imagine there's still some wisdom to the truism that a true leader will balze the path and others will follow when they see no other way out.
ReplyDeleteHe points out that the only reason the port story became a “big” story was that the Republicans turned against it.
ReplyDeleteThis I disagree with. Lou Dobbs was responsible for making this a big story. He independently was firmly and passionately against the Port deal from the very moment it was first announced. But even that would have faded away if the public wasn't one step ahead of him. The MSM never really played a role in the story. They covered the Republican revolt aspect of the story, but the public wasn't focused on that. They just didn't want this deal to go through, and the more Lou Dobbs screamed, the madder they got.
The interesting thing was how quickly the Republican leadership picked up on the fact that their base had turned against Bush on this issue and wasn't go to change their minds no matter how much propaganda was thrown at them. The Republican leadership then immediately grabbed the issue away from the Democrats and plotted to use it to gain the added advantage of allowing Republicans to distance themselves from Bush on this one issue to position themselves for the November elections.
There is no question that the Republcans are more savvy politicans than the Democrats. A Karl Rove is light years ahead of a fool like Carville.
The question becomes, why do Democrats consistently allow incompetent fools to counsel them and determine their strategy, and what does that, sadly, say about their own ability to govern effectively if they get in? If people are incompetent, are we to assume they will be any less incompetent when in office?
When a smart guy like Feingold finally comes along, he finds little support in his own party, because they simply are not smart or quick enough to see he represents their base, as Karl Rove would have seen yesterday.
Instead, it's Karl again who gains the early advantage, sending out all the bartdeliyas to make everyone think this is an unpopular motion, as they taunt the Dems with "go ahead and make our day---ask your own party to vote immediately on this."
These people know this is not an unpopular motion, but they want to shelve it quickly before the public catches on that a majority support the motion.
Still, cagey as they are, the Republicans are running out of new tricks. How many times do they think popular sentiment, and the Dems, will allow them to get away with the Murtha tactic --quick vote to demonstrate lack of support before the issue gets a full debate? And yet, not that many months later, a majority of the public would have supported Murtha's plan to begin a pullout from Iraq.
A big part of the Republican strategy is to count on the fact that the Democratic leaders are out of touch with most Democrats, and to succeed, all that need be done is to force the Democrats to go on record on issues before their consitutents get a chance to weigh in and influence their thinking.
LAST I CHECKED BOTH CNN & CSPAN'S CAPITAL NEWS WERE RUNNING POLLS AND HERE'S HOW THEY WERE PLAYING:
ReplyDeleteMSNBC: 75% voted Censure by Feingold was to hold Bush accountable. 26% voted Cesure was introduced for purpose of political grandstanding (gotta love the wording of question)
CAPITAL NEWS: 84% think Censure is a good idea & 16% think it's bad.
What Congress may be underestimating on a day when polls show Bush at his lowest yet, that the American people just might weigh in. (Call me PollyAnna)
Oh, on other good news, Barnes & Noble is showing that Crashing the Gates on 3/10 was rated 12,206 for sales ... by Friday it was 9,256 and then yesterday it flew up to a ranking of 490!
Jesus Kee-rist! These people, every single one of them, makes me so friggin mad AND sick I can't stand it! There is NO POINT to placing more Dems in Congress in the fall because they STILL wont do anything. They are still too scared of their own shadows to offer anything but token or rhetorical resistance to totalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteNone of them deserve re-election. None of them deserve any money. I quit. I will vote for anyone BUT a Dem or GOPer from now on.
eyes wide: Rove is not a genius, he's simply learned his Aristotelian rhetoric very well. Aristotle mainatined that the "ethical" status of the speaker outranks other concerns such as logic and emotions every time.
ReplyDeleteNote how the key theme for the Bush was his "character." It doesn't matter whether you or I believe that--many did. He comes across as a saint to many who idolize him.
You can also see this in how Rove attacks the charcater of any potential Bush adversary. The idea here is to raise enough dust in the air that the doubts as to the opponent's charcater gets dirtied.
There may be a "world-view" conflict going on here. Most Dems want reasons and logic to rule the unwashed masses. The "genius" of Bush/Rove is that they realize that emotions and ethics beat "reason" every time.
The other part of this is that the [R]'s will label everything we do as extreme, thereby putting the pressure on all our guys of seeming to be extreme (not in fact, because that's how the press will play it.)
ReplyDeleteYou could tell last night that Olbermann was wanting to report something our guys did that would show Americans we have some guts. He had to concentrate on the machinations of Frist.
Our guys didn't do shit. When are they going to pull their heads out of their asses? Or would that be too extreme?
"This is a pivotal moment for the Democratic party. The Democrats can either play by the normal script and feed every negative stereotype about the party, or they can chart a bold new course by voting together for something they all believe to be right. Fortune favors the brave."
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party because they don't really have to do anything. Politicians are pragmatic actors who view politics instrumentally - e.g. yes, they do have ideological goals, but the nature of politics (at any time, but esp. now) dictates that those goals be pursued by means of an endless series of compromises. Each action is weighed against it's instrumental value towards the achievement of other goals in the future. In this particular instance, here's how their choice looks to them: they are faced with the choice between fighting this one large COMPLETELY SYMBOLIC fight, taking a fairly bold stand going into an election cycle, and (given they don't know how to run elections anymore...and they know it) possibly placing at risk the possibility of doing good work for the people they represent; or they can back slowly away, provide their colleague with as much rhetorical cover as possible, and make sure that they can win their seats with a minimum amount of fuss so they can continue to bring back to their home districts federal money for education, health care, and poverty reduction.
Their calculations are correct in this instance for exactly two reasons:
First: a censure motion is completely symbolic (any law dudes, please correct me if this is wrong), so they have no interests in this issue except those of ideology - e.g. the only reason to vote to censure is "because it's the right thing to do." This means that there aren't going to be any real, direct practical repercussions. not like this is a spending bill or anything…
Second: Since the only repercussions are ideological – e.g. they “did the wrong thing” with this vote - and the only place we really give value to ideology is in our electioneering, they know there won't ever be any indirect practical repercussions, either. For all the gnashing of teeth, they don't risk anyone even politically middle of the road jumping ship in the next cycle, and they know it. (In the mind of progressives,) They're running against theocrats, racists, and fascists: are you going to not vote, or not vote for them because of this? Further, (though it's a pretty dream) there aren’t going to be any repercussions for Republicans for opposing this measure. And, no, going on record now will do little to help the party as a whole pick up seats in November: those 40-60 (that’s an optimistic count) seats in contention are going to be just as winnable with or without a presidential censure.
This is their thought process, and it’s a sound bit of reasoning. We can call it craven, morally bankrupt, spineless – but what do we really get out of that? First, it's important to remember that they’re none of those things: they’re just normal people who have jobs where pretty much whatever they do someone get mad at them. And, second, they’re the only option for the non-theocrat/racist/warmongering crew and everybody knows it, so calling them names only contributes to an already noisy, stupid political scene.
Until there’s a viable manner of holding politicians accountable for their ideological positions, this whole discussion – while certainly interesting and well informed and a maybe good one to have – is entirely pointless. Progressives are starting to do this by supporting alternate Democratic candidates to entrenched incumbents. But it’ll take years and years (unless a huge number of people get involved basically immediately) to change the underlying structures that determine politicians pragmatic reasoning. So, I don’t know… I guess call the gentleman from Wisconsin and think him for taking a stand and then write a check to Lamont and then read up on election reform so you can explain why it’s needed and what the options are and then...
Anonymous: No need for pessimism. Like many followers, the Dems just need someone with a vision to follow. There are plenty of reasons why they'll fall into line if they get that person. Feingold or Murtha are courageous enough to withstand the ridicule and heat until that time that they gain the trust of the electorate that the less courageous among the Dems will simply fall in line behind.
ReplyDeleteVery, very well said, A.L. and Glenn.
ReplyDeleteThere's something else about doing the right thing for the right thing's sake, regardless of its "popularity" or "conventional wisdom":
You are standing on SOLID ground, on the side of truth, when doing so. NO ONE can say the Fourth Amendment doesn't exist, in the end [which Arlen Specter all but tried to declare on the Senate floor yesterday; all I could think was wow, wow.... A United States Senator throwing the Constitution and the Legislative Branch out the window live on C-Span from the Senate floor...].
The harder they push, the more rock solid your position will be revealed to be, if you stand up to defend the CONSTITUTION and the sworn duties of the Legislative Branch. There is no way to "spin" away from those vital foundations of our Nation to the advantage of the lap dog Republicans. PERIOD.
Secondly, the Republicans know it. WHENEVER you hear them come out and "taunt" and dare the Democrats to take a certain course of action, as Cornyn (the lap dog's lap dog) did per one of the news articles -- you KNOW it has the potential to hurt those who taunt, if properly carried into effect by the Democrats.
As firedoglake points out this morning, Russ Feingold has singlehandedly changed the FRAME of the discussion in the CORPORATE media... The country is now discussing whether or not Bush "broke the law." That by itself is a victory for the Democratic Party, and much more importantly, for the NATION. And it demonstrates HOW to get media coverage for your message. Russ has the principles down, and he has the media presentation savvy to back it up.
The Democratic Party could 'go to school' on Russ Feingold's methods of the last two days. He is on the cutting edge, and 'with the program' in every sense of the word. I sure hope his fellow Senators have the wits to appreciate the wisdom of taking the road less traveled that Russ Feingold blazed for them yesterday.
P.S. We should certainly not delude ourselves that the corporate media is, or soon will be, on the side of the American people. Thus, Harry Reid's clear announcement of support for Russ Feingold, which Reid gave on the Ed Schultz radio program yesterday, is apparently not being reported. Resist the propaganda and spin, and try to source your own information. Harry said he "fully supports" Feingold's Resolution, and that it will "open doors that need to be opened" -- I assume we will hear confirmation of that from him in another venue soon.
On the other hand, it is no surprise to see the Dems acting this way. The Dem insiders see Feingold's support as emanating from outsiders who can't be controlled as of yet. That's why there's this noise from the Dems about the blogoshere--they simply can't get a handle on how to integrate it into their ruling paradigms.
ReplyDeleteTruth to tell, I'm not so sure Congressmen, Republican or Democratic even understand the rudimentary technology of the internet. Seriously, these are a bunch of old guys and like many boomer aged CEO can't even email. They let their secretaries do it for them. They get all their news from cable, the NYT, and the Wa Post.
And Bart dear, Third, you need to stop lying to yourselves about whether or not you will lose. You will. Just as the country was liberal in 1964, it is conservative in 2006
Thanks so much for the advice. Conservatives are many things: They are great electioneers, great at media control and dominance, great a fund raising, great at cronysm, deficit spending, great at the politics of polarization and great at launching preemptive wars but they are simply lousy at governance.
owenz: the circle fire-zone is not so apt an analogy for what Feingold's doing, I think. I do think it's causing some consternation among the Dems. But from confusion comes order--it's kind of a law of thermodynamics. Create confusion and chaos and let the new order rise. Perhaps it will give rise to new Dem candidates who will even take on the insider Dems. Call it controlled chaos.
ReplyDeleteWhat the American people and Democrats think about anything will not matter as it does not matter today. And the MSM is in complete accord with Bush/Rove's plan.
ReplyDeleteAnd the MSM "echo chamber" has prepared us to accept this by proclaiming that chimpy's "gut reactions" and "resolve" are his strongest points -- like somehow American's admire a leader that does not consider the consequences of his actions, including whether or not he represents the "will of the people."
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
Catapulting some pretty tasty propaganda...
Yeah right, and we want to have an beer with an abusive alcoholic/cokehead instead of a thoughtful, articulate person...
The Democrats: putting the "point-2" in "America's 1.2-party system."
ReplyDeleteThis I disagree with. Lou Dobbs was responsible for making this a big story.
ReplyDeleteWhile agree that Dobbs had an important influence (Cafferty at CNN was beating the same drum), I don’t think that he could have changed opinion on this so dramatically (by himself) if all Republicans had lined up behind Bush. Neither of them has that kind of influence or viewer strength.
This became a big story on all the bigger news networks with far larger audiences, and it became topic “one” on the Sunday shows too. And the story was, at least in part, a “Republican revolt.” (The media loves a food fight.)
How many people even know where Feingold disagreed with the Patriot Act? Not many. His objections on those two main points are imminently reasonable, but they got zero attention, and no support from other timid Democrats either. CNN had a logo of the story wrapped in a flag – the not-so-subtle message was that to oppose it was un-American.
I also think that the Democrats not only need to be aggressive against the Republicans, but the media as well, and call them on their “bullshit” reporting, and biased framing.
We need someone to confront Tweety to his face, and to call Timmy on his “all-conservative” line-ups – and do it on the air and in directly to him (them).
Glenn’s made these points, but no one has made them on news shows with big viewer-ship, and that’s why they continue to do it – they are never challenged on it.
So, I’m agreement with “Ballgame”: the MSM component is a crucial component to this analysis, and that can’t be neglected.
Clooney is right, the Democrats are cowards. They lack the courage and/or integrity necessary to defend even the most fundamental values of this republic.
ReplyDeleteLet the Republicans go on record as voting against the Constitution in defense of the President, then afterwards, when they try to spin allegiance to a man over the Constitution as patriotic, when they try to say fighting terrorism requires abandoning the Bill of Rights, Democrats can ask the American public if they want to be represented by people who think defending the President is more important than defending the Bill of Rights.
We need men with moral courage to speak and write their real thoughts, and to stand by their convictions, even to the very death. - Robert Green Ingersoll, "Thomas Paine"
Re: Feinstein and Lieberman
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true they're hyppocritical and lily-livered scumbags, the analogy between then and now isn't entirely on-point.
The true analogues of Feinstein and Lieberman now would be supposed "moderates" such as Snowe, Chaffee (or McCain?!), willing to buck party discipline to criticise one of their own party in the White House.
If the Democrats were to mimic the Republican model from the '90s Clinton era, they'd be in lock-step swinging at Dubya's head with a 2X4 24/7. Feinstein and Lieberman wouldn't need an "ethical" reason to go after Dubya with a censure motion here; they'd be doing it just because the party said so.
But if a censure motion is to succeed, we need not only for the Democrats to hold ranks, whether for principled reasons, just for party discipline, or even to just not be hypocritical a$$holes. We also need a few principled Republicans to show that they actually like good gummint more than they like holding on to power. Lotsa luck there, though.... This did happen back in the Nixon era, with maverick senators such as Lowell Weicker (who paid for his impetuousness when the Republican party back-stabbed him and put "Holy Joe" in the Senate), but nowdays, the Republican machine is so heavily sold out to the extremists and the anti-democratic, big-bidnezz, cronyist factions, and so invested in the "take no prisoners"/"slash and burn" strategy (and even government), that anything less than all-out party "discipline" may result in not only Republican losses (as it did in Nixon's time), but possible relegation of the entire Republican party to dusty historical footnotes. And it's hard to get Republicans to accept that, when they're each so heavily implicated in such themselves....
Cheers,
cynic librarian:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: No need for pessimism. Like many followers, the Dems just need someone with a vision to follow. There are plenty of reasons why they'll fall into line if they get that person. Feingold or Murtha are courageous enough to withstand the ridicule and heat until that time that they gain the trust of the electorate that the less courageous among the Dems will simply fall in line behind."
Whatever.
Look, it's not pessimism to point out that politicians are reasonable people and that we can bother to understand their reasoning and support the good work they do get done.
Pining for a "leader" or excoriating "strategists" or hoping for "courage" is actually just ignoring the structural components of our political system that drive politicians to do what they do.
But how's this for pessimism:
Holding opinions simply isn't good enough anymore, and thinking yourself a responsible citizen by virtue of doing so is pretty silly.
If every single one of the dedicated liberals who read blogs like this one actively supported (by means of actually committing their money and time ) the groups already working for reform of the systems by which we elect representatives and hold them accountable, the system would change. The problems are structural, not ideological (as you seem aware, WE ALREADY HAVE LEADERS, and good ones), and the solutions must come from taking practical, pragmatic action.
(BTW, calling your representatives doesn’t count, because it does nothing at all to address the underlying structural problems. Oh, also, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who actually DO take sensible, pragmatic action and I do know that there’s a lot of them around.)
Is that pessimistic enough?
Another relevant and depressing datum on the cluelessness of congressional dems, this one from a recent interview with Rep. Henry Waxman, of all people:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/13/21531/6483
It's like, every man for himself.
This is a real crossroad for Senate Democrats, each of whom will be forced -- thanks to Russ Feingold -- to reveal their true character.
ReplyDeleteThis goes to the point I was pondering while reading the post.
Assuming Feingold was fully capable of anticipating the feckless response of his fellow Dem senators and the dismissive treatment this would receive in the media, what do you see as his strategy here? A cynic--or an establishment Dem political consultant--would say that he was wrong to do it precisely because all it could accomplish is to once again show the Dems in disarray and helpless to control the whacko liberal end of the Party. Not my view, I'm grateful to see him defy that kind of thinking.
But still, the outcome is what it is, neh? Was that what he intended? Because surely he wasn't so naive as to expect people like Joe to or the other DLCers to back his play. Doesn't that failure just further solidify as "mainstream" and "conventional wisdom" the view that Bush's lawbreaking is no big deal, bidness as usual, what Murikans want, etc.?
Dunno. Leaves me wondering. I'm really curious about what Feingold's thought process might be like on something like this. Was it purely a quixotic matter of standing up for principle and damn the consequences?"Give 'em an opportunity to do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may"? Or is there any deeper strategy behind it?
Just casting around for some ray of hope I guess. So sick of seeing this same pattern get played out over and over again, and surely Feingold must have foreseen it as clearly as Glenn any of us.
Many on this thread bemoan the incompetence of the Democratic leaders.
ReplyDeleteSome of those then go on to sing Murtha's praises. Suggest he could be Feingold's VP. My opinion is Feingold wouldn't spit on Murtha.
There seems to be some genetic inability to see things clearly that courses through the blood of most Democrats and liberals.
Murtha was one of those weak, cowardly, unprincipled Democrats who would not speak out in favor of Feingold's motion to censure. His equivocation when asked about it was both insulting and sickening.
What's doing here? Just because Murtha took a stand you agree with on the War in Iraq, he gets a pass from now on and is elevated to "good guy" status as a rite of passage?
Why criticize a Lieberman for his cowardice and praise another coward like Murtha?
Whether Feingold would have been allowed to go ahead with this censure motion if he had informed the Democrats first is not clear. He might have been put in a position where he had to disruptively defy the party to proceed with this motion.
It's true, as another commenter points out, that everything in the Republican party is run by Rove first. But it's also true that if Rove says no, that's it.
Feingold apparently doesn't want to play the game that way. You think he doesn't know what we all do? That the Democratic Party is controlled by a bunch of idiots?
I can just see Feingold calling up Hillary and Lieberman and Schumer and saying "Let's introduce a motion to censure."
Ha.
If you really want to get something done, you do it yourself.
Anonymous: Is whatever your home or your general cast of mind?
ReplyDeleteWhatever. I imagine you're right about the rather obvious stuff about structural elements and all that. The limitations of the modern representative governments have been crowed about ad nauseam. Nothing will get done except through these representatives.
The structural issues are simply there unless "someone" has the vision and courage to attack and change that system. Call it pining for a leader or whatever, that's a given within the current framework within which politicans have to work.
The points about money and time, etc. are again pretty obvious. But people can piss away their money on candidates who simply go along to get along or who actually have insight into what's wrong with the system and can formulate a message that echoes in the innards of the electorate.
What I note your comments do not address is the issue of insiders--both Dem and Rep. Those are structural elements that few if any politicans want to touch since it brings to light the fact that the idea of democracy in America is a sham.
For now, it seems that what has to happen is that the current Dem insiders need to be replaced by new Dem insiders. My guess is that Feingold is as good as any to take up that position.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP did not take back Congress in 1994 by shying away from what they believed or pulling their punches when it came to criticizing an unpopular president. They were vocal and confident and combative. People weren't sure what GOP leadership would be like, but they knew it would be different and they could sense that the Republicans were sure of themselves.
Well, we certainly know what gop leadership is like now, don't we? The only question is, will dems be able to take advantage? Early returns are rather disappointing.
eyes wide: a rather unfortunate phrase that: spitting on a Vietnam Vet. Be that as it may, a coward is someone who doesn't know what to fear. It seems that Murtha has learned that the hard way. The sign of character is realizing when you're wrong and having the courage to say it and to then move on to courageosuly attack your own previous wrong positions. More than any democrat, Murtha has gone the whole way to do this--not straddled the fence like a Kerry or a Clinton.
ReplyDeleteRepugs AREN'T afraid to be seen as extremist because they are esposing the wishes of their big contributors -- big business.
ReplyDeleteDems ARE afraid to be seen as extremist because they would be antagonistic of the wishes of their big contributors -- big business.
There's a long, intelligently written post by an "anonymous" at 12:39 above which puts forth a reasoned argument in support of poltical pragmatism, and concludes, in essence, that the Feingold motion is largely irrelevant in the everyday world of practical reality and failure to support it on the part of Democratic politicians will not ultimately affect them adversely.
ReplyDeleteThat post could have been written by Carville, or Gedaliya, or any one of a number of party operatives, of either party, who are increasingly out of step with the changing body politic in this country.
And it's a recipe for defeat.
Anon asks of those who are center or left, who strongly oppose Bushco's agenda and morality, "are you going to not vote, or not vote for them because of this?", referring to Democrats who refuse to support Feingold on this censure motion (and presumably anon means other merely "ideological" things of this ilk.)
Hell, yes! Why would I vote FOR them? Bush isn't running again. Cheney will be gone. So will Rumsfeld.
There is NOTHING that would give me more satisfaction than voting for a Guiliani or some other person like him rather than an unprincipled p.o.s. like Hillary or other cowardly Democrats who are really Bush in disguise. You think I and others like me are anxious to reward hypocrisy?
Notice Guiliani has not been a Bushco enabler. Hillary, Lieberman, Chafee, and the rest of them have been. Guiliani was Mayor of New York, and is out of office now. All he is associated with is doing a spectacular job of turning around a horrible city which had disintegrated into chaos, and being a strong presence after 9/11.
Dems shouldn't count on an anti-Bush vote putting in a Democrat. Bush will be gone. And nobody is going to go out of their way to support cowards and hyprocrites who stand for nothing and are incompetent to boot.
The type of thinking your post reflects is exactly what is wrong with the present Democratic Party.
Hopefully, that thinking will become passe.
No, please don't tell us to give a little money to Lamont and shut up.
That doesn't wash.
This censure is based on the principle that the President broke the law. Many legal scholars feel he has and some feel he has not. Advocates who feel he has broke the law, such as Glenn, (specializing in constitutional law) and advocates such as Bart (takes bankruptcy cases on contingency) feels he has not, are advocates and not judges.
ReplyDeleteWe need a finding by a judge. Venue shopping is irrelevant as this will end up at the supreme court, as neither side will be satisfied with any lower courts decision. And even if the supreme court decides against Bush, can he claim his actions are above judicial review and simply ignore their findings?
This is definately a constitutional challenge and the Democrats need to do all they can. It seems like the censure is the only option left to them by the Republicans and I fail to see why any of them would choose to do nothing.
re: update II - sadly, that's only in th eonline version and simply an opinion article. in the print edition the headline is: Democrats Cool to Censure Bid
ReplyDeleteeyes wide: Giuliani will have some ethical problems, I think. He was living with his current GF while he was still married. This will not play well with conservatives of religious or non-religious affections. There's also his stand on abortion--pro--which will unravel his credibility with the religious right.
ReplyDeletecynic librarian:
ReplyDelete"I imagine you're right about the rather obvious stuff about structural elements and all that."
It's good you imagine that, and it's good that you think it's "rather obvious."
It's unfortunate that you kinda' totally missed the point, though.
By "structural elements" I mean orgizational structures in general, but especially laws. Not candidates, not "insiders," and not any of the stupid cynical excuses people have not to do something.
"The structural issues are simply there unless "someone" has the vision and courage to attack and change that system."
No, they aren't just "there:" organizational structures exist at the discretion of the people who use those structures to get certain things done. Our organizational structures aren't fulfilling the purposes we have for them, and they should be changed.
People do have the "vision and courage:" for example, people in groups everywhere in America work for reform of election laws. And they are successful in a lot of places, at a lot of things, every day. And yet every day, someone in each one of those groups has to spend all day on the phone calling other people to beg for money, and that's sad.
Yes, "people can piss away their money on candidates who simply go along to get along or who actually have insight into what's wrong with the system and can formulate a message that echoes in the innards of the electorate."
But that's not working in a pragmatic way for STRUCTURAL change. That's bullshit, and a waste of time.
Try getting together the people to put a ballot measure up for public financing of elections in your municipality. That's structural change, it's important, and it succeeds on a regular basis.
"...the idea of democracy in America is a sham."
You're dumb: if you think that, why do you even bother reading this blog, or any political blog? You're wasting your time. Go garden, or walk the dog, or take up watercolor or freestyle BMX.
The PRACTICE of democracy in America has some definite problems, but those can and should be fixed. But you, and all the other commenters here who are too damn busy pontificating about how our political system is a failure and how our representatives are spineless idiots, don't really care. If you care, take a stroll over to the ACLU scorecard page, type a name in and see exactly what horrors those "spineless idiots" have been working overtime to save your ungrateful asses from. Then choose your words with more circumspection.
And if you do care, do something. If you don't, don't continue to waste everybody's time by pretending to be something you're not.
PS eyes wide: Of course, it'd be great for Dems if Giulio does win the Rep nomination. I think you'd then see the long-threatened break by religious conservatives from the Rep Party come to fruition. They've threatened to run their own candidates for some time now. That'll be a sight to see.
ReplyDeleteMark my words, the Dems are going to fall down on this, exactly as in the script, as they did for the Alito filibuster. They couldn't care less about what real people think or feel. All they care about is DC, froo-froo parties, and money.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution? Bah!
cynic: But my point wasn't that Murtha was a war hawk who has since seen the light about Iraq.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that one would have hoped he would have been among the first to support Feingold's motion to censure, if he is this newly enlightened person who cares about morality.
But he is not.
Murtha is a one issue person. He has no beef with Bush. He is simply against the war in Iraq.
That doesn't make him an admirable person. It makes him just another deplorable person with one admirable position.
If he can't see that Bush is across the board insane and has to be stopped, why is he any different than a Lieberman? He's been around the halls of power long enough to know what is going on. Apparently, what is going on, other than the war in Iraq, doesn't disgust him as it does many, including me.
Just because someone is a military person, it doesn't make him a hero.
I think Feingold would not have much sympathy for a person such as Murtha, who has gained an audience and could be influential, but is too cowardly, or too comfortable with BushCo's illegal, dangerous actions, to support the motion for censure.
You would think that the Democrats (and Republicans) would learn from Feingold. He's the only member of Congress that history has shown to be 100% correct on every major issue.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of politicians that have gotten it right 50% of the time. Russ is batting 1.000
Eyes wide open...
ReplyDeleteAs a New York City resident, I can tell you that Giuliani's efficacy as mayor has been greatly oversold, and his rectitude--or lack of it--can be assessed by looking at how he announced on television that his marriage was over, before he even had the courtesy to tell his wife. And, he wanted to have his girlfriend stay in the Mayor's residence, while he was still married, and with children at home. That he would humiliate his wife that way gives you every clue you need to know what an asshole he is.
The turnaround of New York City was already underway when Guiliani took office, due partly to policies instituted by his predecessor, Mayor Dinkins, and partly to national trends in dropping crime rates. Guiliani was a loudmouth and a bully, and he often called questioners "crazy" (and other such terms) who cared criticize or cast skepticism on his claims or policies.
As for Guiliani's "masterful" leadership of NYC during 9/11, frankly, it only seemed masterful in comparison with his otherwise obnoxious and contentious leadership, and it was the LEAST I would expect of any Mayor. Did you know he wanted to PROLONG his mayorality by six months? 9/11 was primary day here in NYC and later that Fall we elected a new Mayor, Giuliani having served two terms. He obviously did not want to relenquish the reigns of power, and he tried to float a move to be kept in office an additional six months to "lead" NYC through the traumatic post-9/11 recovery period.
Hey, New Yorkers got along just fine without him.
I'm sorry to digress, but I do feel that Giuliani would be an undesirable President, and I hate to see residents of other parts of the country fall victim to the "myth" of Giuliani, as I think he will use it to win the White House.
Eyes Wide Open:
ReplyDeleteThanks for actually reading and thinking about that long-ass post.
you ask in response:
"Anon asks of those who are center or left, who strongly oppose Bushco's agenda and morality, "are you going to not vote, or not vote for them because of this?", referring to Democrats who refuse to support Feingold on this censure motion (and presumably anon means other merely "ideological" things of this ilk.)
Hell, yes! Why would I vote FOR them? Bush isn't running again. Cheney will be gone. So will Rumsfeld. "
Ok. You do that. All the bad guys will be gone, right, so it will be safe again to vote Republican?
No.
If you vote Democratic based on your considered ideological preferences, then you'll just have to notice on the way to voting Republican that they are representatives who operate according to a well articulated ideology that's completely opposed to the one Democrats are supposed to represent. Surrender your values in order to punish a Senator for not voting the way you want? That's silly.
And this ideological polarization does function in the pragmatic calculations of politicians. I don't personally think it's good or bad or much of anything at all, just that it's a necessary component to their thought.
But I wasn't even writing so much to say send money and shut up - i have no love for any particular party or politician. I talked about Lamont, not 'cause I like him or even know much about him, but as an example of a pragmatic way that progressives are attempting to change the underlying structural problems of our political system: funding alternative candidates to entrenched incumbents is a relatively new (to me at least) way of trying to hold incumbent candidates accountable for their actions.
I was actually mostly writing to say that there are lots of ways to engage in pragmatic action to change things for the better - e.g. that's why I was pointing over and over to the reasons politicians do what they do - and that those things are much more important things to do than call politicians names and get all worked up when they can't vote the way you want them to. If you identify the problem as being unresponsive politicians, then address the underlying reasons they're unresponsive instead of just replacing them with other politicians who can't do what you want them to either for the exact same reasons.
and um... yeah, having lived in NYC while Guilani was mayor:
He's a total bastard. His policing policies were abusive and racist. His treatment of the homeless was beyond criminal. Oh and he's seriously corrupt. You might want to look into his record a bit more.
Oh and, aside form the corruption, he's a GOOD Republican - e.g. he represents a certain stripe of conservatism very very well.
Glenn is so right, as usual, and the two-party system is so depressing.
ReplyDeleteThe public is crying out for a viable non-Republican option, and the Democrats are more worried with the validity of their claim to be Republican-lite. It's like the Democrats believe themselves morally obligated to play Charlie Brown to the Rs' Lucy van Pelt. "Maybe this will be the time," they tell themselves, "that she doesn't snatch the football."
Loved the Charlie Brown analogy. BTW, whats going on at FDL? I can't get on her site.
ReplyDeleteFDL works for me now.
ReplyDeleteand um... yeah, having lived in NYC while Guilani was mayor:
ReplyDeleteHe's a total bastard. His policing policies were abusive and racist. His treatment of the homeless was beyond criminal....
Then there was his First Amendment cases, wastes of money of which he lost essentially all of them (even getiing slapped by the judge in one for rampant stoopidity, IIRC).
.... Oh and he's seriously corrupt. You might want to look into his record a bit more.
Oh and, aside form the corruption, he's a GOOD Republican ....
Ummm, no, that puts him right in the midst of modern Republican polity.
Cheers,
I don't think it is too late for 2006 (or for the country) for Congressional Dems to find their spine.
ReplyDeleteUmmm. No. It IS too late for the Dems to show spine. As a matter of fact, I'll wager that there will be no sign of any spine outside Feingold's offices anywhere in Democrat land. They prefer to run and hide from such unpleasant business as abiding by their frickin' oath of office! It is just so much more comfortable in the dark under their blankies.
There is a really brilliant article over on Huffington Post entitled "Game Theory, Democrats and the Failure of Leaderhip."
ReplyDeleteIt's a must read. The author says everything we have been saying, and a whole lot more. It's hard to disagree with his extremely perceptive analysis of what has happened to the two party system.
He concludes, in short, that the Dems act as the do because they are really very comfortable with Bushco's policies, and just want to gain power so they can turn the gravy train more in their direction. He recommends that the progressive community should form a coalition with the Democratic Party and use it as their tool, but not look to them for leadership.
A more negative commenter writes:
...and the latest example is Feingold's resolution to censure the president for breaking the law. Frist's volley is to bring this to a vote! A normal person of the Progressive stripe would say yippee. Guess what? Dems don't want this to come to a vote, and be forced to either vote against the president...and heaven forfend be criticized...or vote for the president and...well...they just dont want to vote on this!
Hell, the republicans should win this fall and in 2008 too.
The Democrat party is irrelevant.
In my opinion, the Feingold motion for censure, who supports is, what it leads to, is the pivotal moment and the defining issue of what is going to happen to America.
If Feingold and those who support him prevail, with public support, and Bushco is in some way held accountable, then we move on.
If not, then I believe every progressive person and principled American should not give a penny to anyone, after November, except Feingold. If he gets the nomination, the Republic will survive. If he doesn't, it really doesn't matter what party gets in, or who takes over. The game will have been lost, for at least 10 or 20 years until the blogosphere world becomes the dominant force in American politics, and by then, it may well be too late to matter.
I don't know. I totally relate to all the frustrations expressed about the "spineless Dems." But I think we need to make a distinction between spinelessness and strategic retreat where appropriate. Right or wrong, I think alot of Dem leaders believe that there is a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" quality to the current political turf GIVEN THE CURRENT MAKEUP AND NATURE OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. If the Dems strategically retreat they are criticized as weak, and if they stand up, they are criticized from different quarters as unpatriotic or extreme. And until they actually have a congressional majority they do not have subpoena power and all those other things we wish they had, obviously a tough Catch-22 situation on a number of levels. There is also strong evidence that the Repubs will hang themselves given the chance, and that this doesnt happen when the Dems stand up at the wrong time or without having thought it through strategically, again, GIVEN THE CURRENT MEDIA LANDSCAPE.
ReplyDeleteBased on this, Id like to see folks make their criticisms of the Dems carefully crafted as to be strategic and positive instead of negative and counterproductive. This means reserving the head-bashing for the most egregious and flagrant (Lieberman is the obvious example but there are others). Then, much like the strategy of containing communism pursued by administrations in the 50s and 60s, we need to re-direct the consversation in each area where the Dems get stuck so that our winning narratives are thrust back into the spotlight. This approach will directly counter Rove's moves and will help give the Dems the cover they need from the grassroots while avoiding the circular firing-squad.
That said, of course, we should wield the sledge-hammer mightily when called for. But the sledge-hammer should be used, even so, at least 70% of the time against Republicans. Meantime, we must, MUST do everything we can to change the landscape and remove the structural catch-22s. We are alot further along in this than some commenters seem to realize, in the sense that the blogosphere is beginning to make a real difference. We basically just need to be persistent and creative and never, ever give up hope. Yes, things are very bad but they are also turning around. Let's feed that turn-around.
Well, I feel moved to share a devastatingly insightful response to Feingold’s standing up for the rule of law that is making its way around the Bush-supporting blogosphere, including The Corner. This, from Sen. John Cornyn’s web site:
ReplyDeleteDemocrat co-sponsors of Feingold Resolution: 0
al Qaeda communications intercepted by Feingold Resolution: 0
Terror attacks prevented by Feingold Resolution: 0
eyes wide open:
ReplyDeletewow:
"In my opinion, the Feingold motion for censure, who supports is, what it leads to, is the pivotal moment and the defining issue of what is going to happen to America.
If Feingold and those who support him prevail, with public support, and Bushco is in some way held accountable, then we move on.
If not, then I believe every progressive person and principled American should not give a penny to anyone, after November, except Feingold."
I say again: wow.
first: a censure hardly counts as "holding someone accountabe."
second: the censure never had a chance of passing, and it wasn't intended to. it was a ploy, well played and totally successful, to redirect media attention to Bush's lawbreaking.
third: you think this "is the pivotal moment and the defining issue of what is going to happen to America?" are you even awake? this is a sideshow. they're taking away actual liberties, like access to abortion. they're denying access to real drugs, like PlanB. They're destroying the separation of church and state, burning a foreign country to the ground, destroying every working part of the government not amenable to partisan control. And you think THIS is important? what tremendous political acuity.
fourth: your solution is to deny funding to the only people who actually represent your interests because they failed to do what you want on a pretty minor issue (e.g. a censure vote)? that's some political maturity, there.
Wow. really. wow. well thought out. considered.
no, but, really, that's the dumbest thing i've read here not put up by bart.
Google is being ordered by a judge to turn over all its internet stuff to the justice department. Supposedly to stop kiddie porn.
ReplyDeleteYa. Now, that really is funny. It truly is. Is there one person in America who believes that?
Google owns this site, doesn't it? Every word we write here just makes the government monitor us more. We are living in a police state. Why write on the Internet, when we all know the government is monitoring us, and will take spiteful actions against us if we irritate them too much?
I am really considering going off line forever. It's just too annoying to be spied on constantly.
Google's "internet stuff"?
ReplyDeleteinternet stuff?
they're being asked to turn over server logs of search requests that (i believe) are correlated to IP address.
at least bother to know what you're complaining about something before you start.
I just flipped by Fox News and saw a headline that said "Feingold blasts cowering Democrats."
ReplyDeleteCan't find any news on the net about it, though.
dr. lim
ReplyDelete"The more I think about it, the more the 1999 GOP strategy appeals to me. "
um... what do you mean?
the GOP pursued a number of strategies in 1999 and 2000. not all of them were successful and many aren't easily appropriated.
Feingold succeeded. Google his name and you realize he's all over the news media as calling for the censure in connection with the illegal NSA wiretapping by BushCo. It can't be bad to have this illegal program put before the public again in this news cycle.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is being ordered by a judge to turn over all its internet stuff to the justice department. Supposedly to stop kiddie porn.
ReplyDeleteThe government is spying on us here? Im shocked, SHOCKED.
EWO, big deal. Let them have our comments, our strategies. Lets even forward our comments and emails all to NSA and DOJ so they can save time and spy on terrorists instead. See? We really are against the terrorists.
I have nothing to hide. Going offline forever - well, who is that going to help/hurt? I relate to your sentiment on one level, but I think the rule is that whatever they want us to do, we should not do, and whatver they dont want us to do (which is what they are trying to scare us out of), we should do.
They want us to shut up and go away. Failing that they will try to scare us away.
No fear.
Donna Brazile is mostly on the right track, but one can unfortunately see that she is still out of touch in a rather startling way. She refers to the "controversial, but increasingly popular, [NSA] surveillance program..."
ReplyDeleteIncreasingly popular with whom exactly, other than congressional Republicans?
It seems a stereotypical "cowering Dem" thing to do, to see your bullying opposition as popular just because he says he is. Not only is Brazile wrong, she's needlessly given her enemies a money quote.
Regardless whether the RNC or DNC controls Congress, there is one Constitution. Either the RNC and DNC can agree to review the matters, or the States can lawfully revoke their power.
ReplyDeleteUnless you use your power, you're going to lose it -- not simply taken by the RNC, but the states can lawfully revoke the power of the Federal government that has been abused -- whether by choice or inaction is irrelevant.
This is not a matter of politics; these are matters of constitutional and criminal law. [ Click ]
You may not destroy -- by choice or neglect -- what you do not have the lawful power to destroy. New provisions can be created to impose more meaningful sanctions for failing to do what must be done. Things will improve -- whether by choice or mandate does not matter.
No party controls the country; rather, the people control the Constitution. If you defy the people, their rights, or abuse their power they have delegated, you shall lawfully have that power revoked.
anonymous -
ReplyDeletethe right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is not a "real freedom," but access to abortion is? Over the counter Plan B is more important than the rule of law? while those things are important, i think your priorities are a tad off.
Any chance leading Democrats are not rallying behind Feingold because it might draw attention away from their own ambitious proposals? You organize an opposition when there's blood in the water. But why bother when there's already Republican carcasses floating at the surface. Some of these folks are looking to 2008. 2006 is a done deal. Polls show it.
ReplyDeleteFeingold now seen as a contender?
Glenn: remind me again what is the answer to the pro-Bush response that the Executive has inherent authority under Article II to prosecute a war. There is the tyranny that would result from taking this legal theory to its logical conclusion. And then there's the "lowest ebb" argument under Youngstown. Is there anything else?
ReplyDeletePart of the brillance not to mention ethical stance that Feingold's censure resolution brings about will be seen when the 2008 debates begin and Americans who, by then, will be on fire as a Nation will see Feingold as the singular representative who sought to right Bush's wrongs. They will note that McCain's wing didn't stand up for them, they will surely see the list of Dems who stood by with their hands in their pockets and no amount of excuses or burgeoning election treasury will be able to override that simple fact. Americans will look at the scorched and broken country of Iraq, they'll see the hospitals filled with our soldiers, Arlington cemetary overfilling, they'll see a treasury far worse than today, uneducated children, a broken economy ... so much worse than today's and they will turn their backs on this Congress, just as this Congress is turning its back on America.
ReplyDeleteIt's time to break with the same-old, same-old and use the Feingold resolution to force the Republican-controlled Congress to commit to serious oversight of the controversial, but increasingly "popular", surveillance program.(Quotes mine) - Donna Brazile
ReplyDeleteThis is a typo , right? Increasingly popular? By what measure?
Love the way the "trolling" blog is downstairs today -- the "flypaper" strategy of "fighting the trolls" in the other thread so we don't have to fight them here is extremely effective!
ReplyDeleteEven the "pro-chimpster" pollsters report chimpy has approval ratings in mid 30's (you know, gallop proclaimed chimpy was going to win a landslide in 2004 and consistently oversamples republicans).
ReplyDeleteNow many democrats cannot support Feingold, even though chimpy has no real base of support anymore...
hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Ralph was right!
David: For discussion of the Article II, inherent authority issues, Youngstown analyses, and virtually all else related to the legal issues surrounding Bush's NSA spying, see the Compendium of NSA Arguments on Glenn's sidebar. Right underneath his email address.
ReplyDeleteadvocates such as Bart (takes bankruptcy cases on contingency)
ReplyDeleteSo that does officially make our resident "copy and paste" troll a paid shill...
Stating that he "advocates" is flat-out wrong. He comes here with a full clipboard of kool-aide talking points that have been copied from other wingnut sites.
He pastes them into these threads and then returns to the wingnut site to refill his clipboard...
Please don't give him this much credit -- he is just being disruptive and insulting.
David Shaughnessy -
ReplyDelete"If the idea is merely to be a corrective boost for the Democratic party then I am not interested. If, on the other hand, you intend to embrace the true potential of the internet as a revolutionary instrument, count me in."
Not that you asked me, but…
I've been thinking about this viewpoint a lot - as caricature I’ll call it the myth of the internet messiah.
Sure, the internet is neato for a whole lot of reasons, and blogs are neato too. And both have a lot of potential to effect political change. But political change, insofar as it’s a change of/in/by institutions, is fundamentally first a local phenomenon: it happens first at the lowest levels of distributed power. In this country, this means largely at local institutions like local political parties and local governments. And no amount of lightning fast global communications will ever change the need for individuals to simply show up and take part in the decision making processes of these institutions.
As far as the political system being corrupt, that’s true to some very very very large extent, but enunciating that point over and over and over distracts from a far more important point: the political system doesn’t exist as separate from the wishes of the citizens. Sure, neither the Democratic party nor the alternative do a good job of representing the interests of the vast majority of the people of this country. But again, that distracts from the point that those institutions function so poorly primarily because they are allowed to do so, and they are allowed to do so by people.
In short, yeah, the internet is neato and Glenn’s blog is neato too, but it's just one tool among others.
When was the last time you bothered to go to a school board meeting or a city council meeting or to a meeting of your local political party of choice? Do you even know how to become a delegate to a meeting of one of the political parties? Do you know how to get a third party candidate or a reform proposal on the ballot? Have you ever tried to actually do so – to draft and introduce legislation, get a sponsor to put it into consideration at your local governmental body or to get it directly on the ballot, run the media and education campaigns that make any of this practicable?
You want a revolution but, mostly, you (not necessarily you in specific…) haven’t even tried using the tools that come easily to hand. Our system is falling apart from neglect: corruption, cynicism, disaffection are just symptoms. That’s no one’s fault but our own, and no internet messiah will ever come to fix that.
Donna Brazille is a little dense to me. Not only is she a lousy spokesperson, her one issue these days seems to be: Can't we all just get along. She's the ultimate DC insider who appears to think a polarized country is ok because its simply political theatre.
ReplyDeleteShorter version of my own statement: She sounds like Lieberman.
Breaking news: censure motion referred to Judiciary. Feingold tells Fox it's due to Democrats "cowering"; staffer tells reporter Feingold "screwed the pooch." VichyDems.
ReplyDeleteSorry, bad url. VichyDems.
ReplyDeletehey Greg Martin -
ReplyDeletewe could quibble about priorities, sure. And you could bother to pay attention before you get snarky:
My point was that the censure motion wasn't about addressing the whole "rule of law" issue via legislation - it's a media strategy, and it worked very well.
Getting all bothered when the censure motion fails is dumb - it's totally justified to declare victory by virtue of having reframed the issue for the media. EWO was attached to its failure or success as a peice of legislation and promoting it as the be all end all, which is truly dumb.
Feingold now seen as a contender?
ReplyDelete---
Feingold's candidacy just went down the drain like a keg of stale Milwaukee beer.
He couldn't poll 2 percent for president outside of communist red Madison. Worst of all for the democrats, is his bonehead stunt is playing very poorly among moderate voters and is tarring the left as chickens on security once again. What a monumental error.
Feingold's candidacy just went down the drain like a keg of stale Milwaukee beer. He couldn't poll 2 percent for president outside of communist red Madison.
ReplyDeleteHow lucky we are that we have a loyal, liberal Democrat showing such wisdom and sincere concern. Of course we'll take your advice; running to the middle has been SO effective at gaining us the Congressional majority for the past 15 years...
Oh, wait...
I don't hang out at conservative sites urging you to nominate Frist, who's a dream candidate from my perspective; why do you come here and bother us?
OK, sorry to feed the troll, they just get to me sometimes, especially when Congressional Republicans do the same thing...
I think the censure motion is already a success. Why? Because it is giving a forum for those who believe, like Feingold, that the president broke the law, and nothing is being done about it.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know who will vote for it, but it has got people talking about the lack of a serious investigation, the collapse of Congressional oversight in the Intelligence Committee, etc. etc. Isn’t that a worthy goal in and of itself?
Moreover, it gives an opportunity for Democrats to knock down the totally dishonest talking point of Bush supporters, as Feingold did today:
[Democrats shouldn’t] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question the administration, you’re helping the terrorists.
Sorry, but that’s something the Democratic Party really needed to hear.
They also need to wake up and realize how important it is that that talking point be destroyed completely.
You can’t have a democracy if you can’t question your president. Period.
Sing it, Russ!
I just got off the phone with Senator Feinstein's phone-answerer in D.C., approx. 1:48pm (PST).
ReplyDeleteSaid I was a constituent of the Senator's, and asked if the Senator had taken a stance on Senator Feingold's motion to impeach. Was told that, no, no stance was yet taken.
Said I couldn't imagine how Senator Feinstein could have voted to censure President A for having sex with an intern, and not censure President B for eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant in direct and flagrant violation of a law that has been on the books for 30 years. Was told that, no, the Senator had in fact voted to censure President A for perjury.
Said I couldn't imagine how Senator Feinstein could have voted to censure President A for perjuring himself over sex with an intern, and not censure President B for eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant in direct and flagrant violation of a law that has been on the books for 30 years. Was told, "I'll pass on your thoughts."
Said I'd like to remind Senator Feinstein that there is no Intelligence Committee investigation for the Senator to wait on before taking a stance on Senator Feingold's motion, because Senators Hagel and Snowe have reversed themselves and voted against Intelligence Committee hearings. Was told that, no, a special subcommittee of 3 Dems and 3 Repubs continues to hear testimony on the subject, and that Senator Feinstein sits on said subcommittee, and that Senator Feinstein just yesterday heard testimony from an NSA Official.
Asked if that special subcommittee, on which Senator Feinstein sits, has the power to compel testimony, or issue subpeonas. Was told by my Senator's aide that he did not have that information, and had no way to aquire that information.
Opined that I had little hope that said special subcommittee, on which Senator Feinstein sits, bore much chance of relevatory fruit, in light of Senator Feinstein's own aide being unaware of whether or not said subcommittee (or any individual member of said subcommittee) had the power to compel testimony, or issue subpeonas. Asked when the Senator's Aide might be able to acquire an answer to the above-asked question. Was, instead, offered a forward to the committee staff to perhaps get an answer to my question.
Declined said offer, and expressed my preference that my Senator's aide seek out an answer to my question as to whether or not my Senator's special subcommittee (or any individual member of said subcommittee) had the power to compel testimony, or issue subpeonas. Asked when my Senator's aide may be able to aquire that information for me. Was summarily hung up on by my Senator's aide.
Constituent service, Di-Fi style.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
In fact, I have become increasingly convinced that the present two-party system in structurally corrupt and adhering to either party is a mistake.
ReplyDeleteI do believe, as you do, that the internet holds a vast resovoir of power….
If the idea is merely to be a corrective boost for the Democratic party then I am not interested.
Once again, I haven’t a clue what David S. thinks should be done. Now, I agree with his basic assessment of our present party system, and the potential of internet, but I’m still firmly based in reality.
And reality means you have to work within the two-party system we have. This means recognizing that any third party option is not in the immediate future. It also means acknowledging just how wrong Nader was when he said there wasn’t a dime worth of difference between the two parties. Nonsense. Bush may have run as a “moderate” and a “straight-shooter” but no one should have been fooled twice.
Also, the internet’s potential is still limited. When you take into consideration how few Americans even read blogs, it lets you know that the revolution is not here, and we are only beginning to see it.
I see blogs and the internet as the modern corollary of the early pamphleteers in the American Revolution, and the important role they played in developing our ideas.
Blogs and the internet have the potential to inform, fund, organize and galvanize political candidates, but at this time it must do so within the two-party system we have. It does not have the power to act as some Deus Ex Machina that will deliver us from a corrupt two-party system.
Sorry, David, it isn’t going to happen in the next couple election cycles.
In the meantime, the best way to fight anti-Democratic tendencies is in a corrective boost for the Democratic Party.
Sorry to say, the Republican Party at this point is beyond hope, but they too, need a swift hard kick in the ass as conservative John Cole recently admitted.
Once Republicans are out of power, then the potential to reform that party exists as well, but until they lose power, it won’t happen.
Until then, I’ll join Glenn and anyone else who will help make that happen.
David Shaughnessy -
ReplyDelete"Upon what do you base this?"
I can see how you might be confused as to the basis of my argument, since you didn't actually bother to even attempt to understand to any of the ideas I advanced. I don't subscribe to your cornucopian BS idea that somehow the internet by virtue of simply being a cool thing has the power to save apathetic people from drowning in the inevitable products of their apathy, but that’s ok, we don’t have to agree.
"Upon what do you base this?"
The argument you ignored is based on an elementary knowledge of CIVICS (not the cars). It’s not hard. If you really don’t see what it’s based on, go pick up a second hand textbook from 1976: it ought to do you good. It's also based on a solid knowledge of political philosophy (college and grad school), a more than passing acquaintanceship with the foundational documents and history of our country, and on lots and lots of real-world political practice.
"Upon what do you base this?"
Go back, read the post, then come back with a real response. If you come up with a real question or critique, I’ll answer it. Or don’t. I don’t care a whole lot, ‘cause you’re apparently just really intellectually lazy.
David Shaughnessy
ReplyDelete"Buying into the corrupt politico-industrial complex merely perpetuates it.”
Wow. Well, um, run along now Stokeley…… good luck with that revolution, but you better get to it.
“There must be some alternative. I don't pretend to know the answers.”
It's good that you're willing to say that you don't pretend to know the answers, because you can't even identify the problem with any accuracy.
Actually, you do pretend to know at least one answer - your big shiny bright idea about how the internet will in some vague way save politics is precisely what is called pretending to know the answers.
"People can attack me if that soothes them, but I am looking for answers, not fights. And I simply cannot subscribe to the view that the solution is more of the same old thing."
YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT MORE OF THE SAME OLD THING IS. you don't know what's broken because you don't understand the system we have. you can't possibly know how to fix it.
But i'm only attacking you because you exhibit terrible habits: you aren't really interested in politics even though you pretend to be, but when someone makes the mistake of challenging one of your stupid ideas on the matter, you respond with ignorant snark.
You haven't done any real thought or work on the matter and don't intend to. I can tell because you don't know what you're talking about and yet feel totally comfortable doing so. You won't bother to become informed - your totally apparent lack of any knowledge of basic civics or political philosophy (e.g. “Upon what do I base this?” you have to ask?) is a pretty big tip-off that you're just pontificating fer your own benefit.
you don’t know jack, and your ignorant cynicism is an affront to people who have dedicated their lives to reforming the “corrupt politico-industrial complex” you claim not to know the answers for and yet SIMULTANEOUSLY affirm to be dispensable.
Read a book. Seriously. For a start maybe the federalist and anti-federalist papers or maybe Democracy in America by Toqueville or Reflections on the Revolution in France by Burke. Read through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then read the findlaw annotations to them. Try Amar, or Sunstien. Try Hobbes or Rawls. Read something, anything, instead of pontificating here and fooling people like me into thinking there’s a working, well-informed mind behind your garbage posts. I mean, hey, have you even seen that School House Rock episode about the bill becoming law?