Democrats in Congress making good on their promises of change ... ooops

[JeffL]

How many Democrats ran for election based on "We're going to CHANGE the policies in Iraq!" and "We're going to REPEAL the Patriot Act and STOP wiretapping of U.S. citizens!" etc.?

So what are they going to do? Apparently give MORE power in such matter to the NSA:

"Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration, Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org)."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/washington/09cnd-nsa.html?ei=5065&en=5614405c7a9db3a5&ex=1192507200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

"Bush administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened wiretapping authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess..."

"While they are willing to oppose the White House on the conduct of the war in Iraq, (Democrats) remain nervous that they will be labeled as soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on intelligence gathering."

“Many members continue to fear that if they don’t support whatever the president asks for, they’ll be perceived as soft on terrorism.”

I.e. - the only thing they care about is getting in office and staying in office.

[Jakub]

........................................__........ .................................................. ....
.................................,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,.................................. ...............
...........................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,.....................................
......................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..............................
..................,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.\............................
................;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\...........................
................\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/...........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,.........................
.................\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,..........................
...................\llllllllllll,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)...........................
.....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../...............................
.....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\..............................
.................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\................ .............
...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,. ...................
...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,..............
.................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,---......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,,
.................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\..........
..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\.... .....
......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........
........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......

[Drastic]

It's almost as if those in the government aren't very eager to reduce the power of government. Which is a very puzzling thing, but I'm sure we'll crack that mystery someday.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I say this without irony: jeff lackey is absolutely correct in this criticism of the Democrats. When you're not happy with the way things are going, it's hard to be swayed by the Party of Me Too.

That having been said, Dennis Kucinich.

[Brian Rucker]

That having been said, George W. Bush.

I'm not happy with the Democrats but at least they aren't Republicans. The fact they know this and know I'll vote for them anyhow even as they pander to a mushy middle that may not even exist...infuriates me. But the alternative is a non-starter.

[Huzurdaddi]

Another solid thread by the sole moderate on the forum. Bravo.

[Anti-Bunny]

The lesser of two evils continues to be just as evil. Surprise!

[Athryn]

I think it's kinda hard to get much done when you only have a very slim majority. Gotta love the republicans using the filibuster to squash things after they tried to get it removed since the democrats were doing the same thing.

At least they're (mostly) trying, rather than trying to deal with the all important flag burning and gay marriage issues!

[Hawkeye Fierce]

An equally valid title for this thread would have been "Republicans in Congress making good on their promises of obstructionism." There are two sides to the aisle, you know.

Really, this seems to present a strange logical position - "The Democrats have failed to undo the damage caused by their Republican predecessors. Guess we should have voted Republican instead." I'm not sure that's really the lesson here.

I've always thought "voting for the lesser of two evils" is a sort of facile comment about our election process. If you're consistent about voting for those who espouse your views, and voting out those who fail to deliver, you should get improved representation.

Personally, I'm happy with my Congresscritters, though I'll be watching to see how they vote on this bill. My prediction is that Republicans vote en masse for it, Democrats are split, the bill passes by a slim margin, and Democrats somehow get all the blame. Should they have confronted the Republicans more over it? Probably. Could they have passed anything else? I doubt it.

[bigdruid]

Here's the thing, though - the current "Protect America Act" *expires* in two months.

The Republicans want to filibuster? Then fine, filibuster - the act expires and then *no* wiretapping happens.

So you can't blame this one on the Republicans in any way, shape, or form, other than in the really vague sense that they might use a vote against the act as campaign fodder.

[bdfinally]

here are some of the "enablers"

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1073

[Anti-Bunny]

here are some of the "enablers"

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1073
We've made an exception for Brian Baird (WA-03), who voted correctly on FISA. Upon getting back from Iraq, Baird, in the face of all the evidence, touted the surge's success and explained that opposition to the continuation of the surge was borne of partisanship and a lack of concern for American moral authority. Using the right-wing media to attack core progressive values is a quick route to becoming a Bush Dog.
Brain Baird is one of the most sensible voices on the Iraq War. Calling him a Bush Dog is a fucking joke.

[Enidigm]

It seems that as bad as the Republicans are, the Democratic party have still yet to enunciate a clear message that resonates throughout the party structure on it's positions regarding terrorism, the Iraq war, ect.

Now, this isn't the point where i say that i'm glad that we have Republicans in charge because they really appreciate the threat, even if they overdo things, and ect. ect. But it does seem that structurally the Democrats (and to a degree, liberalism in general) are much weaker than the Republicans and the Neoconservative movements. There seems to be a lack of discipline and centralization necessary to propell intellectual climates and policy changes in the beltway and in the public sphere, working with the Democratic party (either as advisors or activists), even if there are actually more liberal-leaning intellectuals overall. It seems as if there just aren't the hundreds of thinktanks, and pro-liberal policy organizations like there are for the conservative and neo-conservative views. A thousand-thousand blogs might uncover every wrongdoing and policy blunder of every single Republican that has ever lived, but it does little good if there is no overarching method of translating these things into the media/political/economic capital to compell liberal candidates to swing towards those views and contest the complete dominance (almost monopoly at this point) of the Republican/Media/Religious juggernaught in defining the boundries of contemporary political debate. For ex., the question is not whether to support Israel but how much do we support them? The question is not whether to fight in Iraq, but for how long can the buck be passed? Or not whether abortion is bad but how bad and regretful?

Abortion is the bellweather sign of this critical weakness. For all intents and purposes it's impossible to set a defensible criteria that defines when a fetus gains "human" status, and so being arbitrary is basically an issue of, (to be cynical), a reflection of the strength of the opposing sides' propaganda. How many signs and bumper stickers have you seen in yards decrying abortion vs. supporting it? Behind those anti-abortion signs is an enormous, multi-disciplinary, secular-religous, interstate movement. Liberalism is losing the abortion wars through sheer political attrition, like it's losing all the other political debates.

[Houngan]

Not to oversimplify, but I think the Dems are getting together and saying, "Man, they voted the hell out of us last November, but surely they don't really want us to change everything? Do they?" Other Dem: "Nah, they just love gay marriage."

Seriously folks, we really DO hate indiscriminate surveillance.

H.

[jeffd]

Dems are really fighting a shitty battle.

The GOP are being monstrously obstructive, but the media isn't reporting on it. Every time the GOP successfully fillibuster a bill the reporting focuses on how the Democrats weren't able to get it done.

I'm not really sure what the solution is. Come 2008 when (hopefully) the Dems expand their senate majority they can simply kill the veto. But with Lieberman guaranteed to prevent that right now there's really not much to be done.

[Enidigm]

Dems are really fighting a shitty battle.



That's what's interesting, though, is that i don't think they really want to fight the Republicans. John Stewart made the comment (about political commentators, actually, but applicable here as well), that politics in Washington now is more like the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals, with everyone having a pre-assigned role and position, and where the outcome is known by both teams. The problem is that the Globetrotters have left the script. It's like they don't really understand that the Republicans are trying to win for good, so the Democrats are still just playing to win for the next Sunday political show.

[Jason McCullough]

20 of the 200-odd Democrats in Congress agree with the administration on wiretapping, rather than the rest of the Democrats. The Democrats have tiny margins in Congress, and because the GOP votes in unison on damn near anything now, that's enough to force a win for Bush.

Therefore.....it is the fault of the Democrats and the Democratic congressional leadership that they aren't opposing Bush more. By somehow forcing the last 10% of the membership to agree with them, I guess.

This isn't like the filibuster thing where it's inexplicable why they don't call the GOP bluff - there's basically nothing they can do if they can't convince the conservative/rural Democratic swing vote in the house, because their margin of control just isn't big enough.

[Enidigm]

20 of the 200-odd Democrats in Congress agree with the administration on wiretapping, rather than the rest of the Democrats. The Democrats have tiny margins in Congress, and because the GOP votes in unison on damn near anything now, that's enough to force a win for Bush.

Therefore.....it is the fault of the Democrats and the Democratic congressional leadership that they aren't opposing Bush more. By somehow forcing the last 10% of the membership to agree with them, I guess.

This isn't like the filibuster thing where it's inexplicable why they don't call the GOP bluff - there's basically nothing they can do if they can't convince the conservative/rural Democratic swing vote in the house, because their margin of control just isn't big enough.


Yea it is, because that's something of a misinterpretation (imo). The Democrats voting against it are playing the Washington Generals, scoring brownie points in a game they aren't trying to win. Unless there is some reporting that the leadership is "suprised" by the vote, or something like that. It's not that 10% of the Democrats voted for it, but that the leadership (probably) had ample and fair warning about the outcome of the votes, and decided to grandstand and then let the bill pass anyway, more or less free from having to make difficult confrontations with both their party and the Republicans.

[triggercut]

Yeah, until Bill Clinton was interviewed on The Daily Show last week, I hontestly didn't even parse the idea that for the Democrats in the Senate to enact change, they'd need a 60-40 majority.

I mean, I knew it, but I didn't *know* it. Hearing Clinton say it was kind of a revelation.

[bigdruid]

Brain Baird is one of the most sensible voices on the Iraq War. Calling him a Bush Dog is a fucking joke.

Really? Because his op-ed in my local paper sounds like it could've been written by a Bush speechwriter.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003850954_bairdop24.html

I'll summarize it for you: "Things are getting better in Iraq. I can't point to any *single point of political progress*, but trust me, they are getting better".

That's "sensible"? Stay the course, with no mention of timelines for political progress, or anything but an open ended commitment?

I don't think you and I agree on what "sensible" means.

[Dirt]

I really think the Democrats are milking a unpopular President to get a greater gain in 2008.

[noun]

Yeah, until Bill Clinton was interviewed on The Daily Show last week, I hontestly didn't even parse the idea that for the Democrats in the Senate to enact change, they'd need a 60-40 majority.

And yet, the Republicans continue to always win despite being in the minority. Something's wrong with this picture.

[Anti-Bunny]

Really? Because his op-ed in my local paper sounds like it could've been written by a Bush speechwriter.

So unless you're forcing an early withdrawal and misrepresenting the surge, you're a Bush lapdog getting speeches handed down by the white house?

I'll summarize it for you: "Things are getting better in Iraq. I can't point to any *single point of political progress*, but trust me, they are getting better".

Civilian casualties down, Coalition casualties down, district after district in Iraq handed over to Iraqi security control. Final drafts of the oil-sharing plan finally near becoming law and actually has a chance of not dying in committees this time.

Somehow admitting to those transforms a person into Bush Dog? Seriously, wtf?

[Jason McCullough]

Civilian casualties are down because the neighborhoods are mostly already "ethnically cleansed"; coalition casualties are not down on a seasonly adjusted basis; Iraqi security is a joke, mostly just executing the other religious faction; oil sharing plan will pass when hell freezes over.

Did I miss anything? None of that is in the article, however, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[magnet]

Civilian casualties down, Coalition casualties down, district after district in Iraq handed over to Iraqi security control. Final drafts of the oil-sharing plan finally near becoming law and actually has a chance of not dying in committees this time.
You forgot, "The next six months are critical!"

[bigdruid]

So unless you're forcing an early withdrawal and misrepresenting the surge, you're a Bush lapdog getting speeches handed down by the white house?

No, but when Baird is basically quoting the same tired bullshit ("The troops want us to stay!" and "If we leave now, the money we spent and the men we lost will have been in vain!") that the administration has been spinning for going on 3 years now, then he's lost significant credibility with me.

This link:

http://www.theolympian.com/news/story/192500.html

...shows a more reasoned side of Baird. But that op-ed he authored cribs liberally from the Republican Book of Spin.

[bdfinally]

Coalition casualties down,

US casualties 2/2006-9/2006=472
US casualties 2/2007-9/2007=721

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Glenn Greenwald opines that the NYT article might be a bit premature: (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/09/fisa/index.html)

But at least thus far, from everything I can tell, the picture is more complicated and less depressing than this NYT article suggests, and the defeat is not yet a fait accompli. To begin with, the bill to be proposed today by the House Democratic leadership actually contains some surprisingly good and important provisions.

That bill would compel the administration "to reveal to Congress the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since Sept. 11, 2001, including the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program." It would also require the maintenance of a data base to record the identities of all Americans whose conversations are surveilled. And it provides nothing at all in the way of amnesty or immunity for lawbreaking telecoms or administration officials. The bill introduced by House leadership is a bill the White House will never accept and would certainly veto, and it is vastly better -- in important ways -- than the atrocity they enacted in August.

...

The question, then, is to what extent the more principled members of the House Democratic caucus -- and they do exist -- can exert influence over the House Democratic leadership to prevent the worthless Senate Democratic caucus from enacting the bill the White House wants, complete with amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms and massively expanded warrantless eavesdropping powers. No rational person who has even casually observed this Congress over the last nine months would be optimistic about the likely outcome here.

But there seem to be some genuine opportunities -- with a smart and energized campaign -- to try to exert influence on this process to ensure more positive outcomes. For that reason, declaring defeat and "full capitulation" in advance -- as the NYT article does today -- seems premature.

So, one step forward, after two steps back, I guess.

[FIDGAF]

Civilian casualties down, Coalition casualties down, district after district in Iraq handed over to Iraqi security control.

You can't kill people that are already dead.

[Schazzwozzer]

This isn't like the filibuster thing where it's inexplicable why they don't call the GOP bluff...
So this is something I want to pick up on. The Republicans are threatening to filibuster just about everything, but has there actually BEEN a filibuster under this democratic congress? Can anyone tell me if there's any reason, aside from being considerate to their GOP counterparts, to NOT force them to actually stand up there and talk all night? I'd think the Webb amendment would have been an ideal situation in which to force a filibuster.

It's amusing, by the way, to remember that back in 2005, the Republican congress was threatening to declare filibusters unconstitutional or whatever it was -- the so-called "Nuclear Option" -- when Democrats were threatening to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees. Now the filibuster is the GOP's weapon of choice.

[jeffd]

So this is something I want to pick up on. The Republicans are threatening to filibuster just about everything, but has there actually BEEN a filibuster under this democratic congress? Can anyone tell me if there's any reason, aside from being considerate to their GOP counterparts, to NOT force them to actually stand up there and talk all night? I'd think the Webb amendment would have been an ideal situation in which to force a filibuster.

It's amusing, by the way, to remember that back in 2005, the Republican congress was threatening to declare filibusters unconstitutional or whatever it was -- the so-called "Nuclear Option" -- when Democrats were threatening to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees. Now the filibuster is the GOP's weapon of choice.

No, they don't force a fillibuster and I don't know why. The GOP declares their intent, Reid calls for a cloture motion, it fails, so that's that.

He should force them into the spectacle. Right now Reid is letting them get away with their obstruction in a way that isn't obvious, so the media doesn't report on it.

As for the nuclear option - you can't enact it because of Joe Lieberman. But at this point I think they should. The GOP has made it clear that they will kill off the fillibuster as soon as the Dems use it; so there's really no reason for the Dems not to get rid of it; at least then they can do some good before it all goes to hell.

But that argument is pointless as long as the Dems only have a Joe Lieberman majority. Probably after 2008 when they've got a four or five seat majority they'll go for it.

[Huzurdaddi]

As for the nuclear option - you can't enact it because of Joe Lieberman.

Look I hate Lieberman as much as the next guy, even more. But even if he was on the Democrats side they could not use the nuclear option since it is more than likely that Dick Cheney won't support the democratics position.

[jeffd]

Look I hate Lieberman as much as the next guy, even more. But even if he was on the Democrats side they could not use the nuclear option since it is more than likely that Dick Cheney won't support the democratics position.

If he was on the Democrats side it wouldn't matter. The Democrats hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate. It's precisely because of Joe Lieberman that Cheney gets to make the final decision.

[Jason McCullough]

On a related note (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/whose_side_are_they_on.php):

The lead item (http://nationaljournal.com/pubs/congressdaily/am071011.htm#1) in today's CongressDaily (subscribers only, sorry) is "Republicans Blast Democrats For Not Negotiating Further On SCHIP Legislation." Basically what we're seeing here is exactly how deeply ingrained the Republican Party's loathing of cute children is. Representative Deborah Pryce (R-OH) is the ringleader of a group of 45 House Republicans sufficiently vulnerable to electoral defeat, that they decided to vote to spend some money to help sick kids get medical care. The George W. Bush, driven by the same small government principles that have led him to lavish hundreds of billions of dollars on failed wars and tens of billions more on corporate subsidies, decided to veto the plan. Pryce and her colleagues then decided to turn around and blame not George W. Bush who vetoed the bill and not the congressional Republicans who prevented the bill's bipartisan supporters from overriding the veto but instead . . . House Democratic leaders for their unwillingness to water the plan down further.