Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhat FISA Capitulations Are Democrats Planning Next?
An article in this morning's NYT reports what many have long been expecting -- that Congressional Democrats are ready to capitulate to the White House again on warrantless eavesdropping just as they did in August, only this time by making their capitulation permanent:
Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.
Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.
This article may very well turn out to be accurate. Personally, I've been arguing since the disgraceful August FISA gift to the Bush White House that the chances were far greater that Democrats, before the six-month sunset provision elapsed, would actually pass an even worse FISA bill -- one that gave the President all the warrantless surveillance powers they gave him before plus what he wants most: retroactive amnesty for lawbreaking -- rather than adhering to their promise to "fix" what they did. So it is quite possible that Congressional Democrats will do here what they have been doing all year long, ever since they were pointlessly given control of Congress -- namely, meekly (and/or eagerly) give George Bush everything he demands.
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.
It is important here to recall that there is actually an amendment to FISA that is at least arguably justifiable. Even the original FISA law never required warrants in order to eavesdrop on (a) foreign-to-foreign calls or (b) calls involving a U.S. citizen where the target was a non-citizen outside the U.S. (who just happened to call into the U.S.). But recently, technological developments resulted in such calls, even foreign-foreign calls, being routed through the U.S. via fiber optics, and a FISA court ruled this year that the language of FISA requires warrants for such calls.
Even civil libertarian stalwarts such as Russ Feingold agree that it was never the intent of FISA to require warrants for those categories of calls and that amending FISA strictly to fix that problem is justifiable. And the House bill (which, I should note, I have not been able to read yet because the bill has not been publicly released and people in DC love to keep things secret, but I have spoken with many people whose expertise I trust who have read it) makes that arguably necessary change. But the bill gives the White House little else, and imposes some important requirements that the White House would never accept.
It is definitely possible that this is all just deceit, that House leaders introduced this bill strictly to placate their Progressive Caucus and their base and that they have no real intention of fighting for these provisions, but instead will give Bush what he wants once Mike McConnell starts accusing them of Helping the Terrorists and they begin negotiating in secret again. But it seems that there are important House Democrats really ready to fight on these issues, to prevent Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel (who unfortunately seem to be the real Speakers of the House) from conniving like they did in August to manipulate their caucus into supporting something far worse.
The real problem here seems to be that the wretched, principle-free, administration-revering Democratic faction on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- particularly Jay Rockefeller, joined by the Dianne Feinsteins and Bill Nelsons -- is eager to reach a "compromise" with their Bush-loyal "colleagues" (such as "Kit" Bond and the Responsible, Honorable, Serious Mike McConnell). And they are, as always, even more eager to deliver bountiful gifts to their generous contributors in the telecom industry and their sleazy friends in the Clintonite-telecom-lobbying-circle.
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.
If the Democratic Congress capitulates yet again, there will be plenty of time and opportunity for all sorts of recriminations. I think it is quite encouraging that much of the "netroots" is now devoting its energies and resources not to supporting Democrats, but to opposing Congressional Democrats who merit defeat.
Matt Stoller and Open Left, for instance, are devoting most of their energies to figuring out how to surmount the obstacles to waging effective primary challenges against Bush-supporting Democrats. The fund-raising entity run by FDL, C&L and others has begun targeting worthless Democrats, funding and running robocalls against Bush-enabling Democratic incumbents in their districts (those inclined can help fund those efforts here). MoveOn is actively considering spending large sums of money to support primary challenges against war-enabling Democrats. Obviously, there is no point in working to empower Democrats who enable and support virtually all of the worst aspects of the Bush agenda.
There is absolutely no justification whatsoever -- neither substantive nor political -- for expanding the scope of warrantless eavesdropping powers and especially for granting amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms. It is unconscionable even to consider any changes to FISA without full disclosure by the administration of how they used their illegal and secret warrantless eavesdropping powers in the past. In that regard, it is worth emphasizing that the administration from 2001 through 2004 (at least) was engaged in spying on Americans so patently illegal that the entire top level of the DOJ and the FBI Director threatened to quit if it continued -- yet we still do not know what they were doing then. How can that be? There is no justification for permitting that conduct to remain concealed from the American public, let alone from the Congress.
Warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty implicate virtually every critical political value assaulted for the last six years by this administration -- our basic constitutional protections, checks and balances and the rule of law. Capitulation by the Democratic Congress here would eliminate any residual doubt (if there is any) about what this Congress really is. We shouldn't assume the worst unless and until it actually happens, and until it does, everything should be done to prevent that.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
34 Comments so far
Show Alldahni: I like your analogy, but there are a few exceptions. Not many, but a few.
I'll vote for a Kucinich/Gravel ticket next year.
The Republicans strangle you with their bare hands. The Democrats put gloves on first. That's the only difference.
I think people should start thinking more "objectively" and strategically rather than clinging to party affiliation based (or opposed) identities. Glenn is thinking constructively and that is not a bad thing.
He does bring up a huge issue that is on no one's screen: The US Senate / bicameral legislature. The bicameral set up is UNIQUE to the US and has throughout history set causes back 100s of years. If we only had the House, the predicament may not be as bad. The Senate, ie, the US House of Lords is unnecessary, extra bloat. AGAIN, i implore people to read "How Democratic is the US Constitution" by Princeton distinguished prof Ronald Dahl.
If you want to start talking about democracy then start learning the nuts and bolts and stop whining.
"The Democrats in Congress have declared defeat and capitulated consistently since 2006."
It's been a lot longer than that. The Democrats and Repubs of 1898 supported McKinley's excursion to attack Spain and take over the phillipine islands. interestingly, the US was sufering from a depression as we got involved with the spanish-american war. Aggressive foreign policy always has an underlying reason.
I always think of the recesion of 2000/2001; 1932; 1896; I don't know if the annexation of hawaii and alaska and texas followed a depression/recession. Someone probably knows.
Ralph Nader needs to receive an apology from the fools on the left (I was one at one point, but I apologized) who belittled him for saying that there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Nobody seems to get it.
The For-real Information System Analyst (FISA) is the most important technical methodology for selecting viable candidates for public office since Jay Edger Hoover.
Most of us know the ability to run a team of any nature, and certainly a fractious team of a Democratic nature, is dependent on the ability of the players, to clearly agree on goals and procedures. It is essential for any hope of success and stability.
FISA will guarantee agreement, success and stability for everyone, not just politicians.
And there will be no more need to write new legislation for countless special interests.
If we know the truth about everyone in light of the laws presently in effect, which FISA authorizies the authorities to obtain, manifestations of any form of deviancy will not be possible in private, as there will be no private part of existence in which behavior can occur.
And no politician with a past will have a future with a party embarrased by a public servant out of step with the public in public, even if that is the only arena in which behavior occurs.
Everyone will be permitted to let go of the past, provided they agree to make a public stand for the future.
So there will be no more Senator's of any party apprehended, by airport police.
Both the exposed and the exposers will be in therapy, and not free to travel anywhere, until they are cured.
And once they are freed from their maladies, these same politicians will be put back on the team in complete agreement with their colleagues, for stability and success are vitale to our national security.
The thing to say to your rep about this ....
"In Jan 2009, please make sure your office is cleared out and ready for the next occupant. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!"
'capitulations' is the wrong word. That word means the assumption that the Democrats opposed this and then gave way. But if you look at actions and not words, there's nothing the Democratic Party has done in some 15 years that would make anyone think the Democrats are not fully on board with this.
The Clinton years continued the Reagan\Bush expansion of the police state. The first anti-terror laws and the federal death penalty date to Clinton. The bogeyman then was the militias in the us, but the same stuff was being passed behind the different cover story.
The Democrats have voted for this stuff consistently during the Bush years. They almost unanimously supported the Patriot Act. And there's been some 20 or so extensions of police spying power that have all passed with out any Democratic opposition. There's been no real effort to roll any of this back since the Democrats took power in Congress.
There's a long history that says the Democrats fully support this. They don't 'capitualate'. They are a part of the team. Don't believe the BS and the smoke and mirrors and the theater they'll use to moan about how they really don't like this but can't do anything. Or about how they are scared to death of a few white fascist on radio. Its all BS designed to keep you voting Democrats for at least one more election
That's the scam. You are supposed to vote Democrat to change things. You are supposed to vote Democrat because Bush is worse and must be stopped. But if you watch the actions of what happens when you vote Democrat, nothing ever changes and Bush can still do pretty much everything he wants to do just like when the Republicans ran Congress. Don't pay any attention to the words they mouth. Just watch what they do. And from what they've been doing for 15 years now, the Democrats are not an opposition.
When do people say enough? Is this the hundredth time the Democrats have done this? How many times do the Democrats get to side with Bush over the members of the party before people say enough? It seems like there's another vote like this every couple of weeks or so. Just one after the other. When was the last time the Democrats stood up to Bush and stopped anything important? When was the last time the Democrats put the interests of their voters ahead of the big contributors.
QUIT VOTING DEMOCRAT!!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!
This topic is a waste of time. All spying operations are illegitimate because they are all about illegal/immoral geopolitical ambition that only enslaves the public, destroys life, and plunders the earth.
So the thing to say to your rep about this is: Stop the wiretaps, impeach the criminals, pull all the troops out of foreign lands, and shut down the fossil fuels industries by election day or we vote third parties. Very simple.
Too many of the Democrats can't wait to form a circular firing squad for their party. Trying to be Republican light is the action of a party striving for minority status.
RichM: You said it all, brother. Several times before on other posts, as well. When will the public wise up?
Professor Ferdinand Lundberg of Columbia U. wrote the classic 'THE RICH AND THE SUPER-RICH', published in 1968 describing the 'two-parties' as really one party...the 'property party'$$$
Kucinich all the way!
bush is overstepping his authority,demanding the release from a texas prison of a convicted killer.a mexican,who lived in the states most his life,he was convicted of strangling two teenage girls to death.bush is pulling all the stops out,demanding his release.bush must need a killer of little girls for his privatemercenariearmy.ARTICLE AT WATCHINGAMERICA AND GUARDIAN...WHY WHY WHY WILL NO ONE STOP THIS VILE FOUL HIDEOUS EVILWRAITH NAMED BUSH ??
Called my congressperson Pelosi's office today to urge her not to give in on FISA.
Whoever answered the phone had that "I-have-bad-news-but-can't-say-right-now" tone of voice that reminded me of an ex I once had.
Maybe I'm paranoid, or maybe I'm just becoming inured to things.
The Capitulocrats have token....errraaahh......spoken.
There is no democratic party discipline; all that is necessary is for the repubs to offer deals for a select few and the majority is destroyed. We must seriously question why the democrats decided not to press the advantage, not to put the elephants on the run.
Full disclosure to Congress means revealing information to two senators who can not speak about it to anyone else and are trusted to "verify" it for the rest of Congress.
The President can use his "line item veto" called the signing statement to safely ignore any provisions; especially, the ones Greenwald thinks are good ones(the signing statement is a veto that cannot be overridden, except by the Supreme Court who will not hear the case because it will expose state secrets somehow).
Many democrats, on the campaign trail or not, have endorsed a permanent military presence in Iraq. They have to execute that objective while at the same time using PR to appear that they oppose it. What of the last seven years of Bush have they overturned or repealed? What have they carried water for? By the numbers, ignoring the rhetoric, Pelosi and Cheney have similar foreign policy objectives.
I feel terrible that our first female Speaker is a failure as a representative of the public. On the bright side, we can join the rest of the world in proving that service to power and money knows no gender.
Helloooooooo! Glenn Greenwald has a couple of updates to this column, that have a great bearing on his current "take" on this bill....
A portion of one of this updates is:
Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, one of the nation's premiere FISA experts, has issued a statement (via email) which provides, in part: "We welcome the bill by Chairmen Reyes and Conyers as an important first step towards restoring the civil liberties protections lost in August. Their bill would be a vast improvement over the current law passed at the President's urging, and it is much more protective of any of the bills considered in August."
Frank 1569 -
What makes you so sure that after seven years of spying their asses off, these soulless loons got nothing?
On you or me or Glenn Greenwald maybe they got nothing, or maybe just a COINTELPRO file folder filled up with cyberspace diatribe.
But don't you think it's likely that the astounding discipline within the GOP in Washington during the Bush administration may be attributable to Cheney/Rove knowing where some skeletons are, and where some vulnerability to scandal (real or contrived) lies? J Edgar Hoover wielded enormous power within Washington for years with just such potential blackmail tidbits.
And of course, there are days - sometimes whole weeks - when I suspect the new Reid/Pelosi leadership team has been finessed by mysterious forces to avoid moving certain issues (dare I say, impeachment?) anywhere near the top of the table.
Fear of reprisal, rather than stupidity, disloyalty to the Democratic base, or closet embrace of GOP neo-con values may explain the frustrating dysfunctionality of the federal two party system since the 2006 elections were held. It wouldn't surprize me in the least if, after the 2001 anthrax evacuation, that every Dem in Washington has to assume there are bugs everywhere.
In fact, when Karl Rove's parting shot while leaving Washington referred to Hillary Clinton as a "fatally flawed" candidate, I became instantly suspicious that a new Swift Boating scandal was already in place, percolating.
Don't forget, the CIA has years of experience manipulating electoral outcomes in Europe for instance, by sprinkling some money around over here (and threatening to expose the recipients if they misbehave), or stirring up and covering up a scandal over there (real or contrived).
This is part of what you get when you mix clandestine intelligence techniques into partisan domestic politics.
Bill from Saginaw
congress..go on strike..just stay home..everytime you show up for work,we the people get screwed..go home..stay home..dont sign any bills.,dont make or revise any bills..at all.....citizens..taxes are for the'little'people..just dont even file,this year..
Yawn. Yea, sure, get a warrant, blah blah blah. This band of soulless loons have had seven unsupervised years to illegally spy their asses off and, what?
Nothin'. They got nothin'. So they got some files on lots of us, so friggin' what? These morons actually do not care about the databases and stuff - that's just propaganda aimed at the weak. We have been told by "retired" insider after retired insider that all Cheneybush care about is oil, money, and world domination via resource control and bombs. They can't even process the real intel gathered - hell, they can't even translate it yet.
Let's keep fighting for the rule of law, definitely. But our bigger concern should be the expanding prison population, already the biggest in the world. Either more and more Americans are turning to a life of crime, or the most corrupted Justice Department in our history is locking up as many as they can while we're all worrying about that idiot Chertoff reading our emails.
"Even the original FISA law never required warrants to eavesdrop on (a) foreign-to-foreign calls, or (b) calls involving a US citizen where the target was a non-US citizen outside the US (who just happened to call into the US).
But recently, technological developments resulted in such calls, even foreign-foreign calls, being routed through the US via fibre optics, and the FISA court ruled earlier this year that the language of FISA requires warrants for such calls.
Even civil libertarian stalwarts such as Russ Feingold agree that it was never the intent of FISA to require warrants for those categories of calls, and that amending FISA, strictly to fix that problem, is justifiable."
Thank you, thank you, thank you Glenn Greenwald, for setting down in three concise sentences what the Democratic Party should be conducting a national public awareness campaign about, educating voters about how FISA and the Bill of Rights really work in practice, rather than cowering before the cynical demagoguery of the GOP's TV spots extolling the wonders of Bush's warrantless "terrorist surveillance system."
Now I readily concede that talk of judicial warrants and foreign-foreign, foreign-domestic, and domestic-domestic electronic communications is a lot more complicated than publicly discussing, say, torture.
But if the Democrats really put their heart into it, the DLC's well financed media folks would rise to the task. Continuing to avoid that task - thus dumbing down the public dialogue over warrantless wiretapping by US spy agencies on American soil - alienates both the Dems' base and thinking independents everywhere, leaving the nation to formulate policy based upon Karl Rove's cartoons and sloganeering.
COMarc and Gus in their posts above touch on the other two big things going on with the FISA legislation revision.
First, you can bet your ass that the proposed grant of retroactive immunity to the giant American telecommunications companies who took part in cahoots with Bush's secret CIA/NSA spook snoop show will be a big, big campaign cash cow to shake down for contributions for the 2008 election season.
Think about it. The same big telecom corporations who got sued for violating American privacy rights want Congress to grant them immunity for their past unlawful misdeeds - immunity like the immunity Congress gave the torturers in the Military Commissions Act. Those big telecoms can be counted on to reward those members of the House and Senate who vote right, and punish those who won't.
Give the telecoms their immunity, and your war chest runneth over. Deny them their immunity, and don't be surprized if Faux News and the other mainstream media characterize those in principled opposition to this FISA "reform" as wimpy soft on terrorism, naive legal nit pickers who would tie our spies' hands when Al Qaeda comes calling.
See how nicely interlocking corporate media ownership can work, both in terms of carrots and sticks?
Second, the cosmic, overriding issue in the FISA revision of course is whether Dick Cheney will finally drive the last nail into the coffin of the post-Watergate legal reforms that were designed to protect Americans from the evils of warrantless domestic surveillance conducted by the black ops boys of the CIA and NSA, who've honed their high tech their skills abroad fighting foreign foes. Bugged phones, sneak-and-peak, legions of snitches, rogues, and confidential tipsters, dirty tricks galore - you remember, Watergate.....
Personally, I find it hard to believe even the beltway DLC Dems are so short sighted that they want to gamble on unleashing the technology of NSA and CIA into the domestic political sphere, so that they (the Dems) can get to spy on their adversaries when they regain control of the executive branch (they hope) in January, 2009.
Once that camel's got his nose into the tent, only a total fool could believe anybody will ever get a full night's sleep again.
And if Rahm and the Potomac hot shots think that over the long term the United States military/industrial/national security complex will split or rotate its loyalties equally between Democrats and the GOP, then the Democrats better remember what Bill Casey did once upon a time to Jimmy Carter to help out Ronald Reagan.
Some of my Iranian friends are still laughing about it.
Bill from Saginaw
dmia- here's a better suggestion. Don't vote for Republicans or Democrats. And it is realistic- I've done it for almost 10 years- in real life. I'm only afforded one vote in each election and I don't vote for someone I can tolerate, I vote for the candidate I want to win. It's this mind set that you have to vote for a corporate sponsored candidate that the pundits tell you is viable that gets us the Congress we have. I don't care if Republicans win because I vote Green- good! That will either give rise to the Greens or change the Dems. This idea that you can change the Dems by voting for them is insane.
I see much criticism here of the Democratic Party, but I don't see any serious alternatives being suggested. A very long time ago, someone told that if you're going to gripe about something, you need to have a better suggestion ready. Nobody has posted any better suggestions - none at least that are realistic.
If you're going to create a viable 3rd party, then by all means do so and do it quickly. And it better be a party with members who can agree among themselves (which is something I seriously doubt will happen) otherwise you don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell.
Do yourself (and the world) a favor and get behind a Dem, or you can expect 8 years of Romney, speaking of Hell. I can't even imagine the damage that will be done under a Romney administration. The man is running TV ads telling us that Republicans are good and everyone else is bad. What a unifier! He reminds me of Hitler except he has nice hair and white teeth.
As with everything else in life, we must do the best we can. Do yourself (and the world) a favor and get behind a Dem that you can at least tolerate. Also, flood the Republicans with emails and letters and maybe we can get enough of them to vote with the Democrats to override at least one veto. Now that would be a victory for the PEOPLE, and be a nice going away present for W.
My hope and fervent prayer is that the Congress tables passage until after the 2008 election. Once Clinton (I really despise the notion of a Hillary Clinton presidency, but I believe she will be the nominee, depite my efforts to nominate Kucinich or Gravel) assumes power, and the Democraps take a 60 seat majority in the Senate and pad their majority in the House - remember six RepubLICKlan senators have already announced their intent to retire - we can set about submitting a new FISA that guarantees our rights to privacy.
Why the rush to pass new legislation? Let the law expire (sunset) - BTW, it has a provision in it that keeps the existing law in power for one year after its "sunset." That will be about the time of the election. We can settle the language of the new bill under a new president. Bye bye Herr Bush....
By all means let's "assume the worst." It is by not doing so that the worst happens and the moral monstrosities have crept into our lives.
The new Congressional Democrats are a great disappointment to many of us. Replace them.
As Gomer Pyle would say, 'Surprise, Surprise, SURPRISE!'
There's a pattern here that people need to recognize. When the Democrats say they are voting on something now but will come back later and address something later, they are lying to you.
In this case, they passed a horrible bill giving the Bush Administration spying powers that were expanded beyond anything hinted at in the statements of the Democrats. The lie told by the Democrats at the time to keep their base from exploding in anger at them was that these provisions had a time limit of only a few months, and that the Democrats would come back and fix these.
So, now the other shoe drops and we learn they are going to make all of these permanent and also toss in immunity for the corporations that were openly violating the law by cooperating with illegal requests from the US Gov.
Sound familiar. It should because its the same scam the Democrats ran on the Patriot Act. Remember, the more contentious provisions had a 'sunset' clause on them. That sounds ok until you see how the whole thing played out. A few years later, there are the Democrats all lined up and supporting the bill that makes those provisions permanent.
Still sound familiar. Well, its also the same scam the Democrats ran on Iraq war funding. They passed full funding for the war earlier in this year. Again to keep their base from exploding, the Democrats spread the lie that they'd revisit the Iraq war funding issue in September. Well, September rolls around and they vote even more funding for the war. And once again Reid and the Senate Democrats are trying to cover this with the lie that there will be another futile attempt to limit war funding later.
Those with long memories will remember they ran the same scam on Welfare Reform in 1996. They voted to support 'ending welfare as we know it' in '96. Then when everyone pointed out all the awful impacts this would have on real people, they said they'd 'readdress' the issue in '97. Never have done that as far as I know.
Face it, there's a pattern here. And the pattern indicates that what the Democrats are really doing is supporting very fully the police state and war agendas of the Bush Administration. The rest of this is all smoke screens and theater to try hide this and create the illusion of opposition. So you see this same con game play out time and time again. The Democrats vote to support something, but pretend they'll correct it later. That's just BS to deflect criticism as what they'll do later is to make bad changes permanent or make them worse when they hope the spotlight is off them.
This is what you get when you vote Democrat. PLEASE STOP!!
Maybe if the Democrats campaign hard enough, they will someday win a majority in the congress. Then they'd be able to act on those matters most pressing to the people. Until then, all we can do is bide our time and pray.
The Democrats will continue to make big noises and then fold again like a cheap lawn chair when the deadline to renew the act approaches, whining that they don't have the votes to overide a Bush veto.
Lobo Gris
To bad people have suspended their will over here. Other countries have had their people rise up over much less.
LOL go figure. It's going to be a long 50 years.
~Future~
"Tally of Democratic Party Quitters
"As of Monday morning, Oct. 1, well over 1000 people have signed the petition to quit the Democratic Party because of the Democratic Congress's refusal to end funding for the Iraq War, and its refusal to start impeachment hearings."
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/
Get over there and un-register yourself.
Bill Press was correct when he said Adding insult to injury, Democrats now insist that because, under the new legislation, Mr. Bush's expanded spy powers expire in six months, they'll fix everything six months from now. If they didn't get it right the first time, they won't get it right the second time. Once again, Mr. Bush will plead "terror" and Democrats will cave. Our Fourth Amendment rights could be gone forever.
"The Democrats in Congress have declared defeat and capitulated consistently since 2006."
- It's been a lot longer than that. Since the stolen election of 2000, they haven't fought a single serious battle. And in the longer term, they haven't had a significant accomplishment in over 30 years, since the Church Commission exposed some of the CIA's lawlessness. Since LBJ & Medicare, they haven't introduced a single significant progressive improvement meaningful for the lives of most Americans.
The Clinton years & one term for Carter were the only Dem administrations since LBJ. That's already 40 years! Clinton was really a Republican in terms of policy (despite liberal-sounding rhetoric). Carter won his one term by the skin of his teeth, only 2 years after Nixon was driven out! It would be hard to find a more pathetic record, either in terms of winning, or in terms of accomplishment.
The Dems' real purpose in the system is to function as capitalism's "B Team." They are called upon by the ruling elite only when their "A Team" has plundered the populace so badly that the stench of corruption has become temporarily unbearable. The Dems' only purpose is to preside for a while, until the stench disperses a bit. They attempt only to screw the public modestly -- which, after being subjected to years of Republican rape, feels like a hayride in comparison.
The article, like many others, misses the point. The unlawful interception of communications fosters political and other extortion. The Democrats want this as badly as the Republicans, and aren't about to destroy this power before they assume power. The issue can then be swept under the rug. Pity the poor readers who believe there's a substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Maybe the Democrats strategy is to hasten the fall of our Empire.
"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."
__Not to me. The Democrats in Congress have declared defeat and capitulated consistently since 2006.
=====
"If the Democratic Congress capitulates yet again, there will be plenty of time and opportunity for all sorts of recriminations. "
__But then it's too late to undo the damage.
=====
"I think it is quite encouraging that much of the "netroots" is now devoting its energies and resources not to supporting Democrats, but to opposing Congressional Democrats who merit defeat."
__It's the only thing left, and not effective for stopping the Bush agenda RIGHT NOW. They aren't going to wait for the 2008 election to continue to destroy America.
American citizens should NOT have to be up in arms and enraged about this Constitutional crisis in America after they gave the Democrats a majority in 2006 on the basis of their promises to stop the Bush agenda.