That's the beauty of it Paul (may I call you Paul?) All I have to assume is that Walz wants to get reelected and that feels like this vote will help him do that. If you assume politicians are acting in their own self interest (safe) and aren't stupid (less safe) than you can look at their decisions as a prism which illustrates how they view the will of their constituents.

If Walz felt the "base" in his district is large enough that he could win without moderate republican or right leaning independent support, he likely would have voted differently here, the fact that he didn't tells me that either a) Walz didn't understand why FISA is bad (not a good sign) or b) felt his constituents wouldn't understand why FISA is bad.

Now, even if the answer is B, I'm not saying he is off the hook. Maybe he should try harder, but he won the primary, and he won the general election, so I'm saying you have to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

And by all means I hope he gets a serious challenge from a democrat in two years.

If the politician was acting in good faith: if they were not trying to deceive the public (ie not Bush/Cheney,) if they truly believed the information they were provided was accurate, and if they felt voting to go to war in Iraq could help them get re-elected, then so be it. I wish people who made such decisions weren't rewarded, but I also wish Prop 8 hadn't been passed.

(Incidentally I think this is why these "activist" judge boogeymen(and women) are necessary, someone has to protect this country from themselves.)

You have made the argument previously that there is no proof you need to tack to the center to win. This year, I think you were absolutely right, and I think the "left" missed an opportunity to educate the "center" on why the "left" way is the right way. Where I disagree with you, however, is that when a politician steps to the center they are doing a disservice to the country, sometimes they may be, but other times they are doing no more than accurately representing the will of their whole constituency.

My larger point, which is what I think we are going to need to agree to disagree on (my original subject) is what this election meant. Is it a mandate for liberal policies or one for more cooperation in government?

Works for me!

Your argument is that politicians should serve the will of the people by doing what helps get them elected, and since Rahm Emanuel does that, you're all for it.

In a word, yes. But not because thus speaketh Rahm.

If a politician does X, and believes that X will help get them elected, then what possible basis do you have to complain, no matter whether it entails good faith or anything else?

It seems you're trying to make a straw man out of the Iraq vote, but I'll bite. My response was very narrow, perhaps too narrow, but I think we can get back to the larger point. I think there are several questions at work here: Did Americans want to go to war with Iraq? and Should America have gone to Iraq? I think the answers are yes and no. The real question is, how many senators felt that way at the time of the vote? And, on a larger scale, should the Senators have bowed to the will of the people or to their own better judgment?

And here is why I say this is a straw man, because Walz is a representative, not a Senator. The Senate should take a longer view, and in the case of the Iraq war they most definitely did not. A senator up for re-election in 04 may have been hurt by a no vote, but Senators who voted No would have certainly been better off this year and in 2010. I think that if the Senators were a little smarter, they would have seen it, so it wasn't as much senators acting in self interest that was the problem but stupid senators that are the problem. As for Representatives, they only have to look two years ahead, they don't have to be as smart.

I think the smart politicians (our president elect) were able to take the long view.

So, because the people didn't want republican policies they want liberal policies?

That doesn't necessarily follow. I think the people want smart policies, they want policies that work, and they want to see the government doing something, anything about the problems in our lives. Your answer is precisely the kind of "either/or" mindset I think the electorate rebuked.

But like I said, I have no more evidence of that than you do of your point.

I think Obama's coattails were larger than you give him credit for. I think the message of "Change" was so constantly and ably embodied by Obama that it was seen to cover the whole of the Democratic party (which as Glenn points out, it most certainly did not.)

I don't think the people want to see a love in, I think they want to see something get done. They do not want to see knee jerk party line reactions. They want to see compromise and a reversion of partisan politics.

All those issues you mentioned are important, but they largely spoke to the choir. The election was won by convincing people the Republicans lacked credibility. And the reason Obama and other Democrats were able to do that was the toxic political environment the Republicans had cultivated.