Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 361 Editor's Choice: 12
-
@GG: The Bloc
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Right. Just like they couldn't oppose the Iraq war because you wouldn't to jeopardize the 2002 midterm elections, and how they couldn't oppose Bush's extremism because they sure wouldn't want to harm their chances in the 2004 or 2006 elections, and just like we're going to hear after 2008 that the Democratic President can't possibly be expected to do anything different otherwise Democrats might lose their majorities in 2010.
Actually, I think the leadership's current view is closer to the run out the clock position that you were replying to.
I think that they believe that unless and until there are republicans who will cross the aisle and vote with them, then they are going to do nothing to rein in the Bush regime. There are two reasons for this. They can't win, practically or politically, in doing this along party lines. Practically, they need 67 votes. Politically, their view (and here I agree you with you that they are being cowardly and wrong) is that if the Republicans want to vote in lockstep with this president over these issues, then they don't want to get in the way. They are looking at picking up 10 seats in the senate if the republicans continue to vote as a bloc with this president. In their view, it is suicidal for John Sununu and Norm Coleman to continue to support this president. If they choose to do so, well that improves their chances in 08. Schumer said as much right after the midterms.
Do keep in mind that the Nixon impeachment turned on votes by folks like William Cohen and Howard Baker. If they can't even get the votes on Mukasey, they certainly can't get them on conviction.
They, to my mind immorally, think they are cleverly handing the cowardly republicans the rope they need to hang themselves. Not until the republicans express willingness to own ending the occupation, own taking control of the government away from the executive, own their position as the first branch is anything going to change--and granting them veto rights overr all legislation is meant to tie them every more tightly to this administration, to make "republican" synonymous with "Bush" "Incompetence" and "Corruption."
And, while we are railing about the cowardice of the Democrats, what in heavens name is going on with the republicans? What is Arlen Specter afraid of? Why is Susan Collins actiing like she's in the Duma? Larry Craig's got nothing to lose at this point. What's his deal? He could help his replacement win in Idaho by taking an independent stand.
It's not like these are difficult constitutional or institutional questions. The Founders must be rolling in their graves.
In short, this is an electoral strategy to retake the senate. They think the republicans are being shortsighted, and they want to make them pay for that.
(Although, a small, still voice does say "But, at some point, you have to believe that the way they vote represents what they want.")
-
@GG Dem Tactics
[Read the article: What happened to the Senate's "60-vote requirement"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It isn't just that they're failing to enact good legislation (where they need 67 votes); it's that they allow (or, more accurately, help) bad things to pass, when they only need 40 votes to stop it.
Yes, and they think that it is better to let bad bills pass with republicans voting in a bloc because they think republicans will pay a price for these votes. That was my point. Plus I think you do have to believe that there are people who sincerely believe that Mukasey is better than any alternative. That is the only explanation I can come up with for no votes with no filibuster.
That argument will not apply to telecom amnesty or FISA. That's when we'll see whether Dodd will walk the walk.
None of this has to do with policy. If this were about policy (and they are honestly reporting their views), the war funding bill would not have been appropriated. Money bills originate in the House. The House could have defunded the occupation with a simple majority. This is all about political positioning. And the dems believe that the republicans are in a death spiral (and when you look at their presidential nominees, you have to grant them that they have a point.)
-
How does this oversimplify?
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Evolutionary biologists respond that hiring a biologist who doesn't accept evolution is like hiring a mathematician who doesn't accept multiplication. That oversimplifies, but for better or worse, the battle has intensified and come out more into the open.
There is no more fundamental principle in the biology business. Just because some people are incapable of basic reasoning (and anybody who drives a car powered by fossil fuels to a young earth creationist meeting qualifies) and raise a ruckus if you say this, it's still indisputably true. You cannot be a professional biologist and reject evolution.
-
Duh
[Read the article: On the fake campaign trail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is newsworthy? People thought these events really consisted of randomly chosen citizens spontaneously expressing the issues they are concerned about.
There are such events, of course. The YearlyKos breakouts were like that. But the YearlyKos q&as were vetted through a committee. You've got to expect filters--and after 7 years of Bush not getting a question that his staff didn't write, fake news conference, and a fake washington correspondent, you'd think the smelling salts would not longer be necessary.