That Arthur Silber piece (same one is at Silber's blog: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/08/blinded-by-story-liberals-and.html) is disturbing to me, primarily because altho Silber is a huge fave of my co-blogger Jim Henley, I've never wanted to go with what I deem their tendency toward pessimism that virtually leads to nihilism.

But hell, if Glenn's post yesterday is correct, if the fury and denunciations directed at Democrats in comments yesterday are justified, if this FISA bill is truly an abomination, and if most think Chris Dodd is unforgivably stupid/meek/obtuse or whatever, then really, what is the point in political activism? Why throw the GOP out?

I've tended to reject those libertarians who claim there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, but Silber's historical overview reminds that, at the right level of generality, that case can be very strong. And if much of the netroots are all now bailing on the Democrats -- and if this FISA bill truly is as awful as Lederman, Glenn and some others say -- then I don't see why any of us should blog much any more, unless the mental masturbation of linking and commiserating about the Hopelessness of it All gives comfort.

Perhaps I've been a Pollyanna. Maybe the morose libertarian Silber has been correct all along that both parties are equally bad, or close enough not that is is sensible not to prefer one. That seems the direction folks here and elsewhere are going in with angst and handwringing over Democrats.

Throwing your hands in the air and giving up is quite lame and makes one an enabler.

If there is no difference in results, what is one "enabling" by ceasing to prefer Dems over Republicans? Much that I've been reading here and elsewhere the last few days is from liberals and/or Democrats saying THEY are bolting. "Jim Webb is untrustworthy." "Chris Dodd is a moron and/or wimp." "They don't get it." "The Dems gave Bush a FISA abomination." "The Dems have failed to defund the war."

So, in terms of result -- assuming those are relevant -- why is it not time to concede to the pessimists, hmmm?

Oh really, Mona, sackcloth and ashes do not become you.

Actually, it is pique, not sackcloth and ashes. All this bitching and moaning about how nasty and hopeless the Democrats are, the sniping at Jim Webb and now Chris Dodd, pisses me off. So I assumed a rhetorical pose, as anyone who knows me well enough would likely detect.

I do think Hillary is potentially as awful as Bush (but am given SOME pause by her vote against the FISA bill, especially if it is as ghastly as I am given to understand it to be). But I really think some of what I've been reading about Democrats from WAY too many in the last few days is self-indulgent bullshit.

And, again, the Democrats who voted with Bush on FISA were not the ones supported by the Netroots via Howie Klein's Blue America.

Including Jim Webb? Anyway, I'm not a Democrat and all things considered am probably not a member of the "netroots" either. But I found this sudden eruption of avowals to start third parties, never vote for another Democrat, & etc., stupid. And no one is ever going to convince me that Jim Webb voted for those FISA amendments for any reason other than that he sincerely believes it was the right thing to do, and not because he gives a flying fig what the Beltway says about him, or because he lives in irrational, craven fear of terrorists.

But about your bulleted list; I don't even agree with every single one of those items, but obviously the Democrats have been and are making a difference.

I don't understand this. All I've seen in the last few days is attack after attack on the Democrats for passing this legislation. From you, I expect a more serious analysis of what this legislation is about.

He has repeatedly said he doesn't have time yet for the "analysis" you are demanding -- and who are you to demand it, anyway? Besides, he's now linked to many, many people who make it clear that this legislation is utterly as pernicious as initial claims indicated. I was very reluctant to beleive that at first, but it's a fact.

Never have I known Glenn to carry water for anyone because of whatever party or ideological label they carry. If he were to suddenly carry on like that vis-a-vis Democrats, now that would be shocking. In my view not all of the Democrats who voted for this awful thing did so because George Bush "strong-armed" them or for other craven reason. Some no doubt believe it is actually necessary. To that extent I agree with you that *some* of the hyperbole abounding is excessive.

However, Glenn's argument that they could have sent Bush a bill fixing the one true gap in FISA and demanding that he sign it-- put the onus on him -- does seem to me the sort of political hardball you want civil libertarians playing with George. (Democratic civil libertarians or otherwise.) Doesn't that seem like a pretty elegant strategy to you, one that the Democrats failed to adopt?