In my original comment, I repeatedly refer to the leadership problem. My argument is against blanket condemnation of "the Democrats," the majority of whom are voting in our interests. I'm certainly not mounting any sort of defense of the weak-kneed leadership.

I would, though, like to see a definitive post by someone who really knows Congressional process (would help take the "dodge" out of it, Lambert), to explain exactly what tools Harry and Nancy had at their disposal to prevent the FISA vote from happening. If it's as simple as the majority party sets the agenda, then it's a pretty quick cased closed.

In any case, even if they somehow didn't have procedural options, they have completely failed to create a culture of accountability for rank and file Democrats who vote against our Constitution and our best interests. And a noted in my follow-up comment, prioritizing a vacation over careful handling of sweeping Constitution-rewriting legislation is an abomination.

Re: "They control which votes happen and they have done nothing to stop these measures from even coming up for a vote."

Is this the case? Did Dem leadership have the ability to shut down Congress for recess without the assent of the Repubs and prevent the vote that way? Also is it truly the majority party's unique province to decide what comes up for a vote? Alas, I just don't know enough about Congressional procedure to answer these basic questions, and the discussions I've been in about this haven't been informed by an expert who can set us straight.

Open Left detailed some of the process, but I haven't seen a blow-by-blow description of the active steps Harry and Nancy took (or available steps they didn't take) that caused this historic and disastrous vote to take place.

The best way to clear the air about the "process dodge" of which Lambert speaks is to document what they did and shouldn't have and what they could have done but didn't.

Thanks for the link to your post (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/9/175141/9215), which at first glance comes closer to answering my questions than anything I've seen to date, though it doesn't seem to specifically address my admittedly elementary questions, e.g., whether the majority can absolutely prevent undesirable bills from coming up for discussion and whether they could have gone to recess without Republican assent (that is, without allowing this bill to come to vote at all).

I'll spend some time studying these. What's the best way to follow-up with you?

I'm done with the Democrats

Everytime the Democrats capitulate to a thoroughly demoralized Republican Party is further evidence they are not capable of leading our country against bigger enemies.

The only way to get the Democrat Party to change is to leave them in the dust where they belong.

It may mean painful years of inept and incompetent Republican rule. But hopefully we'll be able to rebuild from the wreckage with a real vibrant progressive party.

Because this Democratic Party just isn't it. They are a false hope that is proving themselves only to be more incompetent than the Republicans.

It is precisely this kind of talk that spurs me to take the unpopular position that we should target our criticism and throw-the-bums-out activism toward the leadership and the Blue Dogs / Bush Dogs, rather than taking the easy and satisfying Manichean route of slamming the whole party (which for the most part votes sanely).

"It may mean painful years of inept and incompetent Republican rule." Yeah, with the republic (and the various countries in the neo-cons' gunsights) in peril that's a heckuva great strategy.

At a very minimum, Harry and Nancy have shown little strength as leaders on the most important votes.

But why have they failed to work the process to the hilt to prevent these disastrous votes from coming up at all?

Which of these should we believe?

* They want to wreck the Constitution

* They're outplayed by -- or unnecessarily chickenshit about -- the Bushies, who have the MSM on their side and intelligence (hyped up or legitimate) to scare them with

* They're screwed because the Bush Dog Democrats give the Republicans a effective majority

* There aren't available procedural options against that virtual majority

* They're caught up in minutia like getting out in time for holiday weekends and a monthlong recess

Beltway journalists venerate raw power, which wasn’t Clinton’s strong suit. His strengths are charisma and wits (as in actual intelligence and knowledge, as opposed to gamesmanship for its own sake).

Access to power makes them feel powerful. Access to an extraordinary charismatic and intelligent person makes them feel small. And when they feel small, they turn into a pack of Heathers.

You are heroically wrong in referring to Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure.

Sure, America's right-wingers have been programmed to get the vapors when the name Clinton is mentioned, and this time around in the form of a (horrors!) woman.

You claim she won't reach across the aisle, but in fact she's so far across the aisle you can scarcely find a progressive with any enthusiasm for her campaign.

As you observe "american media is garbage" (which these days is largely true), so please be careful not to adopt its baseless memes, such as "Hillary is a polarizing, far-left figure."

She is a unifying figure; though she's the nominal front-runner, almost anyone with a passion for American politics agrees that she's not someone they want as their president, beyond being a possible compromise in the event she gets the nomination.

This talk about "polarization" is a Beltway fabrication that is whipped out whenever there's fear that the Overton Window will shift back toward its natural center, instead of the right-wing gutter where it's been slumming since St. Ronnie captured the media's dull-witted and bought-off imagination.

...for rhyming "Petraeus" with "Amadeus."

http://www.correntewire.com/shock_me_dave_petraeus