Indeed many are frustrated at the g l a c i a l pace of positive change. In fact, an objective observer (if there were such a thing) would no doubt -- correctly -- say that the pace of change qua change is relatively swift under the current regime, and it is change away from liberty and the Constitution.

We've heard all the excuses about why we have to put up with more of it, too. The primary one we hear from Congressional Dems is "We don't have the votes."

Obviously.

Doesn't matter all that much what the people say, doesn't matter (all that much) what they do. If the votes aren't there in Congress to make positive change, it ain't gonna happen. Period.

THAT's "Versailles" in a nutshell, people.

Why don't they have the votes? Hmmm? They don't have the votes because they aren't willing to shame their own turncoat members into doing the right thing for once in their wretched, dog-forsaken lives. Throughout this nightmare of usurpation, too many Democrats have cloven not to their own Party, oh no. Perish the thought. Not to the People. Heavens NO! The very idea. <<shudder>>. They have voted with the Rs on almost every usurpation under the sun, and their leadership has not done squat to discipline them or in any way interfere with their "conscience." Republicans know there are X-number of Dems who can be counted on to vote with the Rs in favor of the Autocracy.

Furthermore, until recently, the Dem leadership in Congress has been all but unable to articulate reasons why anyone should do the right thing in any case. They were not able to convince their own caucus, not able to convince the public, not able to peel off Rs, not able to stand up to the White House, not able to filibuster when it counted and on and on and dreadfully on.

And now we are in a situation where The People are telling Congress -- Dems and Rs alike -- loud and clear, "This is what you shall do," and look what's happening: they are triangulating like mad, capitulating, denying they are capitulating, running away, on and on and on, and The People are firm and quite clear, steadfast in fact, while the White House tries to maintain a lock on R votes (doing pretty well) and continues to subvert the Dems (doing so-so) while the Media is going hog wild.

Yet this is all spectacle that has practically nothing to do with the underlying issue we've been discussing: the subversion of the Constitution and the Rule of Law and what is to be done about it.

I think all Glenn has to do is look around the world to figure out what the frustrated masses do when their institutions of government have been subverted and put to purposes contrary to the interests and demands of The People.

When the MCA was being drawn up the purge of USAttorneys was perhaps more than a twinkle in Karl Rove's eye. Now that it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Bush intends to politicize the Justice Department perhaps Senators of both parties who are not 100% loyal Bushies would rethink their support of the MCA.

I am actually glad they will do a standalone bill even if a defense authorization bill is the quickest way. The DTA was done as an amendment to a defense authorization bill, and nobody (even now, even Wikipedia, even on this blog) seems to acknowledge that it curbed habeas corpus, and that everybody who was anybody in the Senate voted for it.

A standalone allows us to count heads, take no prisoners, and accept no excuses. As I posted elsewhere this morning, habeas corpus is a right that they used to behead, revolt, and fight wars over, not some dumb line item we won't hear about in between sex scandals on the 6:00 news.

And as far as I'm concerned, if there is anyone in the public school system over the age of 10 who doesn't know what the two words habeas corpus mean by the time that bill comes up for a vote, their teachers should be fired, the school's funding revoked, and the School of Education from which they graduated decertified. Then they should be made to chant the Massachusetts general law of 1680 until they know why education is a right in a democracy.

Enough is enough.

WT: It is a lot of work to pound the pavement in a precinct, or to stand for an hour or two in a street corner demonstration, but I had a less labor-intensive idea... only I posted it on the other thread, the one about Broder, forgetting that the comment about "just words" was on this thread.

Pundit of the Month Club?

If as Jim suggests, Broder seeks out "low information voters,"

And, given Glenn's quote from Klein:

No, what I most like about Broder as a reporter is that he has taken pains over the years to talk at length with the sort of people who don't go to protests, and even to folks who don't go to political meetings in Iowa and New Hampshire. He'll actually go door to door, or convene a group of neighbors, to find out what's important to them.

...then we apparently cannot act on my first thought, which was to propose street corner demonsrations against Broder and his ilk... without being discounted as "protestors," or "people who attend political meetings."

But what about lawn signs, a traditional election year ritual, springing up all over the country-- one pundit per month?

David Broder didn't ask me!

Who does David Broder think he is?

David Broder lives inside the Beltway, NOT in the heartland.

David Broder's head is stuck in the BigMediaBubble.

Mushrooming lawn signs might actually make "ordinary people" start using the google more often, just to find out who David Broder really is.

And so on...

* * *

I am one of those who think that words have a lot of power... they're just not used effectively most of the time (present comany excepted, of course).

With another 18 months to go (before Nov 2008) one could cover a lot of punditry. Virally.

I also remembered that it was about the Constitution, but that the quote was "It's just a g*ddamned piece of paper!" In fact, I was surprised that the quote was cleaned up here.

I found some links: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE (Olbermann interviewing Turley)

supporting Capitol Hill Blue: http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html and

http://www.freemarketnews.com/Feedback.asp?nid=2072

1) Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 also repealed habeas corpus; Sup Ct ruled that statute did not apply to petitions pending as of enactment of the statute. But that was the first repeal.

2) It is not known whether the repeal is constitutional, although the D.C. Circuit upheld the statute a few months ago by a 2-1 vote, and yesterday the court refused to rehear it before all he active judges. In between, about a month ago, the Sup Ct denied a petition to review the decision (which is not a ruling by the High Court on the merits of the case).

3) While the composition of the Sup Ct obviously affects its rulings, in our system if the Court says a statute is constitutional or unconstitutional, that ruling is legitimate, legal, and final. Can be changed only by overruling by the Court or by constitutional amendment.

4) If you don't know law, why not keep your mouth shut?