Letters to the Editor
-
DCLaw1
I believe that's what Hunter was referring to. I don't fully understand the foreign-to-foreign-through-the-US issue, either, but anyway, this is from Glenn's second update (interview w/ Sen. Dodd):
GG: There is this gap in FISA, which everyone, even Russ Feingold, says needs to be filled, which is that if there is a foreign-to-foreign conversation which happens to be routed through the U.S., it requires a warrant -- so why not just say "OK, we fixed this gap and here's our bill and if you veto it, and there's a terrorist attack, then it's your responsibility"?
CD: Hello? Sounds pretty reasonable to me. ...
-
ShawnMN
The Democrats are no more responsible for Bush's radicalism than I am for the ever more divisive content of your columns.
Great analogy. How silly of me to think that Democrats have any responsibility for the laws that are passed or the investigation that don't occur or the filibusters that don't happen. Poor little helpless creatures - what can they do about any of it?
In my opinion your columns are beginning to have a consistent theme of encouraging the lefties to fraction off from a unified Democratic party a la Nader, etc.
Yes, you uncovered my grand plan - to encourage lefties to form a third party. I just haven't unveiled my plan yet because . . . well, there must be some reason.
I know there are people who want to read blogs or pundits who are attached to one of the parties and never criticize that party no matter what they do. There are many blogs like that around the Internet. This is not one of them, so if that's the kind of commentary you like, you shouldn't look for it here. This isn't the DNC.
-
Howard Dean at the Daily Kos Convention
We're the party that believes there is something more important than party, and that is country
Howard, you may want to double check this assertion with your party's lawmakers currently in office.
-
Disingenuous Democratic Apologists
Spare us all the blathering about needing "veto-proof" majorities (which have rarely ever existed in any Congress), yada yada yada...
As Glenn pointed out in the comments, the Republican MINORITY in the Senate has had a field day stopping legislation by threatening filibuster. The Democratic MAJORITY could just as well use the same tactic.
-
The Primordial Dwarfism of congressional Democrats
Congressional Democrats suffer from an advanced case of primordial fear of being labeled by the right wing as "soft on homeland security" and "soft on terrorism". This paralyzing fear is the root cause of their persistent and repeated capitulation. It's hard to imagine what would change that.
-
Glenn:
I apologize for so blunt a request, but could you please weigh in on the issue I brought up in my last two posts? It's starting to knaw at me a bit, and I wasn't sure if you caught it. Perhaps you have some knowledge to add.
(Really leaving now, but I'll be back.)
-
DC Law1
I apologize for so blunt a request, but could you please weigh in on the issue I brought up in my last two posts? It's starting to knaw at me a bit, and I wasn't sure if you caught it. Perhaps you have some knowledge to add.
I'm on my way out and may not get to it until tomorrow, but I will.
Are you going to the Cato event?
-
logic built on an incorrect assertion
Someone else wondered what difference if makes if conservative Demcrats vote like Republicans. Well, it makes a hell of a difference because as Democrats they give the Democratic party the majority power in the Congress. And since the Democrats are the liberal party, that gives the majority power to the liberal party. See how that works?
*jeebus*
-
re: filibustering
I also asked him why, when they were in the minority, the Democrats were so afraid to filibuster anything, even something as drastic as the Military Commissions Act or the Alito nomination, whereas the Republicans run around filibustering everything they can find and don't care at all about being called "obstructionist."
Isn't it even worse than that. The republicans, if I understand correctly, are not "filibustering everything". In some, perhaps most cases, aren't they simply *threatening* filibuster? Are not Democrats folding under the mere *threat* of filibuster.
-
@lupercus
"We can work on moving the Dems to the left after we take some kind of real control."
Yeah! That'll happen!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
-- lupercus
It's difficult to laugh at success even if that success --moving the GOP to the right and dragging the Democrats along for the ride -- over the last 40 years is what's causing all of your angst now. Success for them is failure for us but I doubt they were laughing back then at this absurd notion like you are today and they didn't stamp their feet when things didn't go their way after one election cycle. They just had patience and perservered. But you must know better. I'll leave all you armchair political strategists to just sort it out. I still think it is wise to study and learn from your opponents, especially if they've been kicking your ass six ways from Sunday for the last 40 years. As I said. You may find a Libertarian party candidate who got elected to dog catcher someplace. Greens even do better than them locally.
-
@Glenn
All Democrats were willing to fix the problem you're talking about. They offered legislation that would have done exactly that. But the administration claimed they wanted far more chagnes than just that, and instead of doing what they should have done -- given them the bill that fixed the only real problem and then forced him to veto it, in which case this alleged "gap" would have been the fault of the veto -- they vastly expanded his eavesdropping powers in ways having nothing to do with this supposed FISA gap.
It isn't just stupid on the merits, but stupid politically, too.
No snark intended, I'm really confused by your scare quotes around "gap" and labeling it as alleged. In your interview with Dodd, you note even Feingold concedes it is real, right?
Anyway, if you say this version passed by the Senate today vastly expands Bush's surveillance powers, I believe you. But Lederman's piece didn't convince me that this was necessarily the case. I look forward to your dissection when you have the time for it.