Letters to the Editor
-
Mona...
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? -Mona-
via the Huffington Post, this story on Yahoo, by Reuters' Richard Cowan:
Congress recesses amid Democratic achievements
* The first minimum wage increase in a decade went into effect in July . . .
* Republicans lost their majority in last November's elections largely because of the Iraq war, but also due to voter disgust with ethics violations. . .Democrats pushed through ethics and lobbying reforms that public advocacy groups applauded . . . Bush is expected to sign the bill into law.
* Congress passed, and Bush signed into law on Friday, a series of post-September 11 anti-terrorism steps that had been recommended by an independent commission in 2004. . .
* The House and Senate passed different versions of a bill. . . [that] Bush has threatened to veto . . . but Democrats may be able to override him.
* The House and Senate passed bills to help students handle soaring college costs and crack down on misconduct in the student loan industry. . .
* A popular measure allowing broader stem cell research that supporters hope will help cure Parkinson's disease and other incurable illnesses was passed a second time and Bush vetoed it a second time.
* . . . the Senate passed a bill mandating that cars get 40 percent better fuel efficiency and encouraging a dramatic increase in ethanol as a fuel. . .
* A fiscal 2008 budget plan passed with new controls that attempt to impose fiscal responsibility after years of huge budget deficits. . . Republicans complain there is no guarantee Bush's tax cuts will be renewed after 2010.
* After six years of mostly getting a free pass from Republicans, the Bush administration is facing oversight by committees with probes ranging from the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors to the Pentagon's handling of the death in Afghanistan of ex-football player Pat Tillman.
And, again, the Democrats who voted with Bush on FISA were not the ones supported by the Netroots via Howie Klein's Blue America. That really does mean something. Some of those candidates did stand up for something, in spite of getting flack for being soft on Terrorism.
The proper response to this disappointment is not to abandon or criticize (or allow others to criticize) the Democrats who did choose the Constitution despite the Fear Campaign, but to support them again, and to find and get elected even more of the same. This is a viable alternative to donating money to the DLC or DSCC or DCCC. (The DNC, under Howard Dean, is an exception, and should still be supported.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070805/pl_nm/usa_congress_dc;_ylt=Aqu6b_hmZQn03Ac.KMtdRDca.3QA
-
@Mona - What Churchill said
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. -- Mona
Everyone has the right, the obligation in fact, to speak out when they see injustice. That is what has been going on in the comments this weekend. People are speaking out, sometimes in frustration and anger, against the injustice that seems so obvious to everyone but the Congress. That doesn't mean that people will stop trying to change things. You never quit trying to make things better:
Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never--in nothing, great or small, large or petty--never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. -- Churchill
So it's not about giving up. It's about not going along with what you know to be wrong. The Dems have screwed up -- again. But that doesn't mean it's over. It simply means we all have to try harder.
-
Taking Taking the Constitution Seriously Seriously
Far be it from me to excuse Chris Dodd for his mistakes, which Glenn did his best to bring out. Nor am I in any sense a Doddista (and not just because the word has no sense to speak of). But I am pleased so see someone run for President on the Constitution, particularly when so many are running away from it. Thus it saddens me that so many find it hard to take his position at face value. From the look of the thread, about all that was missing what the complaint that he didn't keep the Constitution in his front pocket.
Oh, there's the reaction: "If he were really running on the Constitution he'd have done x." This is sensible, an index to how we cherish our basic law. And it's correct even apart from that attitude: candidates should be judged on their voting records, and here we hold the record up not to a campaign promise but to an oath of office. To add to it, the standard is not unrealistic. We have the aptly named Russ Feingold, that precious rarity who, for most any value of x you could name, actually did x, though sadly but understandably he dropped out of the race.
So I am all for judging Dodd in such terms. I'd even raise the stakes, and had he been more up front with Glenn about where he has come up short, we might have seen him tested him at the higher level. There are deep institutional reasons why our representatives in Congress come up short. Though I'm sure he knows a lot about them, not even Feingold speaks out on this problem, as he really should, being one who takes the Constitution seriously enough to not to let it fade away.
Dodd is not running against Feingold, however, so take what you've got. Whether or not you are prepared to vote for Dodd, there's such a thing as loving the one you're not with simply for what he points up. (Our ideal candidate is probably a mix of those in the offing.) I think Dodd deserves to be seen in such a light. It pays to distinguish two lines of thought: (1) Dodd, like most all others, has broken faith with his oath when the chips were down, and (2) Dodd's running on the Constitution is as cheap as someone running on Mom and Apple Pie.
I could only dream of a plague such as (2) befalling our political culture! And if we can't be thankful for a campaign such as Dodd's even in this little corner of America, we might as well pack our bags.
A final word: His dad, Thomas Dodd, was a lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. Yes, Dodd is using that relationship. But family matters, and it is not always misleading to run on family history. It can serve as a reminder, even as to things seemingly as remote as American takes on the Third Reich. Just remember: for every Thomas Dodd there was a Prescott Bush.