"If the Democrats suck so bad, where are you going to go? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Democrats had little to gain and a lot to lose by going against the administration on these particular votes. While they currently have the edge in the presidential horserace at the moment, why do a lot of grandstanding now and hand the Republicans raw-meat ammo? Unh-unh."

Should the dems have used the power of the purse to force a withdrawal from Iraq?

I'm amazed at those who are so eager to exonerate the Democratic leadership here. The Republicans have spent all year IN THE MINORITY blocking the Democrats from doing much of anything. Yet the Democrats are IN THE MAJORITY and control Congress and yet when Congress does something like this, there are no shortage of people who want to claim that the poor Democrats had no choice and had no ability to prevent this from happening.

GlennGreenwald

During the first six years of this misbegotten shame, the Republicans held the majority in both houses by less margin than the Democrats now have. If the Democrats were passing fantastic legislation week after week and President Bush was vetoing it, they would have an argument about the veto-proof majority. But they aren't. They are passing President Bush's unitary executive power expansions by 60-28 majorities. My own senator, Dianne Feinstein not only voted for the legislation, she provided political cover for others, like Jim Webb, who cited her expertise on why he should vote for it. She doesn't lack clout, she lacks morals.

P.S. Anybody know if there was a signing statement this morning, and what it said?

I keep harping back to Israel's Labor party eperience. The more it tried to become Likud Lite, the more it capitulated to the right wing and adopted their policies and attitudes, the weaker and more despised it became. When it lost its way and principles, it also lost most of its core constituency and the respect of the public. It is still blamed by the Right for every terror attack and is still labeled by the Right wing as soft and weak on natural security. What would it take for the Democratic leadership to realize that capitulation and abandonment of principles(or do they have any?) is the surest way to defeat?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070805.html

Greysky:

What Democrats *add* is the politics of hope, not fear. That is, increased/enhanced use of diplomacy, negotiating, etc. Not just the neocon - use brute force, and if brute force doesn't work then use more brute force.

-

I am keeping my fingers crossed that one of the Democratic presidential candidates will win in November '08. But I don't think it's inevitable. All it would take is one domestic terrorist attack and all bets are off as to who would be elected president in '08.

The Democratic base is energized. I don't want to see Democrats do anything to energize the *Republican* base.

This is very, very interesting. In the first paragraph above, you assert that the Democrats are the party of hope, not fear. Then, in the very next paragraph, you show that this is precisely the opposite, and that you believe in that philosophy. You tremble about the possibility of another attack, and that "all bets are off" for the election if an attack occurs. You fear - so intensely I can nearly smell it through this website - that bold moves by the Democrats might energize the Republican Party.

In short, your every instinct, like so many Democrats, is to think first of how the Republicans might spin a potential Democratic course of action, and to speculate on all the worst-case scenarios that might make the Democrats look bad.

Republicans may be the Party of Invoking Fear, but your approach is in line with the Party of Being Afraid.

The authority to conduct border searches in spite of the 4th Amendment stems from the government's necessity to physically protect its borders and people from harmful things or people coming in. I do think this difference is essential enough to constitutionally distinguish eavesdropping from border searching regarding the 4th Amendment. -- DCLaw1

I appreciate the reply and understand the distinction you illustrate. How does that distinction hold up in the face of decisions to allow searches of laptops at the border without a warrant?

Actually we'll contend the election was stolen and that any Democrat in the White House is illegitimate. Needless to say we'll do that for the entire term, and declare any initiatives from said Dem, illegitimate as well.

Hopefully House Democrats will have a gay member that says something inappropriate and another in the Senate that calls someone a name in another language. Then we'll be able to take Congress.

You guys hate one-party rule, right?

Please post a link to a single comment of yours demonstrating even the slightest admiration or respect for the principles and ideals of freedom, democracy, and universal, unalienable rights established with this country.

Please post a link to a single comment of yours that does not reduce the fate of this great country to a game between those who are "too cool" to care about human life and freedom, that does not justify the actions of the "good guys" by applying to precedent set by the bad guys, that contains any content, really, beyond snotty vindictiveness and grudge-holding.

Please demonstrate with a link to any comment you have made on this site that might give anyone some indication you actually care more about America than your party, that America means something to you beyond a gameboard to be taken.

"Democrats had little to gain and a lot to lose by going against the administration on these particular votes. While they currently have the edge in the presidential horserace at the moment, why do a lot of grandstanding now and hand the Republicans raw-meat ammo? Unh-unh."

I don't see that they had much to lose. The point, which Glenn made in the blog post, and which has been made time and time again, but which the Democratic leadership is apparently unable to grasp, is that the Democrats will be portrayed, by Bush, by the Republican campaigns, and by the media, as "soft on terror" no matter what they actually do. They keep making these supposedly shrewd political calculations where doing exactly what Bush and the GOP want them to do will somehow change the narrative but, each time, the media narrative is the same old reliable "soft on terror" song and dance. The "shrewd calculation" excuse for abandoning principles wears a bit thin after the thirtieth time or so it turns out to be not so shrewd after all.

"The Democratic base is energized. I don't want to see Democrats do anything to energize the *Republican* base."

There is no better way to de-energize the Democratic base than to remind everyone why the idea that there is no significant difference between the two parties was such a popular, and destructive, meme in 2000.