Re: Blue Dog Dems

All the ranting about Blue Dog Democrats & etc, and vows to make sure "progressives" start winning instead, are just so much spitting against the wind. On and off over the years I've lived in Indiana...

-- -Mona-

I don't know about Indiana as an example, but to flat out say that replacing or running progressives or liberals over so called Democratic candidates or office holders who will vote Republican is "spitting in the wind" is flat denial or ignorance. We have already accomplished a good showing of that happening in 2006. What makes you say or think we can't do even better this next time around?

With a lot of work and a lot of attention to detail there is no reason in Republican Hell that we can't get some badn's out and bring some goodn's in.

But I assume that by major differences you mean the BDs and DLCers on the one hand, and BA on the other, right?

Absolutely. Sorry I didn't make that clearer; I meant to clean up that sentence, but got sidetracked.

It seems pretty clear to me that if a person wants to invest their time/energy/resources and know that it's going to make a difference for the better, then that would be the way to go. And that could be all over the country, too.

Someplace I'm not taken for granted, treated like an ATM, then stabbed in the back.

The answer to my complaints seems to be -- just shut up and keep writing checks, little man, the Great and Powerful Democratic Party has spoken. Republicans try to scare me with terrorists, Democrats try to scare me with Republicans. And all of them could give a shit about my civil rights. Rights that have been around for 200 years are suddenly all too much trouble to preserve for both parties in Washington. I don't know what that is, but it isn't the way America is supposed to work. And yes, I do think subjecting them to tar and feathers would help. Have you got a better idea?

...your interest is in Democrats as an end to themselves. Don't criticize them. Make excuses for them. Accept that they are inherently good no matter what they do.

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.

are we in danger of falling into the "good vs evil" mindset that has proved to be so disastrous for the Bush presidency?

I realize that we're unlikely to replace these "red state Dems" with the likes of Feingold and Inslee any time soon. But I'm not talking about electing more pro-gun control and pro choice Dems in these areas--for now at least--but rather ones who will at least support legislation that goes to the heart of what the party--and country, really--is supposed to be about.

With respect to these "social issues" such as gun control and abortion, I can understand why they would vote against the majority of the party since the majority of their constituents--and often they themselves--support these positions. But with respect to bills such as FISA and the MCA, no way. If you vote for them, you are clearly and indisputibly voting AGAINST the wishes of your constituents, period--not to mention your party and country.

So I think that your analysis is off the mark here. Issues such as gun control and abortion, as important as they are and as passionate as many people rightfully feel about them, are simply NOT comparable to core issues such as torture, civil liberties and the constitution itself. Many of us reluctantly supported pro-life candidates such as Bob Casey, since they were almost certainly going to be better than knuckle-draggers such as Santorum. But we drew and draw the line on these core issues, which are simply NOT negotiable, EVER.

My first platform plank would be a Constitutional amendment to limit the power of corporations. That's how we got to this place, and why it never stops.

But like you said, it seems out of date, now that one of the planks has to be getting Washington to acknowledge the existence of a document called the Constitution.

Despite all the great reporting and commentary I see on Salon, I have come to the conclusion that ALL of it ultimately plays into the hands of the Bush administration, by diverting attention from by far the most important issue: 9/11.

Why don't more of those who see the grave threat posed by this government take the time to review the evidence of complicity in the "attacks", which 5 1/2 years later has become absolutely IRREFUTABLE? It is the ONLY issue which could unite Americans of all political persuasions and prevent the current headlong descent into fascism.

Perhaps some of you looked briefly at the questions being raised shortly after 9/11, and dismissed them as being inconclusive, not "extraordinary" enough to warrant the "extraordinary claim". Please look again. A lot of hard work has been done since then.

Perhaps you are not the sort of person who enjoys wading through large numbers of websites, trying to decide whether the writers are "crazy conspiracists". In that case go to Google Video. There are many excellent, detailed videos there; try "911 Mysteries", just for one example. See for yourself the evidence that the buildings were demolished by explosives.

In 2001 we didn't have widespread, user-created video. Now we do.

Pass it along, before it's too late.

I am truly stumped. News reports far and wide assume this "gap" exists, as do a great many people for whom I have great respect.

I've posted several times about this, both here and at Balkinization. You're right, of course. There was no bar against snooping foreign-to-foreign communications regardless of method, and no FISA court order requirement.

FWIW, §§ 1801(f)(3) and 1801(f)(4) are catch-all clauses to cover other modalities of communication [short-wave, HAM, voice conversations snooped through telescopic mikes, microwave links, signal mirrors, telepathy, etc] that might be used; they are different from the "wire" communications in § 1801(f)(2)). 50 USC § 1801(f)(4) may not have had an explicit requirement that the particiapnts all be domestic under an assumption that if the surveillance is done domestically, physical constraints would dictate that at least one of the targets in fact also be domestic. This may no longer be true (one could theoretically envision communication through bouncing a laser off a satellite or the moon, for instance).

"Wire communications" traditionally meant telephony. It's also encompassed computer communications using common carrier facilities, and has grown to cover also mobile telephony (in which at least part of the signal path is through radio transmissions).

Cheers,