Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn, what you are saying is
these people are just too stupid to get why they were elected in 2006. Unlike you, or any one of us who read and comment on your blog, they are totally imcapable of discerning that the voters rejected the fearmongering and gave them a mandate to stop GWB in his lust for dictatorial power. Do you really believe that?
What about the shenanigans with the rules? Something is fishy there. How did the Senate know for sure the House would pass their Bill in it's identical form, and there would be no need to hammer out any differences? They sure did know it, they adjourned @ midnight Friday. Why did Pelosi require 2/3 majority to pass the Dem version, but a simple majority to pass Bush's latest power grab? Why did she even allow for a vote on this abomination?
-
Isn't it possible that the Dems who voted for this
actually believe it's a good idea, not because they live in terror of M.C. Karl? We know what the media say, but the media say all sorts of things, especially about the Democrats. Have any of the Democrats who voted for this thing said it was a fear-based vote? And if not, how do you, or I, or someone typing for the NYT, know why they did it?
-
Not really ...
The Democrats crushed the Republicans in an historic election ...
I hope Dems continue to misread 2006 as Glenn clearly is. A switch of a mere 70,000 votes across the nation out of tens of millions cast (less than one-tenth of one percent)would have kept both houses of Congress in Republican hands.
Look also at the Dems who did win: Tester in Montana and Webb in Virgina, for example. They are not the moonbat left-wing Dems like Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, et al., and yet those are the crazies running the show.
People will think differently in '08. They did not get what they thought they were getting, and that's why Congress' approval ratings are lower the GWB's. (And, no, it's not for Glenn's fantasy reason that they're not doing enough. It's because people see that the Dems are just as corrupt as the Republicans they threw out.)
-
Independent bound
I alerted Pelosi and Reid, I am leaving the Democratic Party. I won't go down in history as being in the party that enabled this disastrous monstrous presidency. I'll still vote, you bet, as an Independent. Cripes, they can't even put their finger in the wind and tell which way the wind is blowing.
-
Yes, really.
It was historic when the Rethugs did it in 1994, and it is historic now. Rarely does Congress change hands in a midterm election. It *means* something. It is important to pay attention when it does.
People were tired of 60 years of Democratic rule in 1994. So what is the reason now? Bush's war. Deal with it.
-
Martin Gale
Isn't it possible that the Dems who voted for this
actually believe it's a good idea, not because they live in terror of M.C. Karl? We know what the media say, but the media say all sorts of things, especially about the Democrats. Have any of the Democrats who voted for this thing said it was a fear-based vote? And if not, how do you, or I, or someone typing for the NYT, know why they did it?
I'm sure some of them do, and I said that in the post. But the fact is that Democrats overwhelmingly voted AGAINST warrantless eavesdropping -- both before the midterm elections and now. They also overwhelmingly voted AGAINST the Military Commissions Act.
So it is hard to argue that they actually favor it as a group generally. They seem to oppose it, but something restrains them from really preventing its enactment. That is why political fear is the most likely explanation (rather than a belief in these programs).
-
Great post
When I read the beginning of your post, I remembered Nancy Johnson's ad as a perfect example of GOP dishonesty on this issue even before you referenced it in your post. That ad was a blatant lie. I'm in Murphy's district and I was pleased to see him kick Johnson out of Congress.
-
@ Martin
Isn't it possible that the Dems who voted for this
actually believe it's a good idea, not because they live in terror of M.C. Karl?
Sure, and if so then I would want to know exactly what on earth is their logic to give our Executive branch MORE power and have the FISA courts (which used to be the check and balance to Bush's surveillance powers) essentially be a rubber stamp. I would want to know why they have clearly seen that Bush has broken the law by circumventing the FISA courts, has been so inept that he cannot obtain a warrant with a pro-Executive FISA court that giftwraps warrants to Administrations in the past so long as they have a slight amount of evidence to support their wiretap. if any Democrat considers this a "good idea" to give a hapless president who sits at 26% approval and an AG who's lied repeatedly under oath, we are in much bigger trouble than we believe.
-
Why does "conventional wisdom" so often sound exactly like GOP talking points?
When the NSA scandal was first revealed, the conventional wisdom in Washington immediately solidified -- among Washington pundits and Democrats alike -- that Democrats had better not dare challenge Bush's illegal eavesdropping or else they would doom themselves to electoral defeat.
But what was that “conventional wisdom” based upon? Certainly not the polls. I know Rove has his own “math” but what about all those Washington pundits, couldn’t they read the polls? Or did they just reflexively believe what Rove was telling them?
Why does “conventional wisdom” so often represent GOP talking points?
2006 polls:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27poll.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=d6f80d348c3ed000&ex=1296018000
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/11/poll.wiretaps/index.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/03/americans-oppose-warrantless.html
-
you are entitled to "THE" math
I hope Dems continue to misread 2006 as Glenn clearly is. A switch of a mere 70,000 votes across the nation out of tens of millions cast (less than one-tenth of one percent)would have kept both houses of Congress in Republican hands.
And we likewise hope people like you will continue to misread 2006 as some sort of aberration, and play with the numbers in any way that mollifies your painful sense that the American public is finally coming to reject this authoritarian radicalism.