Letters to the Editor
-
In 2004, Feingold's margin not slim
>has won re-election by slim margins
In '04, running for a third term, he won by more than 10 points.
A proud Wisconsinite
-
Attention Democrats: GOP fear-mongering does not work
Verily I say unto you, The only thing you have to fear is - fear itself. Remember that FDR said this to you, and that you were to take heart and to heed this.
The meaning is that you are to resist the fearmongering and to deplore the power the fearmongers would have over you, and that you are to have courage against them.
Who will swear to their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, to re-establish the blessings of liberty on themselves and their posterity against these outrages against ourselves?
That is the question.
-
As I said, Walter, you're deluded.
Anyone who think that engaging in the classic strawman argument somehow "flushed out" anyone is not just insane but just plain stupid.
-- Titus Pullo
Gotcha, neocon. You're done. Stick a fork in 'ya and you will moo.
Go home.
-
NYTimes Tuesday
http://nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/07tue1.html
Editorial
The Fear of Fear Itself
Published: August 7, 2007It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress — now led by Democrats — caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights. Many of the 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House who voted for the bill said that they had acted in the name of national security, but the only security at play was their job security.
[...] Mr. Bush’s incessant fear-mongering — and the Democrats’ refusal to challenge him — has had one notable success. The only issue on which Americans say that they trust Republicans more than Democrats is terrorism. At least those Americans are afraid of terrorists. The Democrats who voted for this bill, and others like it over the last few years, show only fear of Republicans.
- - NYTimes, Tuesday, August 7, 2007
-
GOP Stupidity At Work
Americans are finally seeing the true GOP and they do not like what they see.
GOP Party corruption and the phoney Christian War Mongering Right set the stage for the GOP defeats in the last election, and more GOPers will be defeated in the next election.
Gearge Bush in a flight suit says it all.
-
Some thoughts @ Davis Smith, Zack, Lupercus, JM, Our Host and other interested parties
First, I concur that David Smith's comment was spot on and persuasive.
With Congressional representatives you have to consider Fenno's paradox:
Fenno's Paradox is the belief that people generally disapprove of the United States Congress as a whole, but support the Congressman from their own Congressional district. It is named for Richard Fenno who discussed this in his 1979 book Home Style: House Members in Their Districts.
With Senators it is a different matter as there are only two from each state and they don't answer to the smaller gerrymandered districts but the state as a whole.
I don't know how current these numbers are found them at wiki: "Currently 75% of the U.S. electorate consists of registered Democrats (42.5%) and registered Republicans (32.5%), with "independents" and those belonging to other parties consitituting 24.9% of the electorate."
Obviously some people will leave the Dems and become Independents. It might be a good thing if they see high numbers of people leaving the party and registering as independents. It will send a message.
But Democratic pols, consultants and strategists will ask: "Where are you going to go?" The GOP?
There needs to be a credible threat of a viable third party, and considering our winner take all system and the Overton Window, it has to be generally to the left of the current Democratic party to make the threat credible and their question less of a dare to the voter and more of an ultimatum to the party pols.
Our blog host is a constitutional attorney so it is to be expected that the constitutional issues are his other primary focus when he isn't doing his excellent media and press critiques. I agree that nothing could be more fundamental to our liberties than these two areas of focus and I will spare you all Jefferson's letter to Edward Carrington. But he is not necessarily representative of the general public. And as unfortunate as it may be, to many voters it may not be the single issue they are most concerned with. It might be secondary.
I am reminded of a study one of my CJ profs used to refer to during her lectures in the late 80s. It was from the 70s and I'm sure we have progressed a bit since then but the deal was that some researchers from a university thinly disguised the BoR as a petition and tried to get people at supermarkets and streetcorners to sign it. Surprisingly or not, most people wouldn't support and sign "the petition" (our BoR). They found it to be too "radical". Too "soft on crime". Perhaps he can dig through Lexis-Nexis to find it. I can't tell you more than this anecdote of an anecdote but I know the study is out there.
This is another strange intersection of political bedfellows. Far right patriot movement types and liberals generally agree about the BoR while the red state Bush base seem to view it as a stumbling block to security. Which brings me to my last point. The balancing act and tension between civil liberties and security. IMHO this is very similar to what Herbert Packer first recognized and explained as the two competing models of our criminal justice system back in 1968.
The Crime Control model (assembly line) justice and the Due Process Model (obstacle course justice). The main difference is the threat and fear of terrorism is now being used like the threat and fear of domestic crime was used to erode the gains made over the years (Glenn knows this case law as well as anyone here, from Weeks to the high point in the 60s. It's been going down hill since then) and shred our due process rights. So I have to agree with Greysky here. There is some truth to this if you understand that it has been going on for some time. They have just substituted a new fear.
jm gresky...I just think that there's a real dilemma that Americans are struggling with - balancing the need for domestic security with preservation of civil liberties and the rule of law. Not easy.
For those interested, this is as a good a brief description of Packer's theory and models as you can get.
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/111/111lect01.htm
Or you can read Packer himself in this excerpt.
http://tinyurl.com/28q5l8