Are you sure about incrementalism?

I think the GOP strategy was to push hard to the right as aggressively as possible. Even when their positions were out of favor, they pushed the crazy stuff from the start (flat tax, abolish the DoEd, etc.). So whether or not incrementalism is the right thing for the Democrats, I'd argue the GOP didn't win that way.

This is the tail end, and I do mean end, of a long deliberate process that started in 1964 with the defeat of Goldwater as the nominee. It really got rolling with Reagan. It peaked in 1994 with the Gingrich's Contract with America and it's been all downhill ever since, for the GOP and the nation. That's over forty years. Is that incremental enough for you?

LWM too many names

Whatever the name, and he has too many for my feeble brain, Art is too distinctive to miss. Don't think anyone can copy him unless the post is very brief.

-- Retired Military Patriot

Is this a Beeb alter ego, RMP?

http://tinyurl.com/3x4fhe

It doesn’t sound like the ‘Shock Doctrine’ at all to me

Can you give me some examples of government relinquishing powers incrementally? I suspect that what you may mean by incremental improvement may be government incrementally grabbing more power to do things which you approve of.

-- talesofunrest

We are getting crossed signals and having a communication breakdown. I agree with you on your first point. No bureacracy reliquishes power willingly or easily. I just don't think we want to elect Rudy to hurry the process up so... what? I suggest an incremental shift away from the edge. Not a push over it. That is a form of the Shock Doctrine.

I'm surprised...

we're not talking more about Mad Dogs' post on Sen. Whitehouse's remarks. His revelations are really scary and if congress or a new Dem administration can't do something about this flagrant abuse by the executive branch, then we really are in very serious trouble. Everyone should read the link.

http://tinyurl.com/2g44cf

-- Retired Military Patriot

What he said.

(But then, whaddo I know? I'm just one of those people who were "obsessed" that Dubya might bomb Iran. And I don't like Hillary Clinton. Ergo, me bad.)

Thanks for that Mies link where I learned that I think Ron Paul is the only viable candidate. One of my favorite things is reading about all the views I never expressed or implied but still somehow embrace.

I'll note two points more generally here relating to the broader discussion:

(1) Criticizing some Democrats and documenting their involvement in many of the worst Bush abuses is not the same as saying that it doesn't matter which party controls the various branches of government.

(2) The notion that there is no meaningful difference between the parties is one that is more pronounced and tempting -- understandably so -- on days like this, when new evidence emerges of just how complicit key Democrats are in so many things.

But many -- I'd say most -- people who react that way (again, completely understandably) on days when such stories are revealed are not going to harbor that "no-difference" belief for the next 12 months. When faced imminently with the prospect of a Giuliani administration or a Romney administration and all of the dreck that that would entail, my guess is that the perceived differences will become more pervasive.

But whatever the results are, one has to describe the corruption and complicity of Democrats when one sees it, and one sees it with incredible frequency. That's just true.

Will Jane Harman suffer any consequences for knowing this was taking place, she saw the tapes. CIA Larry Johnson stated that he believes it that the "alleged" torture was done by contrators not CIA.

Where were those alleged "contractors" from?

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/12/07/torture-tapes/#comment-76350

I'm surprised...

we're not talking more about Mad Dogs' post on Sen. Whitehouse's remarks.

http://tinyurl.com/2g44cf

-- Retired Military Patriot

Some encouraging observations and words by Emptywheel:

But here's the other key point (and one of the reasons I like the way Whitehouse works). He specifically asked Michael Mukasey about EOs before Mukasey was approved.

2. Do you believe that the President may act contrary to a valid executive order? In the event he does, need he amend the executive order or provide any notice that he is acting contrary to the executive order?

ANSWER: Executive orders reflect the directives of the President. Should an executive order apply to the President and he determines that the order should be modified, the appropriate course would be for him to issue a new order or to amend the prior order.

So Mukasey, unaware that Bush had set aside all common sense, gave the common sense, legally sound answer. "Of course the President can't violate his own EOs! He would need to change them first!"

And now the AG is on record as thinking this whole state of affairs stinks.

What would you have had Rockefeller and Harmon do? Would you have them getting classified briefings and then telling the world the contents of those briefings?

Randy Bastard

There are countless mechanisms available to a U.S. Senator or Representative to do something about illegal behavior they discover. Anyone -- not just someone in such a position -- has mechanisms available to them under whistleblower laws to intiate proceedings to investigate illegal government conduct. Why couldn't they have done that?

GlennGreenwald

It does point to a mechanism though, since when we went over the telecom amnesty business Rockefeller's money connection didn't make any sense (too little money too much influence).

These guys seem to be just like the press, they believe that access trumps all. They are willing to sacrifice virtually anything to maintain that access, which seems in Washington to be equated both with merit (as in -ocracy) and power. The Bush people have quite keenly perceived that all of what Glenn calls "Serious" Washington is in the thrall of access, and that, therefore, anyone can be made to jump, prostrate themselves, or slavishly prostitute whatever it was they came to Washington to do, as long as access to information is controlled, and people are rewarded and punished for every single action by providing or withdrawing it.

In the information age, denial of access is a form of psychosocial sensory deprivation, and causes a complete breakdown of personality and strong attachments to the access provider as a father figure in the same way as it's black prison counterpart.

Just a theory, but we needed one to stave off the compulsion to talk about free will.