Letters to the Editor
-
Republicans are worse
I was discouraged by your last post on complicity of democrats with republican torture. You show it is the torture of both parties which is why there has been so little action on impeachable oversight. I have been holding onto the thread of hope that the change of party would stop, or at least slow down, the destruction of Bush of so many things American.
This post shows that the republicans are much worse than the democrats. So we have to keep on keeping on with the democratic party because at least they can be influenced. Now is the time to press them to stand up to Bush and show, as Glenn has done, where they are complicit.
-
Making the argument
If someone wants to defend these Democrats' complicit behavior (on the craven ground that what they did was understandable because it was politically wise), then they should make that argument.
Sure, okay. Try this out. Senate Democrats go hard after the Bush regime — after the war, after the corruption of intelligence and military decision-making, after profiteering, any or all of the above — and Lieberman immediately pulls the plug on their coalition. In a few hours, with a flick of his wrist, the independent gentleman from Connecticut ends any chance of a Democratic agenda in the Senate for at least another year.
It's in no way clear that Lieberman's stick is the only thing cowing the Democratic leadership — in fact it seems implausible that it is. But until the Democrats have an actual majority in the Senate, instead of this minoriry-coalition thing, any bold stance on national security will definitely cost them control — of committees, of investigations, of Senate business, of nominations, everything.
It may be that the chance to implement part of their agenda isn't worth having to kowtow to the tyranny of parliamentary coalition, and that Senate Democrats should be willing to go out in a blaze of glory and be permanently sidelined for the rest of the current term. It may be that the Democratic leadership is perfectly happy with the current state of affairs and Lieberman doesn't actually have to make any threats. But the man made it back to Washington on one issue — the popularity of his hawkish stand on the Middle East — and he's made it clear that if the chips are down he just does not give a rat's behind about anything else. It's not hard to do the math.
Look at it another way — the Democrats' 2006 campaign failed in the Senate. They lost. By making a deal with the devil on national security, they managed to snatch a measure of victory from the jaws of defeat. The fact that some of them might be perfectly happy with the devil in question notwithstanding, let's turn Glenn Greenwald's comment around: if anyone believes that it would be better for the Democrats to cede power completely in exchange for a bold but fruitless stance on the war, let them make that argument.
-
Wow, great video
That video sums up in three and a half minutes everything that's wrong with the MSM. I've never heard it packaged so concisely.
That's why I skip TV news and listen to Democracy Now.
http://www.democracynow.org
-
Mea Culpa
Yesterday I posted a letter suggesting that timidity, not complicity was the driving factor in the Democratic response to the Bush administration's lawbreaking policies.
I was wrong. Even if the administration threatened these Senators with ruin fueled by its illegal wiretapping program, they should have sacrificed themselves for their country.
Because that is what patriots have done since the Founding Fathers signed their names to that treasonous Declaration. That's what soldiers have done and are trying to do now. The ultimate civic virtue is to die for your fellow citizens. The most that could have happened to them was political ruin. Ironically, a courageous stand may have actually propelled them to historic greatness.
It may have been timidity. But that timidity endangered our nation just as much as the administration's criminality.
-
Majority
In response to Amity's assertion that the Democrats are teetering on the brink of minority again, I believe that's hogwash.
I freely confess to not being a Constitutional law expert, perhaps Glenn could clear this question up for us. With full attendance, the Democrats have 50 votes that (I certainly hope) could be considered reliable for such an import question. Say Boltin' Joe finally admits that he's a Republican, deep in his shriveled soul and joins his friends across the aisle.
That leaves a 50/50 vote split for majority leadership. Darth Cheney is constitutionally unable to vote on Senate organizational issues. His sole power to vote is to break ties over LEGISLATION. Democrats currently enjoy a slight majority in many committees and of course, the Majority Leader's authority. In order to effect a reversal, it seems to me that a majority would be required. A simple tie would NOT be sufficient to change anything.
I believe the majority now will be the majority until a majority vote can overturn the current situation. Also, I've read that such Senate organizational issues tend to remain settled once the new Congress has been seated, unless the balance changes.
I would very much like Glenn, or a Constitutional law expert, to weigh in on this VERY important question. I simply don't believe we should keep excusing craven capitulations by Democrats on the basis of spurious dangers that they supposedly face.
In any case, since Harry isn't doing anything with his scheduling and assignment authority anyway, what the Hell would be any different if he was minority leader again. That seems to be a more comfoprtable role for him anyway.
-
The difference between the two parties on religion
In her post, (item 6) Barbara O’Brian notes that righties are comparing Huckabee to Jimmy Carter as a form of an insult.
She doesn’t mention, however, the vast difference between Carter and Huckabee (and other GOP candidates) on religion: their respective views of the separation of church and state.
The GOP has been promoting this “separation” as a “myth” and have been working for years to “tear down that wall” – this is the opposite of what both Carter and Kennedy before him advocated when they spoke of religion.
From a Kos diary on this subject:
”The interview also makes clear that Carter was just as adamant as John Kennedy in placing an absolute barrier between church and state. He cites Jesus' admonition to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" as clear instruction that Christians should not insert their faith into political matters, saying that he considered the separation of church and state to be both a constitutional and a biblical mandate.”
That’s the difference between the two parties on religion. And indeed, it’s that difference that’s causing the GOP such consternation with both the Huckabee candidacy, and what to do with the religious right monster that they’ve created but can no longer control.
http://tinyurl.com/2vbw6r
Note: The documentary Manufacturing Consent (in item 3) is available from on-line DVD rental outlets and it’s definitely worth watching the whole thing.