"Why do Feinstein and Wyden sound much different on the torture issue now?" Could it be they (the Democrats are in power) do not have President Bush to lay blame on any longer? Could it be that these prisoners are not so innocent? Could it be that if they are set free, they will retaliate with a vengeance? With President Bush and his administration leaving, after all the partying next month I suspect that allot of sobering up is about to happen in the Capital!

Just for kicks, here's a little thing I wrote lampooning "24"

Very funny, but I think the aliens are still fuming about the Tom Cruise thing.

What should the U.S. president do? What would you do if you were the President?

Obey the law. I don't care if the President really, honestly believed that burning holes in Atta's scrotum with a solder gun would yield the identity of the other 18 hijackers. Separate from the fact that he has no way of knowing that, it's against the law. It is morally wrong and it is legally wrong.

Again, though... the fact that you can construct an elaborate scenario of vanishingly small probability that is so alarming that you are tempted to break the laws of this country and of human dignity is not reason enough to break those laws.

Just. The. Opposite.

I do not want a revolution (if one can be avoided).

I never said anything about what you want, because I don't know what you want. I don't think any of us knows. You've never said.

First of all, some interesting and substantial discussion here today as usual.

However, parts of the discussion highlight a certain prevailing and condescending attitude towards those who bring ideas to the discussion that involve a rejection of the Demopublican duopoly and the "Washington consensus". As has been stated before, the posters named in my subject line aren't really approaching this discussion in a diplomatic fashion, so it's hard to react to them in a kindly fashion. However, I do agree with adnoto that the substance of the arguments presented has been ignored.

I know the regular posters here and Glenn himself are hardly loyal partisan Democrats, but nonetheless, there does seem to be a sense of capitulation to the idea of voting for and supporting the "lesser of two evils". There indeed can be good arguments for the practicality of doing so, and by no means would I call the Democrats and Republicans identical. It's more just a matter of the Democrats not being different enough to warrant unerring support.

I don't want to project about anyone's voting habits and other political activities, but it does seem that the prevailing opinion here states that, for example, supporting and voting for 3rd party or independent candidates is tantamount to throwing your vote away. Of course the Catch-22 of this all is that the only real reason that someone like Nader, or even someone within the Democratic Party, like Dennis Kucinich, is not a viable candidate is in large part because people who share these particular candidates principles and are politically to the left of the Hillarys and Baracks of our system nonetheless continue to buy into the notion that these are not viable candidates.

I know that there are several groups now working to "progressive-ize" the Democratic Party through bottom-up promotion of progressive candidates in primaries and generals, attempting to replace the centrists... And I do hope that these efforts can have an effect. However, I can't help but wonder if these projects will have the kind of momentum to affect real change in a timely fashion. I can't help but wonder if "Acting Blue" will mean donating to progressive primary candidates and then voting for the centrists who defeat them in the general election anyway.

I guess my real question is that for those out there who voted for Obama for reasons of pragmatism and practicality, rather than principle is how far does a politician have to go to induce you to seek out alternatives?

If Obama backtracks on torture, leaves tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, implements a mediocre health care system that is far from universal, leaves the treasury door open for plunder from the Wall Street fat cats, disregards the creeping imposition of the police state, etc. etc. etc. will you vote for a 2nd term for him? Would the threat of a Romney/Huckabee administration moot all of these concerns?

We are all subject to having our opinions shaped by the dominant media around us... And I can't help but wonder if the lack of interest in 3rd parties (that operate on principle rather than "big tent" pragmatism) and as adnoto mentioned, peaceable protest, on UT is in large part due to the effectiveness of the media and bipartisan establishment in defining these options as "fringe". I think the posting here and certainly Glenn's insightful parsing of the semantics of our mainstream political media do a good job of helping to break down this dominance of the discourse; I just wonder what more it would take to help people cast aside entirely their devotion to the two-party system, despite the fact that there might be a few good apples in the barrel.

What does it take for people who support progressive policies to stop adhering to the dominant idea that actual progressive candidates and parties are simply the nonviable "fringe left"?

Thanks to you too.

Omooex:

Exactly. The anger - personalized, direct, concrete, and intolerable - is nowhere near approaching the level required for a sufficiently potent and widespread campaign of civil disobedience.

The last major example I can think of - opposition to the Vietnam War, which had mixed, delayed results - was undeniably in large part a product of the terrible draft that was sending so many young men off to actually die for the government's policies.

A bit before that, the civil rights movement had an overwhelmingly compelling moral message, and opposed clearly, blatant injustices and the vilest political adversaries. Even then, its success was far from certain and - Clinton had a point - did require federal political and judicial action as well. Also, the initial political avenues were not working, adding pressure, popular outrage, urgency, and increased moral intensity to the movement until it reached a tipping point.

Today, although we cannot predict the outcome, we have had significant electoral changes come about in 2006 and of course 2008 - the latter historically unprecedented - and this has rendered notions of effective civil disobedience on a massive enough scale implausible, barring added injustices and conditions so grotesque as to defy current description.

In such a state, the inch-by-inch efforts of petition, scrutiny, and targeted political action are the tools of the trade.