Why We Fight Part 2

Glenn Greenwald again:

The defining beliefs of this [New Republic capitulation] Syndrome are depressingly familiar, and incomparably destructive: Anything other than tiny, marginal opposition to the Right's agenda is un-Serious and radical. Objections to the demolition of core constitutional protections is shrill and hysterical. Protests against lawbreaking by our high government officials and corporations are disrespectful and disruptive. Challenging the Right's national security premises is too scary and politically costly.


Those campaigning against Democratic politicians who endorse and enable the worst aspects of Bush extremism are "nuts," "need to have their heads examined," and are "exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s." Those who oppose totally unprovoked and illegal wars are guilty of "abject pacifism." . . .

. . . Hence: vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers -- with no connection to Terrorism -- are being vested in the President? His and the largest corporation's deliberate lawbreaking is being concealed and forever excused? All of that is being done by Democrats? Anyone who thinks that's worth getting worked up over -- just like anyone who got worked up over other reasonable, good faith policy disputes such as the Iraq War, pre-war lying, torture, Joe Lieberman -- are a bunch of shrill hysterics who "need to have their heads examined."

Good, smart, adult Democrats -- like the sober, Serious geniuses at The New Republic who have been so right for so long, and like Steny Hoyer -- understand that these matters are very complex and difficult and it's best if the Right not be opposed with too much vigor, if they should be opposed at all. It's precisely that mindset, and those who are guided by it, which needs to be targeted if the guaranteed Democratic majority is to mean anything other than an endless perpetuation of The New Republic Syndrome.

(Emphasis supplied.) That is why we fight - on FISA, on Iraq funding, on Roberts and Alito, on habeas, on torture. Someday some might get a clue. In the meantime, we continue the to fight.

Speaking for me only

< R.I.P, George Carlin | On The PUMAs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Greenwald is on fire lately (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Jim J on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:26:44 AM EST
    I too am disgusted by this Vichy congress, as well as by the voters who will likely reward these feckless clowns with an even larger majority this fall.

    Well at least Greenwald (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:46:53 AM EST
    is fighting. Not sure about how many others in the blogosphere are.

    Greenwald even fights Obama. Others? Crickets.


    Greenwald (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:17:56 PM EST
    should fight Obama.  Obama is a living symbol of the problem.

    Wow... (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by magisterludi on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:47:12 AM EST
    Vichy Congress... so sad yet so apt.

    I still talk to strong Democrats (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:27:05 AM EST
    who rant and rave about the Supreme Court but still think that approving Roberts was the right thing to do. They don't understand that if you give an inch they'll take an Alito.

    Sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by nellre on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    Sometimes actions motivated by fear and those motivated by evil are indistinguishable.

    It just occurred to me that these capitulators are afraid, not for their office, but for their lives.

    Fear (4.00 / 1) (#5)
    by eric on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:41:01 AM EST
    does appear to be a motivating factor.  And it is one that is too easily dismissed in this discussion.  These people are folding way to easily to just dismiss it, imo.  I recall taht there was talk of threats to the Capitol itself just before the Dems caved on the last batch of spying legislation.

    I don't think most of it is a legitimate fear for their actual safety.  Rather, it is the fear that something might happen, even something small that might be exaggerated and spun against them politically.

    And in the back of their minds, there is always that bit of legitimate fear that comes from knowing the lengths that fanatics will go, whether they be from terrorists or this administration.  Remember the anthrax letters?


    I don't think it's fear. I think they actually (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    agree with the FISA leg.

    I agree with masslib (none / 0) (#27)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    I believe it's a combination of fear of losing office in addition to agreement on some issues.

    Do we truly believe (none / 0) (#34)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:00:23 PM EST
    that all in Congress even know everything that's in the bill and the actual consequences?

    I'd be surprised.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:42:34 PM EST
    if they even read the damn thing...they didn't read the Patriot Act before voting that crap into law.

    Yes, Eric..... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    I was just thinking the same thing and remembering the connection...the double connection...between the anthrax scare and the Senate Majority Leader whose office got some of those letters and who also lost his seat in Congress.

    Now here he is...back on 3rd base and hoping Obama will bring him home.


    I don't get the focus on immunity. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:35:34 AM EST
    My understanding is the bill ratifies what Bush was doing all along.  I think we could have used the immunity for a bargaining chip.  The larger issue is ratifying the practice.

    Agreed but immunity is the more (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    easily understood issue.  And it taps into people's pre-existing dislike and resentment of big telcos.

    FISA and the ramifications on the 4th amendment are complicated to explain.  Heck, even the 4th amendment's protections can be hard to explain.

    And there's still a lot of sentiment out there that if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.  Relatively few registered voters have had an actual run-in with the govt because of warrantless spying.  But everyone's had a problem with the phone company at one time or another.

    Personally, if I had to make a choice between the pre 'fixed' FISA and telco immunity, I'd pick FISA.  I want my 4th amendment back.  But hell, the Dems aren't even making that choice, they are caving across the board.


    worse (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    Obamabots fully believe Obama will "change" when he's president.
    But it's doubtful he'll slap the ones that own him, brought him to the dance, and crowned him.

    Not to nitpick (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    but how is the "Obamabots" not baiting?

    I mean, I realize the Clintons are onle here because they deigned to descend boddhisattva-like from a higher plain, drawn by their compassion for all sentient beings, but realistically, other politicians shouldnt be expected to be able to live up to THAT standard.


    Sorry, but you can't really complain (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    about 'Obamabots' if you're going to use phrases like 'deigned to descend boddhisattva-like from a higher plain'.

    A simple request, without sarcasm, is likely to be much more effective.


    Well (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    didnt they?

    I mean, from referencing yours and some of the other
    vestal torchbearers posts, that's the impression I get.


    That's not the point (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    According to your reasoning, those calling his supporters 'Obamabots' could say, with equal validity "didn't they"?

    I mistook your first post as a request for not calling Obama by various nicknames.  I was mistaken, your comment was meant as an opportunity to show off your sarcasm, or work through your anger, or anything but a request.  So be it.  I'll let your post speak for itself.


    Maybe all (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:48:14 PM EST
    of the above AND a request that the stated standard of no toleration for drive-bys at HRC be applied evenhandedly.

    Btw, Obviously "Obamabot" isnt directed at Obama himself; wouldnt you agree?


    I call them "SOSs" (none / 0) (#61)
    by Fabian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:57:54 PM EST


    It's as accurate and as inoffensive as I can make it.


    Obama's enablers could care less (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by OxyCon on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM EST
    Just as Bush before him had his enablers, Obama has quite a large constituency of enablers who will "rationalize" everything he says and does, even if they unwittingly have to go against everything they used to stand for.
    It's happening now, all across the blogosphere.

    absolutely! (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    and Obamabots are claiming the Repubs are using FISA to divide the Dems. ha!
    The Repubs didn't force Rockefeller and other Dems to accept a zillion campaign donations from the telecoms.
    And the Repubs didn't force Pelosi and Reid to bring the FISA bill to the floors.

    absolutely! (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:47:43 PM EST
    And Rethug trollbots never get around (probobly due to time and space limitations) to mentioning how willfully caught up in the same corrupt system that requires candidates constantly solicite infusions of cash, "Pops" McCain and his pals are.

    the difference is - (none / 0) (#54)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    Repubs haven't scooped up campaign donations from "the people" by railing about Bush's spying.
    But Obama has.

    Same with impeachment - Kucinich and Wexler garner campaign donations by railing about Bush crimes. But they endorsed Obama, the ONLY Dem to state Bush and Cheney HAVE NOT committed impeachable offenses!


    No they scoop up (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 04:01:52 PM EST
    campaign contributions from slimey, over charging war contractors and oil industry racketeers who are allowed to hide their profits offshore during a time of "national crisis" when we're all supposed to be pulling together. Then there's the donations they they get scaring the hell out of everyone and convincing them that we NEED to be spying on everyone and his uncle.This is of course after that masterpiece they pulled of several years back in which the p.r campaign was to convince everyone that
    I-raq was fixin' to attack.

    sorta like Obama's PR campaign (none / 0) (#62)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:50:22 AM EST
    that Hillary was eeeevil!! but Obama was so pure.

    It shouldn't be ratified at all (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jb64 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    But apparently its what the head of the party wants, so it will happen. If a constitutional lawyer won't fight for the 4th amendment, who will?

    constitutional lawyer (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM EST
    It seems that term is popping up more and more. And it is overblown. He was a professor teaching - not a goto guy on interpreting the constitution itself. Not even a guy arguing constitutional law in a courtroom.

    He was just another professor teaching a class. Noting more, nothing less.

    His actions of late show what regard he has for the constitution. Greenwald has pointed that out. others? Crickets.


    ..actually wasn't his titile (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by smott on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    ...senior lecturer or am I remembering that particular embellishment incorrectly?.....

    I believe you are correct (none / 0) (#39)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    My mistake. I must admit though that I never invested a minute to see what he was exactly as it really did not mean that much to me.

    Lecturer - professor, matters not, which was the point of my post.


    He was a lecturer (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    on Civil Rights under the Constitution. It's amazing to me that these myths, e.g., he was a Professor of Constitutional Law persist, even among us most highly educated.

    Yes, but even the University of Chicago (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    came out with a statement that they considered him a Professor :) Maybe it's a Chicago-thing.

    Wasn't that (none / 0) (#59)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    professor with a small "P"?  Isn't a lecturer a particular type of professor?  (Usually adjuncts, not full time, not tenured, etc.)

    Fear or Kabuki Theater (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    Various explanations have been put forward on why the Democrats are willing to barter away our Constitutional rights. Fear of looking weak on terrorist, to protect Dem pols who knew about the Domestic spying and went along or in exchange for domestic goodies tacked on to the latest Iraq supplementatl.

    What I haven't really seen is a full court press by a united Democratic party to convince the American people that opposition really protects their interests. Had the Dems put the same effort into selling an opposition position that they did in defeating the last assualt on Social Security they could have won this argument and recent polls do not favor telecom immunity.

    We do know that this bill did not need to go to vote prior to the election. Had the Democrats wanted to kick this can down the road it was in their power to do so. I'm beginning to think that the Dems are doing exactly what they want to do on this issue. Iraq and FISA has been a great marketing tool for the Dems in solicitation of funds and I am beginning to believe that the they are unwilling to relinquish the additional powers that Bush established during his administration.  

    This is my feeling exactly. They (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    are not capitulating.  This is where they stand.  Also, I sort of feel bad for those voters and bloggers out there that believe we are on the cusp of a new age of passivism.  We are not.

    There's been no (none / 0) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    "press" at all -- full court or otherwise. Why are Dems so convinced that they cannot communicate their positions effectively to voters, even when the voters are listening so intently and when polls show a majority opposed to telecom immunity?

    The only reason I can come up with (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    is that they do not want to win this argument. That for whatever reason they want this to go through every bit as much as Bush and the Republicans do.

    In times like these (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    partisanship and fighting and holding to account are what we need - not unity and reaching across the aisle and appeasement and moving past hthe insults.
    In looking for a nominee for our party I was looking for some fire in the belly, some sense of self and some sense of justice and....partisanship. Because reaching across the aisle to crooks and never punishing or even calling attention to their transgressions.

    sorry (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    hit post before finishing the thought. But you know what it is.

    Not punishing and not saying out loud that the king is naked allows them to just push it further next time.

    If I don't call out my kids and dole out consequences I am doomed to more bad behavior.


    Capitulators are not afraid (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    for their lives -- you can hardly say that about John Murtha, whatever you may think of some of the others.

    Some of them, like Jane Harman, are rightly afraid about their complicity in Bush-Cheney crimes being exposed.

    Most of the 105 capitulators, however, are fearful of offending the corporate lobbying interests, particularly when telecom companies have such influence over the news media (through cable television). This has nothing to do with the voters, except in a few isolated districts (certainly not, for example, in Pelosi's, Hoyer's, Clyburn's or Emmanuel's). If they were really concerned about the terrorists, they simply would have extended the PAA orders until 2009 when a new Administration and Congress could take up FISA "reform" with real hearings and actual Executive Branch cooperation.

    I find it incredibly depressing that we have a Party Leadership perfectly happy to "get tough" with Hillary and Bill Clinton and with the Democratic primary voters of Florida and Michigan but who remain ever ready to cut a deal with an incredibly unpopular President whose current claim to fame is his competition with James Buchanan for "Worst Ever".

    In my judgment, the most important reason we need to be rid of them is not their cravenness, as bad as it is, but rather their cluelessness about the proper exercise of political power. They not only appear weak and spineless to us, but to their opponents and more disinterested observers as well. The Republicans succeeded in running Jim Wright and Danny Rostenkowski out of town, and we're now stuck with the likes of Pelosi and Hoyer. I'm surprised Pelosi's Maryland d'Alessandro relatives haven't disowned her.

    Why we fight - indeed (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    "That is why we fight - on FISA, on Iraq funding, on Roberts and Alito, on habeas, on torture. Someday some might get a clue. In the meantime, we continue the to fight."

    Which makes me wonder why any Democrat would support Obama.  Supporting Obama further entrenches those Democrats responsible for the above transgressions.

    Obama, on FISA, Iraq War funding, Roberts and Alito, is part of the problem not the solution.

    Supporting him sends the message that it's perfectly acceptable to cave in to GOP policy, to GOP demands. In fact Obama has said as much in his campaign of unity and post-partisanship.

    Fighting back is ill served by verifying the leadership's choice.  It's time to say NO.

    We're fighting and we're being vocal (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    but to what effect?  Over and over and over we have contacted these representatives, with little more than token response.  I watched Jane Harman speak in the House on Friday, and she started out saying that she had gotten phone calls and e-mails and faxes from thousands of constituents who were urging that she not give in on this bill.  And then she did the Pelosi Pivot - and announced that she had to choose between what her constituents were asking her to do and what she believed was best for the country - as false a choice as there ever was, and one that made her consituents out to be know-nothings - so, of course, she was voting for the bill.

    As if.
    I think we are at the point where the response from too many in Congress seems to be, "yeah, so?  What are you gonna do about it?"

    How do we fight?  With our checkbooks?  No problem - there's always a corporation to make up the difference.  With our votes?  Yeah, sure.  What if they held an election and no one showed up?  Maybe all ballots need to have "None of the above" in every category - now, there's an idea that could have a real message.

    Term limits, public financing and districting that doesn't protect incumbents, so that good people could have a real chance to make a real difference.  

    Preview (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:26:52 PM EST
    only works when one uses it...

    The "As if" was supposed to be at the end...

    Must be time for lunch.


    Can't agree (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:37:29 PM EST
    Term limits will only make matters worse.  

    Serving a couple of terms in Congress will only turn those positions into items on a resume and getting a posh job in industry or other commerce is an end that wouldn't be served by a progressive record in Congress.

    Lobbyists are already powerful on Capitol Hill, term limits would make them ALL powerful.

    I believe that term limits are also a lazy and haphazard approach to citizenship, the mistaken belief that eliminating experience and the protection of incumbency will somehow produce good results.  Citizens must look carefully at candidates and exercise some judgement and that requires real effort. We haven't been doing a very good job of this lately (look at the Democratic nominee for proof) but imposing term limits will only make matters worse.

    NO, it would give them a reason (none / 0) (#58)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 06:12:36 PM EST
    to  further please lobbyists whom they would be working for after they were term limited out of office. And it would give the newbies a good reason to seek advice on how to get things done in the legislature from those same lobbyists since there would be no elder statesmen as mentors.  

    Impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    That is why Dennis Kucinich is fighting, whether or not it is politically correct to do so.  I say we should support him.  Let's tilt at windmills if necessary.  No one else is standing up and fighting.  You give this administration carte blanche and it may take decades to regain democracy.

    War crimes trials (none / 0) (#41)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    strike me as being a far more compelling alternative to impeachment -- you don't need the votes of 17 Republican senators to get a conviction, and the guilty go to prison.

    I seriously doubt, however, that President Obama's Justice Department will bring such prosecutions, even though there is already plenty of evidence of war crimes (particularly torture) in the public domain and there is no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the US District Courts to hear such cases against Bush, Cheney et al. after January 20, 2009. Holding Republicans accountable is so divisive and polarizing. To be fair, I'm not sure that a President Hillary Clinton's Justice Department would have pursued these cases either -- Bill Clinton notoriously "turned the page" on the Iran-Contra scandals (and the Republicans duly repaid him with reciprocal "comity", as we all know).


    Two things, Henry... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:48:35 PM EST
    One...I'm not sure it was Bill Clinton who 'notoriously turned the page' on Iran-Contra...I think that was his Democratic congress who disappeared into oblivion anyway, two short years into Clinton's first term.

    And two...re war crimes.  I don't think any Americans in or out of government have the stomach or the guts to take the Bush clique to court in this country...but after they are out of office, I wouldn't recommend traveling to countries who can charge them with war crimes and take 'em to The Hague.

    I'm hoping their arrogance risks it and I hope it happens.  Put 'em in the dock, I say.  Hope I live to see it.


    The first President Bush (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    turned the page on prosecution of Iran-Contra when he issued blanket pardons just before leaving office. But Congress could have investigated to get to the truth but chose not to. I agree, the blame for dropping the ball should not go on Bill Clinton on this one, but rather on Congress.

    I think you've said it more succinctly (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by HenryFTP on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 05:01:32 PM EST
    than I could:

    I don't think any Americans in or out of government have the stomach or the guts to take the Bush clique to court in this country

    It is a sad day indeed for our democratic republic when we shrug our shoulders and say that some other country should take up the cause of liberty and freedom and hold Americans accountable for heinous crimes that we took a leading role in putting on the statute books and setting as a standard for the world.

    These crimes have been committed in our name, and we are all accountable for them. If we refuse to punish the perpetrators ourselves, then the world will be entitled to hold us collectively responsible.

    I agree with you about Bill Clinton, but I didn't want to suggest that Obama would "go along to get along" without noting that Bill Clinton chose not to use the Presidential bully pulpit to point out the outrageous insider Washington steam-cleaning and whitewashing of Iran-Contra. Obama would do well to remember how insider Washington repaid Clinton for his forbearance.


    What I can't reconcile is (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    "Pols are pols" with "Why We Fight".

    If pols are pols, then Obama will (as he has done) say anything to get the nomination, then anything to get win the election.  Then anything to get re-elected.  That's what pols do, promise the moon and the stars during the campaign, and then do whatever they damn please once in office.  If Obama and the rest are just going to ignore the polls on FISA and telco immunity and the strong constituent reaction, then what does fighting even mean?  

    What good does it do to agree with Greenwald if in the end, Obama (or whomever) still gets your vote?  Why would any politician ever defy corporate money, or their own interests, or the power inherent in the 'fixed' FISA if in the end the fight does them no damage?

    Bush didn't budge an inch on any substantive issue in the last 8 years no matter how low his approval rating fell, no matter how many bloggers criticized him, no matter how critical the media became, no matter how the public turned against his agendas.

    As far as I can see, all the efforts at calling and writing on this particular issue has done is maybe made them alter their rhetoric a bit.  Is that why the fight?

    If pols are pols, then why fight at all?

    Unity my A@@ (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    When was the last time that the Republican's showed any effort at compromise on their issues? It's always the Democrat's that seem to have to "compromise" their values to avoid a confrontation. That why I have such a tough time accepting this new 50 state strategy.

    Why Change a Winning Strategy? (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 01:55:57 PM EST
    The Democrats are positioned to win in November because they have repeatedly lost elections to Republicans or allowed elections to be stolen from them with very little protest and then by giving in to every GOP demand.  Because the Democrats have caved, the GOP has been able to alienate the country by enacting its policies.  Thus, it is through the brilliant strategy of being weak and pathetic that Democrats are in a position to not lose the election this November.  

    The only thing the Democrats have going for them is that they aren't Republicans. Of course, to keep this advantage, they have to vote like Republicans.  But, hey, at least if Democrats win their corporate backers will get Government $ instead of the GOP backers and isn't that what the American political system is all about these days?

    The audacity of the republicans (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    seems to strike a cord with many. Combine it with a dose of the stern fatherly figure  and you come away with uncritical, unthinking sheep. Sheep who believe that Sadaam had WMD, torture is as American as Apple Pie and Fox is THE source for news.
    Seems that most of the battle is undoing the garbage they feed us day in and day out. It's frustrating and it's difficult, but it's not something we can turn our backs on.

    If the new FISA legislation passes as is ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:54:07 AM EST
    how can its constitutionality be challenged in court?

    My reading of the Bill seems to make such a challenge nigh impossible.

    But I'm not a lawyer.  Is there something I'm missing here?

    due process clause? (none / 0) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    The immunity thing might be seen as preventing due process.

    But I'm not a lawyer...


    I meant how do you get ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 02:20:35 PM EST
    a court to hear the case?

    The current bill seems to prevent such a possibility.


    Responsibility vs. Grievance (none / 0) (#20)
    by 1jane on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:58:58 AM EST
    Senator was described as a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitutionat the Harvard Law Review. While he was president of the Harvard Law Review his focus seemed to be on personal responsibility rather than grievance based.