Which party wears red?



I worked for a populist Senator who shied from using the word "fight."

I thought that was a stupid choice. That man is no longer a Senator.

Democrats need to brand themselves as the party that fights the robber barons.

Then, more importantly, Democrats need to FIGHT the robber barons.

Americans are a gloriously violent people. We respect fighters. Afterall, we introduced ourselves to the world by going guerrilla on The British Empire. We were only six years old when Jefferson sicced the marines on Tripoli. Hell, we committed genocide. (Which is a bad thing).

Be a fighter. Fight hard and play by the Chicago rules.

What's the point of the Democratic Party? I know that technically its job is to get Democrats elected to office. But what of it?

What is the point if Democrats don't use the power that they gain in holding office?

What is the point if Democrats give their power away?

What is the point if Democrats let themselves get played for suckers over and over again in the most predictable ways.

Salon.com: Democratic leadership: not just complicit but also self-destructive

The signs are unmistakably clear that what was always inevitable -- full compliance by the House Democratic leadership with Bush's demands on warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- is now imminent. House leaders spent the week floating their specific proposals for how they intend to comply in full, and yesterday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes went on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, refused to criticize the President or the Senate FISA bill, and repeatedly and meekly expressed his willingness "this week" to give what he called full "blanket immunity" to telecoms (C&L has the video of Reyes' astoundingly weak and incoherent answers in response to Blitzer's Bush-mimicking questions).

What is the point of feigning that you object to a single party government when all you do is help an Executive who thinks he is King.

What is the point of taking the flak that comes from the right wing when you refuse to cave, the threats that Democrats are making us less safe every day they delay -- when you have no intention of keeping up the fight?

What is the point of that when you just give in?

Do they think Republicans won't attack them for stalling?  Now that they've caved entirely, they're admitting that Bush was right and that they were putting America at risk by not letting George W. 19% illegally spy on citizens.

Republicans WILL attack them.  That's what Republicans do.  They consolidate power and use it for the purpose of the party's ideology and to continue it's health. 

If Democrats merely help Republicans do what Republicans want to do, then what is the point of the Democrats?

Democrats don't enforce their oversight powers. Even when the opposition has admitted to committing crimes. 
Democrats instead grant even more power to the lawbreaking Executive. Indeed, doing the very opposite of oversight, they grant retroactive immunity to the criminals for the crimes they committed.

And at the end of the day the Democrats will be attacked for not having completely caved fast enough.

What is the point of the Democratic Party?

Last week Attorney General Mukasey told Democrats to stick their subpoenas up their asses. And the response is, "Here's some more power."  What is the point of the Democratic Party.

Lead. Or Resign.

Above: Things with more spine than Harry Reid.

I know Thomas Paine and, to a lesser extent, Thomas Young have already addressed today's FISA votes, but I can't let today's insanity pass without comment.

First, let's take a moment and reflect on where we are today. Glenn Greenwald puts the slow legalization of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, first revealed in Decemer 2005, in stark terms:

To be sure, achieving this took some time. When Bill Frist was running the Senate and Pat Roberts was in charge of the Intelligence Committee, Bush and Cheney couldn't get this done (the same FISA and amnesty bill that the Senate will pass today stalled in the 2006 Senate). They had to wait until the Senate belonged (nominally) to Harry Reid and, more importantly, Jay Rockefeller was installed as Committee Chairman, and then -- and only then -- were they able to push the Senate to bequeath to them and their lawbreaking allies full-scale protection from investigation and immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking.

Think about that for a moment. The Democratic Senate is about to give the Bush administration something that a Republican Senate was not able to do.

What, in the name of all that is holy, could possibly explain this spineless, cowardly behavior?

Here's Our Fearful Majority Leader Harry Reid, putting forth the word to his caucus that shit's heading south and he's getting the fuck out of the way:

If, as appears likely, none of the amendments to strike or modify the provisions of the bill concerning retroactive immunity are adopted, we expect Sen. Reid to oppose cloture and oppose final passage of the bill.

He probably think that is a statement of leadership, that he is calling his caucus to stand with him. Via press release. This is some profoundly weak tea. To borrow the word's of Jesse Lacey, I've seen more spine on jelly fish and I've seen more guts in eleven year old kids.

The definition of insanity, per Benjamin Franklin, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Harry Reid has repeatedly brought up legislation in contravention to his stated wishes for the policy course of the US government. On Iraq funding he allows weak-kneed suggestions for withdrawal to receive primacy over legislation with his (evidently worthless) name on it which sets a firm time table. On FISA, he says he opposes retroactive immunity, but puts forward a bill and a legislative course that guarantees immunity will pass. Either he thinks the rest of the Senate is going to magically over rule his procedural decisions and give him what he actually wants (but hasn't pushed for) or he simply doesn't want what he says he wants, what the Democratic base wants. In either event, the same behavior is not producing different results and Reid needs to drink a double espresso, pop a few NoDoze, and wake the fuck up.

Some people have argued that the Senate Democrats have Battered Wife Syndrome, in denial that their colleagues across the aisle don't share the same love for civil liberties and the rule of law that they do. Others think they might have Stockholm Syndrome, so used to being beaten by the GOP that they identify with the Republicans and seek to join them in their efforts. The reality is that the level of stupidity and ingrain failure is so high, one can only assume that Senate Democrats have a mental defect, courtesy of poor genes. Perhaps Down Syndrome is the best explanation, then, for the failures of Senate Democrats to do their jobs and defeat Republican efforts to shred the Constitution. Going a step further, I'd hazard that some Senate Dems were so captivated by the fun times the GOP was having with their paper shredder and the Constitution, that they rushed over to partake in the production of pretty confetti.

It occurs to me that it is both insensitive and politically incorrect to describe our cowardly Democrats as having Down Syndrome. I'd like to immediately extend an apology to the community of people with Down Syndrome. You are far better, smarter people than the Senate Democrats and I regret comparing you to them.

This is beyond pathetic. This is assuring the destruction of our Republic.

By which I mean the Republican party. The Republican party of Lincoln. I've given up on the Democrats. There is no Democratic party.

Governments like ours work when factions operate in their own self interest - when the self-checking branches of government provide oversight on each other, or when political tribes draw differences and push against each other.

It's only in pushing against each other that there is balance.

You can't blame the modern GOP for trying to control every branch of government and put as much power as possible into the hands of their political operation any more than you can blame Franklin Delano Roosevelt for going ballistic on the Supreme Court in 1937 threatening to appoint 6 young liberals in what was called the most grave Constitutional Crisis of the 20th Century in order to push through the parts of New Deal they deemed unconstitutional.

Democrats don't have a unified principle that they can push back from anymore. To be a Democrat is simple - it is simply in their political interest to avoid being called names by Rush Limbaugh. If they can achieve that, then their political concerns is secure.

There is no Democratic Party in Congress. There are a slim majority of Congressmen and Senators who have banded together in order to gather money. They're not even very much concerned with gathering power and influence.

But they are most certainly not using any of the resources that they are gathering to benefit the groups and causes who worked to put them in power in the first place.

Republicans know this, and they will use this knowledge to pass the bills that they feel the country needs. This is why 2007 was such a horrible legislative year for the progressive movement - and why 2008 will be no better for progressives.

Democrats don't push back. Democrats don't fight for their rights. As legislators they gave away their power of oversight. As Executives they gave away their right to set an agenda.

The progressive movement needs a party. A party that acts out of principle since this is how progressives operate.

Since, Democrats no longer operate anchored in a principle of any sort (Anything, fucking something, whatever - Civil Liberties... Rule of Law... whatever, it really doesn't fucking matter. Name a cause, guys - anything) they are not the party for progressives.

I would have an easier time convincing Republicans, who are comfortable with the idea of fighting on behalf of a core set of principles, that they need to change their principles than I would with Democrats, who are incapable of fighting on behalf of core principles anyway.

I'm too enraged to write anything thought provoking or witty. The leadership of the Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, cowardly, weak, feckless, cowardly asshats, who all need to be primaried until they die. When they retire from the Senate, we need to primary their retirements. When they die and go to Purgatory (they are too milquetoast, feckless, traitorous and weak to justify their special place in hell, and they sure as shit aren't getting into heaven), I want to primary them there too. Make their lives miserable for all eternity. Seriously, this is beyond pathetic.

How many people failed? The little field where I select who is in the way on my blog form ran out of room before I could add everyone. That's how spectacularly our leadership has failed.

The only thing left to do on this issue is sign the petition over at FDL and pray that the house actually stands up and leads. Of course, that will happen when I start shooting my writing quills out of my nipples, but whatever.

Matt Browner Hamlin has all the gory details on todays spectacular failure of leadership. May God have mercy on their souls.

I should add that Feingold and Dodd were the only ones to rise up and take a stand on this issue in any significant way. (Obama voted the right direction, but never brought it the attention it deserved, which in his position as a candidate he had the ability to really do.) So kudos to them for behaving like Senators instead of little scared children.

In Plato's Republic, the question is put to Socrates, "Who will watch the watchers?" or, "Who will protect us against the protectors?"

Today there were more Senate votes seeking an answer to that ancient question. Here are a few notables:

• (Dem) Russ Feingold's S 3913: Prohibits the government from getting around FISA's court order requirement by wiretapping an individual overseas when it is really only listening in on a person in the U.S. with whom that "supposed foreign target" is communicating.

  Aim: Watches the watchers. Failed: 38-57.
  (Democrats voting nay - Inouye, Pryor and Salazar [Lieberman])

• (D) Feingold's S 3915: gives the FISA Court discretion to impose restrictions on the use of information about Americans that is acquired through procedures later determined to be illegal by the FISA court.

  Aim: Watches the watchers. Failed: 40-56
  (Democrats voting nay - Rockefeller, Johnson, Bayh, Inouye, Pryor and Landrieu [Lieberman])

• (R) Kit Bond's S 3941: Extends from 30 to 90 days the window of time that wiretaps can continue without any ruling from FISA court before the telecoms can petition for removal of the tap.

  Aim: Give the watchers more power.  Passes: by voice vote.

• (D) Ben Cardin's: 3920 To modify the sunset provision from 6 years to 4 so that the next president can amend, and so FISA can keep up with technology.

  Aim: Watch the watchers. Failed: 48-46 [needed 61 to override the GOP defacto filibuster]
  (Clinton not voting)

Plato's answer to this is that "They will guard themselves against themselves. We must tell the guardians a noble lie. The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is therefore their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege, they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it."

Plato was overly naive. That's why a system of separation of powers, checks and balances, was devised.

That mechanism ended in America under this President Bush and this generation of Democrats.

Shame.

Yesterday, when the Democratic Senators rose to speak on behalf of their amendments it was clear which of the speakers were men and which were clowns mice.

Chuck Schumer took his 10 minutes, asked that it be increased to 12 minutes because he had so much to say. This was interesting, we thought, maybe he's catching some of the passion that millions of Americans are trying to imbue into the Democratic caucus. Defending the Constitution, rejecting a criminal Administration, restoring checks and balances, protecting the rule of law, yes, this is something to feel passionate about!

Schumer then said that if he doesn't need all 12 minutes, then roll minutes over to his colleague. Whatever, get to it! And then, Schumer, on his feet in the middle of a debate over Bush's perversion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, introduced a resolution to praise a football team. He used over half of his time talking about sports. This Equals Clown.

Conversely, here is what Russ Feingold said of the issue:

How has the debate overall come to be framed so incorrectly, as you suggest?
One reason is that there’s been an inadequate response to the Bush-Cheney scare tactics. They’ve been successful every time—in the Iraq War, with the Patriot Act—[in saying] “If we’re not given these powers immediately, we will be attacked.” These are bogus claims. The problem is with many people, including Democrats, who fail to stand up and say, “We feel just as strongly as you do. And we don’t want you invading our privacy without any court review.”
Supporters of the PAA say that if these calls and e-mails were subject to the regular FISA court, it would take hundreds of lawyer and analyst hours to prepare them for the appropriate review.
Listen, a criticism like that just shows no understanding of what’s going on here. Every time a foreign conversation runs through a transmitter in L.A., there was an archaic technicality in the law that would require individualized warrants [in order for the government to intercept them]. We all said, fine, we agree with changing that, but in cases when the program ends up impacting Americans, there has to be some oversight.
What’s the status of your amendments? It’s been suggested that in the consent agreement to allow debate, Republicans are allowing straight majority votes only on amendments they know will fail—including yours.
We’re trying to make a record here, and to show who voted for what. My prediction is this thing will go through; it will be challenged and go through the courts. And eventually a Supreme Court with something like seven Republican-appointed judges will strike down the worst parts of it. This is a long-term battle to protect the rights of the American people.
In the modern political climate you’re more likely to hear about amnesty with respect to undocumented workers than you are about the amnesty for the phone and Internet companies who helped the government break the law before the act was passed.
Oh, I think there’s tremendous feeling that there’s a problem here. In some ways I think it goes deeper than immigration. People see their own personal liberties affected. And we’ve seen that the telecom immunity does offend people. People may be nervous about giving a free pass [on immigration]. But what’s gonna bother them even more are the types of things I’m describing here: the level to which their privacy is being subjected to a “trust me” government that impacts their daily freedom and privacy. It really is disturbing to people with any kind of common sense at all.
from Newsweek, via the CREDOblog

Feingold: The problem is with many people, including Democrats, who fail to stand up and say, “We feel just as strongly as you do. And we don’t want you invading our privacy without any court review.”

Yes. Those people are the problem.

NOBODY thinks that the problem with Schumer is that he fails to stand up and say that the New York Giants won a game, hip hip hooray. Give me G. Give me an I. Give me a A. ...No.

Give me a real Senator.

I would have written on this subject sooner, but I've spent the last three days vomiting blood and stomach acid in response to the utterly disgraceful result of FISA negotiations that came forward Friday. I've just returned from having my teeth re-enameled by my dentist and will now attempt to think about what Harry Reid has wrought without causing further bodily harm to myself.

Late last week we found out that the Democratic leadership had brokered a deal with the Republican leadership that would allow a slate of amendments to be voted on. The deal determined what the timing of debate on each amendment would be, as well as how many votes would be required to pass. Further, it set forth a loose calendar for when the Senate would debate and vote on these amendments.

The normally very sharp McJoan at Daily Kos was triumphant when describing the agreement in a post titled "FISA Fight: Dems didn't cave!" Everybody dance! Yet, just because you say it doesn't make it true.

First, this can't be about caving or not caving. Is it possible to cave when the legislation you're working with already prevents you from winning? I mean, how much lower could we go than having the SSCI bill as the underlying bill? Adding retroactive immunity provisions that also cut billion dollar checks for the telecom companies, or perhaps adding a provision that would require all Americans to reverse the peep-hole on their front doors to ensure government agents can always look in on what we're up to in the privacy of our own homes would have been a bad outcome of the negotiations in the Senate. But that's just not what this was about.

I'll come back to how we were fucked from word go by Harry Reid in a moment.

Second, one of the areas that Dems are purported to have held strong was in the vote thresholds for key amendments. Amendments on retroactive immunity, sequestration, bulk collection, reverse targeting, and substitution all will require 51 votes to pass. Amendments on minimization, exclusivity, and a four year sunset require 60 votes. All well and good if you think the goal is getting up or down votes, period. But the GOP gave us simple majority on areas that they know we won't come close to winning. They're not conceding anything and we're not gaining anything. They did not cave because they had already won; we didn't not cave because it just doesn't matter. The areas that we have a chance of getting 51 votes were, without fail, bumped to 60 vote requirements. In short, the vote totals are set in such a way that we can't count on passing on damned amendment to make this bill better.

Third, the debate in the Senate started today. Some voting may start tonight, but the majority of the votes will be held tomorrow, on February 5th. Super Fucking Tuesday. This guarantees that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain will not be there. It also makes it possible that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham will not be in the Senate to vote. That's up to four certain Democratic votes and up to three other potentially good votes.

Even if you contend that the entire Democratic caucus will hold together on all simple majority amendments (which is highly unlikely given Harry Reid's inability to whip the caucus), you've immediately gone from needing one to needing three Republicans to vote with the Democrats for amendments to pass. That is, Mitch McConnell succeeded in making passage of the 51 vote amendments at least three times harder by getting the debate to happen early this week and not later in the week. I have zero clue why Harry Reid would concede this schedule. None. It makes no sense and it assured that we will lose.

The only logical explanation for this timing is that Harry Reid does not want to improve the SSCI bill, that he wants to give Bush and Cheney exactly what they want, to the letter without running the risk of anything being added to the underlying bill that would cause Overlords Bush and Cheney to raise an eyebrow in disapproval.

Lastly, the fundamental problem is the underlying bill. The failure to pass a good bill was cemented when Harry Reid decided to bring the SSCI bill as the underlying bill, as opposed to the better SJC bill or the House RESTORE Act. Once Reid chose the horrendous, Dick Cheney-Approved SSCI bill, the fight was lost. Every single Democratic-offered amendment would have to pass to make the SSCI bill start to resemble the SJC bill -- which isn't going to happen. This raft of amendments, this jubilant "deal" bargained late into the night from the Republicans is a nothing more than a smoke screen needed to obscure a complete failure of Democratic leadership.

Getting up or down votes on some amendments will allow unprincipled Democrats like Reid, Durbin, and Schumer to say, "Hey, we tried and we lost. The votes weren't there for us to do the right thing. What more could we have done?" I say: had you done your jobs, we would have won. Had you cared more about the Constitution than what ads the NRSC might run this fall or what asshats like Bill Kristol or Rich Lowery will say if you had the temerity to play a strong hand, we would have won. Had you done something as simple as making the SJC bill or the RESTORE Act the underlying bill, we would have won.

But you didn't do your jobs and you didn't use your power as leaders of the Democratic caucus to ensure that democratic principles win the day.

The end result is telecoms will get immunity, the President will get more authority, and the American people will have to watch what they say on the phone or write in an email, because they can be sure the government will be listening. Somewhere Ari Fleischer is smiling.

After seven painful years of the Bush administration and their Republican yes-men in Congress shredding the Constitution and abusing every iota of power they have been given to run the government, you would think Democrats would realize that there is nothing more dangerous than giving the Bush administration more power. Anyone who has paid attention knows what they do when they have discretion and no oversight, except the handful of impotent, piddling pushovers we're cursed with at the top of the Democratic Senate leadership.

We haven't officially lost yet, but the Democratic leadership in the Senate has done everything in their power to assure that we will. Worse still, they tried to convince us that they stood strong while the Republicans caved. Where I come from, it's not considered polite to piss on someone's head and tell them it's raining. Apparently people aren't so kind in Searchlight, Nevada.

Right before speaking with the Senate today, Mukasey sent a lawyerly letter to Judiciary Chair Pat Leahy saying essentially, 'You're going to ask me about torture and I'm not going to answer your questions.' ("There are policy initiatives that the department supports that some members of this committee vigorously oppose, and vice versa. There also are situations where the interests of the executive branch and the legislature will be in some tension.")

Which is to say, 'as a member of the executive branch, now, my opinion about laws, as "top law enforcement officer in the land" is not as important as... well, providing cover for the executive branch, which is now my job. btw thanks for that sweet ass confirmation, clowns.'

Leahy reponded, "Attorney General Mukasey knows that this will not end the matter and expects to be asked serious questions at the hearing tomorrow." Oh my stars! Whatsoever shall happen?!

First up, Chuck Schumer who helped Michael Mukasey become Attorney General because Mukasey is from New York, and also because Chuck Schumer is a moron.

Schumer told Mukasey that he is disappointed in him because now that Mukasey is in the Cabinet, he won't stand up to the Bushists when it comes to telling the rest of the Administration that waterboarding is torture and it's "repugnant" and "cruel" (as Mukasey himself called the torture technique in his confirmation hearings where Schumer bounced in his chair and clapped, oh so impressed).

Schumer pouted and said "You have an opportunity here to be something of a leader, and you are going to be asked whether we should pass a law," Schumer begged of Mukasey. In response, Mukasey shrugged and told him that it's not his job as Attorney General to do anything on his own accord.

SCHUMER: I need to tell you how profoundly, in this particular situation, I disagree with you.

MUKASEY: I'm happy to hear that I lived up to expectations. I'm very sorry to hear that I lived down to them.

And with that, Schumer stopped the pursuit. Because Schumer is a moron and a coward. Come on! Asking a former judge to render a legal opinion based on a policy/political preference is a stupid line of questioning.

Waterboarding isn't repugnant, it's torture. A better line of questioning would hew to establishing that illegality. Based not on public policy--the province of the legislative branch, not the enforcement powers of the executive---but on legal precedent.

Biden fucked up in the same way, drilling down into the Nichomachean ethics of torture. Like anybody cares that Biden when to Catholic school and learned latin. To Biden's stupid questions, Mukasey said the DOJ would have to "balance the value of doing something (torture) against the cost of doing it." Cost? "I mean the heinousness of doing it, the cruelty of doing it, balanced against the value.... balanced against the information you might get."  Information "that couldn't be used to save lives," he explained, would be of less value.

What this reveals is that Bush's DOJ has concluded that waterboarding is necessary and therefore must be not considered torture, so also it must not be termed 'cruel treatment' under the Consitution, Common Article 3... even though Mukasey admitted that it was "cruel" when he asked to be confirmed.

Biden responded, "You're the first I've ever heard to say what you just said.... It shocks my conscience a little bit."

Schumer is disappointed. Biden is shocked.  Big surprise, idiots.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who was a United States Attorney, on the other hand understood where all of the previous back and forths failed, he saw the endgame of the argument the Bush Administration was sticking to, and he wouldn't lay off.

WHITEHOUSE: You are the top law enforcement officer of the United States and prosecutors do look back. Prosecutors do investigate things that have happened in the past. They do dredge up the past in order to do justice...Now the president has said that we will investigate, prosecute all acts of torture and you've just said today, "if someone is guilty of violating the laws of the United States," they get prosecuted...There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited if the alleged offender is a national of the United States and a person who conspires to commit an offense under this section is subject to the same penalties other than the penalty of death..." So, we have a statute on point, you are, I believe, the sole prosecuting authority for that statute, correct?

MUKASEY: I am as the top of the Department of Justice, which is the sole prosecuting authority. [...]

When it comes to past conduct, one of the many questions involved in past conduct in addition to what was done, is, what authorizations were given, what authorizations were reasonably relied on. My current evaluation of the statute, if there is one, has only tangentially to do with that because if it has directly to do with that, then the message is, your authorization, you who did whatever you did, your authorization is good only for so long as the tenure of the person who gave it and maybe not even for that long...

WHITEHOUSE The message you send otherwise is that 'I was only following orders' is a fine response.

MUKASEY: It's not a fine response. It was a response at Nuremberg that was found unlawful, we both know. Ummm...

WHITEHOUSE: And yet it's the one that you're crediting right now. 'I had authorization and therefore I'm immune from prosecution.'" Isn't that where that analysis leads?

MUKASEY: No, it's, I had authorization and let's take a look at the authorization. If the circumstances under which it was given and what was done have a whole wide range of variables that I don't have before me.

WHITEHOUSE: Has that been done? Has there been a thorough, independent analysis under your administration of whether or not any national of the United States is potentially in violation of Section 23-40A as the result of...

MUKASEY: I don't, I don't start investigations out of curiosity. I start investigations out of some indication that somebody might have had an improper authorization. I have no such indication now. [...]

WHITEHOUSE I don't see how that resolves the Nuremberg defense problem. If the reason that you're giving us for investigating the destruction of the tapes, but not investigating the underlying interrogation, is that it appears that the interrogators were following orders and it appears that the destroyers were not, isn't that the Nuremberg defense?

MUKASEY: No, because you're assuming what was on the tapes, you're assuming that the interrogation was unlawful...

WHITEHOUSE: I'm not assuming any such thing, anymore than you'd be assuming that the destruction was unlawful. What I'm suggesting is that you should investigate it and there should be at least somebody who at least takes a look at this in a principled, thoughtful way, and if the answer that comes back is, no, there was not a crime and here's why, then we can lay the question to rest. But if you're telling me that this hasn't even been investigated although the destruction of the tapes is being investigated, it strikes me that there is a split standard there and I'm trying to understand why.

War crimes trials, anyone?