"I’m obsessed, but don’t really know what to say, about the torture bill passing the Senate."

I'd suggest following the lead of the rest of the lefty blogosphere and blaming Democrats for the GOP's insanity and misleadership.

-----

As to your actual point, I'm opposed to Hillary's candidacy for a wide variety of reasons, but it really would be satisfying to elect a woman president so future generations won't be subject to the kind of thinking that produced this NYT piece.

"the vilest piece of legislation ever."

You have a rather "interesting" reading of history...

"Know what that means? It means the mid-terms are a joke."

That's the spirt! If the Republicans enact bad legislation, Democrats should concede the next elections so there can be more Republicans to enact more bad legislation.

"God help you all you sad bastards."

Fuck off, all you infantile idiots.

Hmmm... Throwing out the Geneva Convention, 800 years of Habeas Corpus, tearing up the bill of rights, abandoning judicial review and congressional oversight, giving the President the unilateral authority without limitation or restriction to abduct any person inside or outside America, citizen or not, to hold them indefinitely without trial, to keep their captivity secret, to deny access to judge or lawyer, to use 'evidence' obtained from torture in prosecution, to torture as the President sees fit, all at the Presidents will and whim, without any possibility of oversight or remedy or any supervision whatsoever.

It's a recipe for Chile or Argentina or any other dictatorship. It gives the President the right to simply make anyone disappear. Possibly to make lots of people disappear. The only limit being the Presidents own willingness or reluctance to use this power.

So yes, the vilest piece of legislation in American history. Other countries, doubtless, have had uglier. I can think of a view. But this really is the bottom of the barrel for America.

Now get over it.

That's the spirt! If the Republicans enact bad legislation, Democrats should concede the next elections so there can be more Republicans to enact more bad legislation.

Numbers tell the story, bub.

This was the vilest and most offensive and untenable piece of legislation in American history, and certainly in Bush's career.

And it came out at a time when the Presidents unpopularity was at record lows, members of his own party were running away from him, where Iraq and Afghanistan are twin disasters, where the economy is wobbly, gas prices are in flux, the housing boom is slowly going bust, where there are record deficits, and the medicare blunder is rotting in full view.

In short, the President has never ever been so weak.

And you know what? Forty Democratic House reps and Twelve Democratic Senators voted for this license to tyranny.

Think about that. The President should have been as weak as a kitten. What the hell was he doing pushing a bill that was both lunatic and immoral. Overturning both the Geneva Convention and the Magna Carta??? Think of the Chutzpah. And to do that at this time!!!

Not only did he do it, but he got it. And to add insult to injury, he got Forty and Twelve Democrats.

Now, you think about those Forty and Twelve Democrats who supported Bush in the vilest piece of legislation while he was at his weakest.

Think about that. You figure that if the Democrats manage to win either or both House and Senate, they'll magically have a conversion, like on the Road to Damascus. They'll see the light and they'll fight the right?

What do you base that on? Seriously. Explain it to me. Show me that is going to happen. Show me how it is going to happen. I'm here on my knees begging to be persuaded. Because the way it looks right now is incredibly bleak.

The way it looks is that even if the Democrats pull twenty seats in the house, or seven seats in the Senate, Bush is still going to have his Forty and Twelve.

The Forty and Twelve that rolled over and gave him what he wanted, even when they didn't have to. Even when giving it was immoral, offensive, lunatic, dangerous. Even when it overturned the Geneva Convention. Even when it shredded 800 years of the most basic civil right - habeas.

So, assume the happiest goddammed case, and the Republicans are swept out of their majorities in the Senate and the House.

And the Democrats are going to grow a spine? That would be nice. I'd like that.

But that Forty and Twelve are still there, in Bush's pocket. So there will be no subpoenas. There will be no investigations. There will be no challenge.

Bush goes from full majorities in both houses, to Reaganesque *working* majorities in one or both houses. And he just keeps on, pushing his agenda, doing whatever he wants.

Explain to me how that won't happen. Tell me about those conversions on the road to Damascus that are just waiting to happen.

It's not just the Republicans that enacted the bad legislation, Petey. It was the Democrats too. Not all of them. But enough of them belong to the other side that they can neuter the rest of the Democrats, and they can keep on giving it all to Bush.

So what's the answer. When are they going to wake up? Why should they? And how do you overcome them.

So the House not only has to win almost twenty seats to get a majority, and then they've got to gain another forty seats to overcome the drag of Turncoat Dems. 60 seats in the house, Petey. How likely does that strike you.

So the Senate, the Democrats need to win seven seats to get their majority, and another twelve to balance out the Turncoat Dems. That's nineteen. There's only 18 Republican seats up for grabs.

Look guy, I'm not unreasonable here. 3/4 of the House Democrats and 2/3 of the Senate Democrats did the right thing, took the right stand.

Sure, they stayed out of the debate. They took a pass. They hid. They ducked and covered. They ran like cowards. They mishandled the game completely, like first year tyros. But hell, I'll overlook that. Everyone makes a few mistakes, right. Drop a ball or two, you're still in the game.

When push came to shove, they showed up, however reluctantly, and did the right thing.

But what about that Twelve and Forty. That One third and One Quarter that crossed over to the Dark Side when the Sith Lord Bush was at his weakest and when is demands were most outrageous? What about them, Petey?

So go ahead. Play the game. Elect as many Democrats as you possibly can. Bush's Twelve and Forty will still be there.

How can the Democrats function as a party when that Twelve and Forty are within the walls, throwing bricks through the windows, siding with the enemy, undercutting every position.

Taken a look at Iraq lately? Remind me, do the Democrats have a coherent party position on that? No? Why not? Do the Democrats have a coherent position on anything? Nope? I wonder why? Maybe its from trying to accommodate that Twelve and Forty. The Republicans march in lockstep, and every Democratic effort dissolves into chaos. Ever wonder why? The Democrats can't get their act together enough to run a party line vote on torture?

Now, here's the thing about hope. Accept no substitutes. That false artificial stuff is packed with preservatives, but it's got no foundations, and it'll give you cancer. There's no nutrition in it, you'll waste away. Accept only the real thing, real hope.

What is it that they say in Missouri? Show me.

Show me.

Kudos Valdon!

One thing I didn't notice though, and that's the delegation of power to the biggest Dick in the US through executive order...

I know, small item, but nonetheless quite important.

~OGD~

Good job petey ... At least you refrained from going here...

~OGD~

This story points out exactly why Hillary is going to have such a difficult time winning in 2008. Instead of focusing on her issues, or her vision for America, we will all be treated to wall to wall coverage of her marriage. Do she and Bill ever have dinner together? Do they talk? Does she forgive him? Has he forgiven her for her affair with Vince Foster? (Note I don't have a clue if she ever had an affair with Vince Foster, but the Nancy Grace wing of cable news is convinced.) The campaign will be one long soap opera. Are you ready?

Ron Byers

JohnW1141

The Clinton/Pirro article by Leslie Eaton and Mike McIntire
"looks a lot like an echo of"....... Anne Coulter.

JohnW1141

The answer to questions # 1 and 2: Simple, they're Bush republicans.

I don't know about #3, but consider this; look at what the Bush republicans do to their political opposites and maybe to the press, look at Bush's record vis a vis the "rule of law." Its not a large leap to imagine seeing Americans that disagree with Bush being taken in the middle of the night, turned over to the military, and held incommunicado for years. All Bush has to do is declare someone an enemy combatant. And remember this, the Supreme Court ruling in Hamden giving US citizens certain rights in this "war on terror" was decided before Alito got there, and according to Knight-Ridder who did a story on Alito; more often than not Alito came down on the side of power and authority over the individual

JohnW1141

You do what the right wingers do, you zero in on Democrats that vote with Bush and indict the whole party. Riddle me this Valdron: Why do you ignore those that voted against Bush?

Sure. Worse than the Alien and Sedition Acts. Worse than legislation enabling fucking slavery. Worse than some of the abominable legislation surrounding WW I.

Yep. Worse. I thought about that. It really is worse than the WWI legislation, in its wholesale cleansing of critical judicial remedy. Those pieces of legislation did not authorize torture, nor did they corrupt the judicial process beyond recognition. No question, they were bad. This is worse.

The WWI legislation was also the product of an earlier time, lacking a century of further evolution in both American and International human rights standards, and during the midst of a genuine major war, the second bloodiest and most wide ranging conflict to afflict the planet. So there's a marked contextual difference.

Legislation enabling slavery, the Jim Crow laws, and the various pieces of legislation enabling genocide of the Indians are also all pretty egregious. It's nauseating to even contemplate comparisons. But they were, contextually normative creatures of their time, and their appalling effects were confined to segments of the population, without wholesale gutting of the constitution. So this is worse.

But frankly, its not a debate I really want to have. If you say its the second worst piece of legislation in American history, fine with me. Or fourth worse, or seventh. In the top ten of absolute worst. Whatever Dude, feel free to argue that. Your previous contenders for the vileness awards are decades, even centuries old.

However, your strenuous efforts to blame the crimes of the Bush administration on Democrats is not "interesting". It is vile and sleazy.

Nope, the crimes of the Bush administration are the crimes of the Bush administration. No question.

On the other hand, twelve and forty Democrats have turned out to be accessories and accomplices to those crimes.

I'm perfectly willing to argue that the Democrats are, or should be, the good guys, and that the Republicans are the bad guys.

But how do you expect the good guys to win when 1/3 of them are working for the bad guys.

The NYT has a reporter, Anne Kornbluth who had to have two editorial corrections made as she was covering Hillary. Once for legitimizing a poorly referenced hit job book put out by a wingnut publishing house. The second correction was for stating that Hillary was attacking Democrats during a speech that she gave in Little Rock. In actuality, Hillary was bashing the GOP. Despite the two corrections, I later saw Ms. Kornbluth as a political commentator on a Fox News show with Brett Hume and Fred Barnes. I don't know if this was a one time situation or a frequent occurrence.
The NYT also published the "Where's Waldo" story regarding how much time the Clintons spent together which concluded that their together time did not differ much from that of other Congressional couples. The Pirro comparison is poor "journalism" similar to the National Enquirer, but par for the course for NYT.
Regarding the torure bill, the hope is the Democrats elected to Congress on a platform of change will alter the dynamics and make crazy wingnut legislation more difficult to pass. Hopefully the Supreme Court may put the breaks on the torure bill (Scalia and Thomas, not withstanding)
The new Congressmen may also provide some cover for weak-kneed Democratic Party members who can say that a "particular piece of legislation was going to pass/be defeated despite my vote."
I am dismayed by those Democratic party members who voted for the torture bill, but sending more wingnuts into the mix doesn't seem to be a real solution.
If the MSM remains a stenography pool and weak-kneed Democrats arguing for bipartisanship (meaning whatever GW wants) dominate, then the ballgame is over. More Dems elected for change seems the only option.
If not, third party anybody?

...liberal blogs have been surprisingly good...

Please. Keep reality out of this.

petey made his mind up about the liberal blogosphere years ago (right around the time he was banned from dailykos, is my guess).

Let's not try and change that now.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Notwithstanding the fact that "look like an echo" is an astoundingly ridiculous phrase, it is a bit over the top to call it "one of the great weasel phrases of modern journalism."  I for one cannot recall ever seeing it before, and I've been a regular newspaper reader for 25 years.  Furthermore, the rebuttal Mark Schmitt launches into to discredit the offending phrase takes swats at claims the original Times story doesn't make.  The only point the article was making was that the Pirros and the Clintons are both power couples whose marriages don't make sense to a lot of outside observers.  That Hillary Clinton and Jeanine Pirro have put up with the public humiliations associated with being married to philandering husbands in order to further their careers.  That comparison seems pretty apt to me.

Finally, no blog is complete these days without the ritual swipe at those within the mainstream media who have recently lamented the rise of blogging.  The argument seems to be, "Look at this egregious mistake these arrogant MSM types make all the time.  How dare they criticize the blogosphere?" 

This seems to me to be a completely ridiculous argument (as is the notion that all blogs can be lampooned as some kid with acne riffing in his basement).  The NYT and other similar papers - regardless of political orientation - are a high-quality product.  The amazing thing is that there are not more errors in a typical day's worth of articles.  The fact that some errors still happen is not evidence that they're no better than the blogs, but rather that at the end of the day, the paper is edited by humans and humans make mistakes.  The blogs make many more mistakes per word published, but you don't notice them because you expect what you read in a blog to be a raw product.  Furthermore, any particularly egregious errors are typically corrected pretty quickly.

Why is it so hard for both traditional journalists and bloggers to accept that both media outlets are valuable for the things they do.  Without the MSM, blogging would be a hell of a lot harder.  Someone has to go out and pound shoe leather to get stories.  And the blogs provide a valuable check on mainstream journalism given their ability to harness the knowledge of many people.  Stop the useless sniping.  It's getting boring.

JohnW1141

This is, arguably, "the vilest piece of legislation passed in American history." The 40 and 12 Democrats that voted for it should be condemned. I condemn the legislation and those that voted for it. However, I think you're on overload in your assessment of the 40 and 12. Apart from this "vile" piece of legislation I doubt if these 52 people are closet Bush sycophants hiding out in the halls of Congress just waiting to side with Bush as you 'seem' to make them out to be.You're doing the same thing another poster here is doing, you're indicting the whole party for the actions of a few, except when you don't, as when you finally gave credit to the 3/4 House and 2/3 Senate Dems.

I thoroughly disagree with your insinuation that though the 40 and 12 'still being there' if the Dems take Congress, gives the Bush gang an automatic pass on investigations, subpoenas and challenges. That's pure nonsense. Your post is a mix of articulate well thought out and informed opinion and emotional baseless assertion. Dump the emotion and stick to what you do best.

Yep. This is exactly right -- the news media will not be able to resist... 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

JohnW1141

I'm ambivalent about Hillary running for President, but I constantly hear "she can't get elected." Why not? Will the right wing attack her more than any other Democrat running? Will they attack her more than they attacked Kerry? If someone else gets the nomination, will the right wing say; 'well, it isn't Hillary so we'll take it easier on this guy/girl'?

I remember the same thing being said about Howard Dean, "he can't get elected." I always suspected this was put out by Rove
because Rove feared a Dean candidacy. Maybe Dean's record didn't have much they could attack? What can they say about Hillary?

Maybe I'm ambivalent about a Hillary candidacy because I hear so often "she can't get elected"?

It's not about the right -- it's about the left.

Her disapprovals are very high, and some of that even comes from the Democratic party.

Her stands against flag burning and video games, for me, displays a lack of understanding about her base, as well as an overt effort of pandering for votes. Really, they're not important issues right now.

All that said -- I'm keeping my mind open about her, still. She's seemed to have injected some new life in herself in these last few months, and she seems to get that it's all about Iraq, and not these "values" issues that no one cares about right now. I also like that she's hired Peter Daou, not just because it's an effort to understand a growing part of her base (or, maybe it's just "pandering"? We'll see...), but because he seems to be a bright guy, and her willingness to surround herself with bright people is telling. (Unlike Joe Lieberman, for example. His people seem not-so-bright...the $15.95 a month web site, for example.)

But your point about the upcoming attacks on whomever we run -- it's spot on. If we must talk about unelectability, let's focus on ourselves, and not what the right is going to hit us with.

Anyone we run is going to be pinned to Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, they'll be called the "third most liberal Senator," they'll be called a liberal. Hell, if we ran Ben Nelson, he'd be painted a liberal by the right.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

To Brad The Dad
I dont think anyone is calling for the end of the NYT. Maybe one person's criticism is another person's sniping. Yes we do use MSM to get our info either in print,TV, radio and online. MSM dominates. There is a concern that among the MSM leaders there is a herd mentality. One a person has been characterized as fitting a certain script, it's difficult to break out of it. That is the power of the MSM.
For example did Al Gore say he created the internet. No. He talked of spear-heading legislation that led to the creation of the internet. The public perception aided by the MSM was that he was 1)Full of himself (or fecal material) or 2) A liar.
John McCain is riding the straight-shooter express BUT he went from criticizing Falwell to appearing at Liberty University. He disagrees with torture, but supports the current bill. McCain is a courageous guy. A Democratic party member doing the same thing would be a flip-flopper or accused of just being political.
There are certain patterns that some see coming from MSM. It appears to be bias. JohnW1141 puts his finger on the problem is Al Gore a liar, or was the perception formed by MSM. Did Clinton make valid points in his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox, or did he just lose it as most MSM outlets reported?
Where does criticism end and sniping begin?

Well, it all comes down to how we interpret the actions and conduct of the Forty and Twelve.

Is this a single abberation, or is it a sign that this group is compromised, some more than others, some wholely, some redeemable, but all.

The problem is that there are a significant number of Democrats who are not reliable, not trustworthy and who seem to work from time to time, for the other side.

Maybe I was unclear -- that wasn't a call for petey to leave. I agree with you, I'd like him to stay.

It's actually all about his language. He's so contemptuous of many (you're right, I shouldn't have said "we" or "all") of us here. And this isn't the first time -- the language he used I think well represents his tone in most of his posts, certainly when he gets going on why the netroots and liberals are so wrong.

I'm just wondering how he can lower himself to speak with us, and why?

That's the point I was trying to make. Tone, not substance. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I disagree with Valdron wholeheartedly.

After McCain signed on, there was no way that this bill was going to fail. I cannot condemn anyone for a vote that has no practical effect. They ARE all politicians after all. (That's what you get for living in a democracy.) I assume that those voting for the bill figured they'd get smeared for encouraging terrorists in their next election, and the "moral" as opposed to practical weight of their vote wasn't worth it.

Purists don't get elected in a 2-party system. If you want to be governed by purists, ...

Permanent War Room for Democrats
ooh ooh a permanent war room for Democrats YES.
(Well --- when they retire Rove, we will consider phasing ours out.)
Meanwhile, we need a War Room now. NOW.

Let’s set up Guidelines, then find some volunteers to run it.
(We will have to make sure Trolls are ruthlessly banned.)

# 1 Do not let Karl frame the argument, whatever that is at the moment. (expose Straw man arguments, ridicule slogans, etc. ... need fast response doing so)

#2 Use Karl’s tactic of turning any candidate’s strength into a perceived weakness.

3. Use Karl’s technique on Karl.
For starters: he is threatening us with an October Surprise.
Turn that threat into something that is undermining the security
of this country.

4. If everyone -- maybe right here on this thread-- thought of statements that turn his threat of an October Surprise into a perceived disaster for Republicans if Karl uses it,maybe he will have to stuff it. Or if he does use it, it will blow up in his face.

Karl knows what this promised October Surprise is. Using it as a threat is the tactic of a bully:( a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate). Isn’t that the goal of a terrorist ?

OK. That’s my input. Any more ideas?

In my opinion the triage won't work either. I'll bet that the October surprise will be a general decline and lack of interest in this election among people who might have voted Dem. If you are one of the masses of Americans who get their news solely from the TV, papers and NPR your only conclusion can be that the Republicans are strong - and right - and the Dems are weak. That's because - to the vast wishy-washy middle - if this really was a big Constitutional issue then wouldn't the Democrats (at least) have done more than vote for the Bill or essentially aquiece to it. How can you complain about Bush if you vote for the very worst stuff he dishes up? Exactly what is there to complain about? And, if nothing, then why vote for a Democrat?

And, with 1/3 of Dem senators voting with Bush what do they get? They get told they are weak on defense. Talk about taking it where the sun don't shine.

It's over.

Geraldine Ferraro is a mor eapt comparison since her non-politican husband also committed Tax fraud.

Other than having affairs there is no comparison between Bill Clinton and Pirro. One is a several term Governor and two term President, the other is an apparantly mobbed up lawyer.

What complete nonsense. You sound as unhinged as the wingnuts who see liberal bias behind every sentence. Sorry, but Occam's Razor applies here.

Yes, it applies here, but not in the way you applied it. Any explanation of this preposterously gratuitous reference to the Clintons would also have to explain why a Times article a few months back was so desperate to tar Hillary with Bill's current behavior that it had to use a tabloid publication as a direct source. I think that bears repeating. The New York Times -- the so-called newspaper of record -- used a baseless story from a tabloid publication as a source in order to bash two Democrats! Put that disgraceful story alongside this latest gratuitous potshot, add Occam's Razor, and one appears to have a newspaper that is going to pound the Bill's-infidelity angle every chance it gets, just as in 2004 it pounded the "John Kerry asked 'Who doesn't like NASCAR?'" angle until the Times finally conceded - oops - there was actually no record of Kerry ever posing such a question.

"Bias" is a straw man here. The MSM perceives that its job is to heap contempt on Democratic politicians while relentlessly pushing GOP talking points and excusing/ignoring the GOP's misdeeds. "Bias" per se has positively nothing to do with the media's behavior.

Our presidential system of government allows a president to legally usurp far too much power. If he is secure in his humanity, our republic can survive fairly well in tact.

If, however, the character of the individual is seriously flawed, as it is in the case of Mr. Bush whose battles with his private demons determine how he governs, the power that he is able to legally usurp under our form of government can and will destroy this republic.

The tragedy today is that the only check on Mr. Bush's madness lies at the doors of a congress unable or unwilling to exercise its constitutional duty and remove him from office.

It is naive to believe that further revelations of his flawed governance will not be revealed and , more ominous, that further disastrous decisions by Mr. Bush before his term in office expires are not a foregone conclusion.

"And it's pretty simple: both Jeanine Pirro and Hillary Clinton are smart, ambitious politicians who have had to overcome highly public embarrassments brought on by their husbands." Nice, reassuring formula for how the game works. GOP goes on a witch hunt. The existence of the witch hunt becomes the news, with equal weight to actual criminal conduct, and the media loves it. It works every time, too. It not only keeps Brad happy, but it governs smear campaigns or just judgments about "character" as well as conduct, like an affair, that we can agree is wrong while quarreling over relevancy. That's also why it matters not to buy Brad's line: it's not just about sex. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

I disagree. IMHO the NYT is a great newspaper, but too many of their staff have been stung by accusations they are "liberal" and so they go overboard to be "evenhanded."

Like, in an article about GOP get-tough ads containing lies, they will mention Dem get-tough ads (which happen to contain truths).

www.dailyhowler.com is the best source on this.

OK fine, if the objection is that mentioning the Clintons in the same breath as the Pirros is inherently asserting a false equivalence between the two men's misdeeds, then I can see the point.  I just read it differently.  Ther ARE some superficial similarities between the two couples.  Both men have publicly embarrassed their wives and the wives have stuck with them nonetheless.  That's it.

Where's the evidence that Bush battles with his private demons? Looks more like he's riding them for all they are worth.

Petey, I see your point. There's hyperbole here, and you rightly point out it out. But hyperbole is ALL IT IS, not trolling. No-one's trying to blame Bush's acts on the Dems - but people are, rightly, showing how a (sadly large) section of Democrats are enabling Bush.

The tragedy is all of us are so close here to a United Front. The Democratic Party is America's best - and only - chance. We all know it. All citizens concerned for this country's future should work for Democratic victory in every election.

But there are too many Dems who vote for quasi-fascist crap like this Act, for whatever reason. They hurt the Democratic brand and should either be whipped into line by the party leadership, or replaced in primaries by the party rank-and-file.

Can I also say this. Petey and Valdron are both credits to this site. Both are intelligent controversialists. They both talk a lot of sense, but sometimes this is obscured by the snarkiness of their posts. However, neither deserves zero ratings. If other commenters disagree, they should post in response, not troll-rate.

You might be interested to note that Petey actually gave my comment a 4.

People have to stop making excuses for these people. Out of 12 traitor Dems, only two of them could claim to be in close races, and they were both located in liberal/progressive blue states, they were both leading, and they were in the middle of a Democratic surge and record levels of Bush unpopularity, and unpopularity for the wars on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are no excuses.

Democratic House members who voted in favor:

Robert Andrews, John Barrow, Melissa Bean, Sanford Bishop, Dan Boren, Leonard Boswell, Allen Boyd, Sherrod Brown, Ben Chandler, Bud Cramer, Henry Cuellar, Lincoln Davis, Artur Davis, Chet Edwards, Bob Etheridge, Harold Ford, Bart Gordon, Stephanie Herseth, Brian Higgins, Tim Holden, Jim Marshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, Charles Melancon, Michael Michaud, Dennis Moore, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, Mike Ross, John Salazar, David Scott, John Spratt, John Tanner, Gene Taylor

Details:
http://tinyurl.com/n9cgj

Valrdon:

I cannot argue with your logic or feelings about this. They are my own. I couldn't believe how easily this poison pill was slid down our throats, even without the benefit of a gulp or glass of water. And so fucking quickly!

I will say this about your electoral math, however, and the role of traitor Dems--and this is NOT to give them any excuse whatsoever--but merely to prognosticate about what could happen if the Dems retake either house, if only by a slight margin.

When a party is in control, it has the power to hold hearings. It has greater power to enforce party discipline. Members have more power to get things for their states or districts. And the like. They have greater motivation to remain unified. And this kind of unity-- not based on courage or conviction or principle to be sure but on old fashioned politics--could make it much harder for Bush than your math suggests.

Let me say this more broadly. There's that well-known book called, What's The Matter With Kansas? There should be a book--and we've all been trying to "write" it, or at least outline the theme in various ways--called What's The Matter With The Democrats?

The answer is this: The Dems were too long in the majority. Their point of view--The Deal/Great Society--was simply the accepted wisdom, and only a few crackpot rightwingers ever disputed it. Now, they are in the minority, or just even at best. Their point of view is derided as ineffectual or even anti-American.

They aren't used to this position and don't know how to wield power as a streetfighting minority. The Republicans were in the wilderness for decades...and learned to fight from a minority position. And loss after loss honed their anger and their political skills.

One lesson Dems could learn from the Republicans is: Figure out your principles and stick with them through thick, thin, loss, and defeat until, eventually, you start winning.

The flip side is, the Republicans never learned to govern--only how to say "nyet"--and we can see the disastrous results all around us.

Woodrow Wilson - Campaign Slogan: "He kept us out of the war."

Franklin Delano Roosevelt - Campaign Slogan: "He kept us out of the war."

Jimmy Carter - No question.

George W. Bush - Campaign statements, "I don't believe in nation building," and "I believe in a humble foreign policy."

Care to retract that assertion of yours?

All of these guys, except for Carter, subsequently led us into wars, great and disastrous as it happens. But the point was, all of them campaigned as Doves.

In particular, Bush for all the wanton violence of his foreign policy, when he campaigned, was basically a Dove. Remember that he was campaigning against Clinton's record, which included strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan, violation of Pakistan's airspace, the Bosnian war, Operation Desert Eagle, an intervention in Haiti and attempts to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Somali and sticking on in Somalia for a full six months after Blackhawk Down. Clinton's record was so muscular that Bush had no choice but to be a Dove.

I'd also give semi-honours to Nixon, who campaigned against the Vietnam war with a secret plan to get us all out of it (which apparently seemed to be to hand the country over to the NVA).

I'm pretty sure that if I looked around a bit more, I could find other guys who arguably campaigned as Doves.

For instance, Warren G. Harding's campaign 'return to normalcy' could be seen as a call to dovishiness. His campaign was basically a repudiation of the war fever that WWI had engendered and a renewed isolationism, that was a part with the United States absenting itself from the league of nations.

But I think I've made my point.

Americans, before the act of national castration that was the fall of the twin towers, generally felt that they could protect themselves. They were often cynical or skeptical of governments which tended to get involved in foreign wars to no great effect, but at substantial cost to American lives and American treasury. You will recall that there has not been an attack by a foreign country on the continental United States since the war of 1812. That's 194 years of 'not needing protection.'

I think that your comment, while sincere, is an indication of how persuasive the Republicans have been with their deep seated hysteria, and how deeply the military industrial complex has insinuated itself into American society.

I sincerely, devotedly, strongly wish that this were true.

I will say this about your electoral math, however, and the role of traitor Dems--and this is NOT to give them any excuse whatsoever--but merely to prognosticate about what could happen if the Dems retake either house, if only by a slight margin.

When a party is in control, it has the power to hold hearings. It has greater power to enforce party discipline. Members have more power to get things for their states or districts. And the like. They have greater motivation to remain unified. And this kind of unity-- not based on courage or conviction or principle to be sure but on old fashioned politics--could make it much harder for Bush than your math suggests.

But it probably isn't. I can cite two historical precedents which suggest that you are wrong, and badly so.

First, there are the Reagan 'working majorities' which I have referred to. Reagan, despite Democratic control of one or both houses, was consistently able to peel off more than enough Democratic voters to implement his Agenda. And what an Agenda it was, tax cuts, budget deficits, runaway military spending, a war against labour unions, a war against central America.

Even in the most egregious situation of misconduct, caught red handed, exposed internationally - Iran-Contra... The Democratic Congress's performance was timid in the extreme. Yes, they held hearings, yes some underlings were disgraced. But they shied away from impeachment over treason. The Republicans did not shy from impeachment over a blow job. It speaks to courage that the Democrats lacked.

And what did we find instead: Excuses. Americans didn't want another impeachment. Give Reagan what he wants. It was sad.

The second and more distressing precedent is a recent one. The period from 2000 to 2002, following Jim Jeffords defection and before the mid-term elections.

During this period, the Senate Democrats held a slight, but clear majority. The standings were 50/49/1. The evidence is that if they win, their majority may be no better than that. But it was a majority.

Nevertheless, the Senate Democrats passed 'no child left behind', the PATRIOT Act (unread), the Homeland Security Act, Bush's gargantuan tax cuts, his gargantuan defense budget, and his gargantuan deficits.

In short, they did nothing to obstruct his Agenda, and actively facilitated it. They shrank from every challenge. They did not use their subpoena power, their committee chairmanships, and they did not contest endless crony and judicial appointments.

Now, of course, there are excuses. There was the tradition of bipartisanship... yep. That tradition had been ended by Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist. The Democrats had already had a taste of a Republican controlled Senate before Jeffords defected. They had ample opportunities to observe how the house was run. There's being bipartisan, and there's being suicidally stupid.

There was the honeymoon period. But let's be serious. The Republicans had waged dirty war for eight years against the Clinton administration, and had won through an election in Florida that frankly stank. So there was no grounds for a honeymoon period. That's just an excuse for not doing their jobs.

And of course, there was 9/11 and Bush's skyrocketing polls. But there are two problems here. First, the Democrats were caving in well before 9/11. Second, the Democrats had an entire year, and never once even tried. They didn't exercise their subpoena power, they held no hearings or commissions. Immediately after Pearl Harbour, the Republicans were holding hearings. The Democrats simply did not. They dropped the ball.

All of which suggests to me that we are looking at excuses for inaction.

So, given this history, why shouldn't we assume that a Democratic win in either or both the House and Senate will simply result in more excuses. We'll hear all the good reasons why they can't enforce party discipline or go after Bush.

Indeed, we're hearing excuses now for the failure to control Lieberman or his supporters. Lieberman has committed a final betrayal of the party by refusing to accept its rules, and by running against the Democratic candidate. But he still has his seniority... The reason? "if" he gets re-elected, and "if" the Democrats win a bare majority, then he might be mad. Ouch. And what about those Senate Democrats, who are betraying their party by supporting Lieberman's run? Nothing. Not even criticism. Simply excuses. There's no will to even pretend to enforce.

Your theory that party control of the Congress will give the Democrats tools to control the wayward members is compelling. But I see no historical justification for it. And I see no willpower in the existing house or Senate to use those tools.

And the party 'levers of power' to use against traitor dems, even in a majority situation, may simply be overrated. Certainly their money, in terms of corporate funding, draws them closer to alliance with the Republicans. And the sheer money involved and required for campaigning overcomes any counterweight that Party discipline might pose.

For these reasons, I remain unpersuaded that without confronting the traitor Dems, a Democratic majority in the House or Senate will be largely meaningless. There is simply no historical evidence to suggest that holding a bare majority will enable them to grow a spine.

We must accept the possibility that all a Democratic win in the House or Senate will really mean is a few more perks and a few extra dollars for a handful of Democrats. Committee chairmanships, personal advantages.

But it will mean absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things, because the Democrats are unwilling or unable to control their own traitors, or to truly confront Bush.

Dear Valdron:

All good points.

Let me think about this.

Thanks for going easy on me. I'm obviously feeling my way here.

"when he gets going on why ... liberals are so wrong."

Fuck you, cscs. I'm a proud lefty liberal, as I know you're quite aware. That's the reason I object to the sliming of Democrats that has become popular in these comment threads.

"I'm just wondering how he can lower himself to speak with us, and why?"

I spend far less time here than I used to. I'm sure the place is better for my absence.

"You do what the right wingers do, you zero in on Democrats that vote with Bush and indict the whole party. Riddle me this Valdron: Why do you ignore those that voted against Bush?"

Because Valdron believes in blaming Democrats first.

I can well imagine. It must be easier for you to accomplish your "work" when there are fewer folks around to hit back at your sliming of the Democratic Party right before an election.

The upcoming mid-term elections are a joke precisely because of those twelve traitor Dems.

Suppose the Democrats win eight seats in the Senate and win a majority.

Bush can still count on his twelve traitor Dems. Twelve senators who have voted to give him the powers of a dictator, powers to torture and shred both the Geneva Convention and the Bill of rights. They voted to give him these powers when he was weakest.

Now, these twelve Senate Democrats who supported torture have been accused by some with the claim that they have to safeguard their electoral prospects. In short, they're forced to support torture for fear of being accused of being weak on terrorism.

My post was all about how this simply doesn't wash. They're not in danger. Six of them aren't even up for re-election. Of the six who are, half of them are rock solid with huge 20 to 40 point leads over their rivals. So for most of them, there was simply no threat, no danger. They weren't risking anything by voting against torture. They simply wanted to vote for torture.

The remainder of semi-close races all take place in Blue states where a torture vote might actually hurt them. So in a sense, they've voluntarily assumed a political risk by voting as they did.

What this means is that their excuse doesn't work. They didn't have to do it. They chose to do it, even at risk to themselves. They are in Bush's pocket.

Which means that even in a Dem controlled Senate, these Traitor Dems mean that Bush remains in control.

You hope that a victory in the mid-terms, Petey, will bring about a revolution. Or at least some accountability.

What it will bring about is endless excuses on the part of the Dems why they still cannot stand up to Bush.

The real reason that they cannot stand up to Bush is Traitor Dems. And the Democrats are unwilling to confront the issue of Traitor Dems.

Until the Democratic Party gets its act together, its not going to succeed. It'll piss away every victory.

That's just the way it is.

I would put this right up on a par with the alien and sedition acts. Under this legislaiton, the defendant need say -nothing- and can never challenge the terms of his confinement. So it's up there.

And slavery--no, it's not as bad as slavery. What an accomplishment.