We’ve heard this before
By Thoreau
So, I was thinking about the fact that the Dems insist there’s nothing they can do without a two-thirds majority. There are two problems with that sort of talk:
1) Even if they can’t over-ride a veto, they could still just refuse to pass a spending bill for Iraq, NSA spying, and other obscenities. And if a few Democrats refused to go along and tried to vote with the Republicans to get a majority on a spending bill, I’m sure that between filibusters and the procedural powers of the House and Senate majority leaders and committee chairs, Reid and Pelosi could find a way to fix this. If they really wanted to, and if they were prepared to take some risks for the sake of the Republic.
They might not have all the power, but they have enough, if they’re actually willing to do something about this mess.
2) We’ve heard this talk before. Republicans spent decades insisting that they really do want to roll back the scope of the federal government. But first they needed more power. Well, they finally got the Congress, the White House, and the chance to appoint a bunch of judges.
Last I checked, they didn’t exactly decrease the size, scope, or intrusiveness of the federal government.
I’m all in favor of electing Democrats to keep Republicans in check (assuming, of course, that the Dems are actually interested in keeping somebody in check), but when I hear “Oh, there’s nothing we can do to protect American freedom without lots more power”, I realize that we’re being fed the same shit sandwich on a blue plate rather than a red plate.
Comment by someotherdude —
July 24, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Damn, that was deep.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 24, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
I like the plate metaphor. And, mmm, shit sandwich!
Comment by Karen —
July 24, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
This just infuriates me. No party is going to have a 1964-style majority any time soon, and it would be a disaster if one did. Even if said party happened to be the D’s for whom I vote. So, to the D’s in Congress, DO SOMETHING, DAMMIT!!!!
Comment by Dave W. —
July 25, 2007 @ 6:29 am
Last I checked, they didn’t exactly decrease the size, scope, or intrusiveness of the federal government.
The Rs haven’t done a whole lot to restrict abortion either. Which is why a lot of people I know voted for them reliably and for decades. I mean, if you are going to be a single issue voter, shouldn’t you at least be looking to get something on your single issue? Conclusion: ppl are idiots.
Comment by Ultima Ratio —
July 25, 2007 @ 8:05 am
There are a couple of excellent reasons why the Democrats will not start impeachment proceedings:
(1) Political cowardice – they don’t want to risk their seats in case doing the right thing turns out to be unpopular
(2) Opportunism – given the strong odds that the U.S.’s next President will be a Democrat, why start dismantling the Office of the Executive now?
(3) Ideological sympathy. “Whatever happened to the smooth, genteel days of overseas adventurism? Like Clinton in Somalia, man …”
Comment by Ultima Ratio —
July 25, 2007 @ 8:05 am
Impeachment proceedings OR a mere rollback of Iraq troops, I should say.
Comment by socratic_me —
July 25, 2007 @ 8:53 am
I figure it is worth pointing out that the political costs of refusing to pass a military spending bill affect Dems directly but affect the country indirectly. For all the polls show that people don’t like the war, it is probably pretty likely that the electorate wouldn’t follow the situation closely enough to get past the inevitable “You are leaving our boys without supplies” rightwing attack. Sure, blogreaders understand that there is always enough money to bring them home, but the vast majority of America doesn’t know and doesn’t care.
At the end of the day, any plan that brings the boys home but makes it significantly more likely that the Republicans capture the White House and/or regain the majority in the Senate is pyrrhic at best. As such, calling Dems out for not sacrificing themselves on the alter of American indifference to political nuance seems to be shortsighted at best.
Comment by sglover —
July 25, 2007 @ 9:06 am
I might actually believe that, if I could remember ONE instance of a national-level Dem even mentioning that useful factoid. I can’t.
I’m gonna put in some time (and probably money) with Donna Edwards’ primary run, but other than that, “my” Democratic Party doesn’t rate a nickel from me.
Comment by Jeff in Texas —
July 25, 2007 @ 11:32 am
I am very sympathetic to the fear of political backlash that Dems have. But not so sympathetic that I will pretend, as some progressive bloggers seem to want to, that Dems “cannot” defund the war, or any of the other police state bullshit that has been thrown up in the last 6 years. You do not need a veto-proof majority to NOT pass something. I will not pretend that impeachment of Bush, Cheney, and others is not warranted or is a crazy idea(whether Dems could get a conviction in the Senate or not). I will not pretend that the ridiculous show of strongly worded letters when administration officials refuse to show up to give testimony or do show up and then lie to the Senators’ and House members’ faces is not, well, utterly ridiculous and worthless at this point. Hey, we fucking know that Gonzales is lying. NOW WHAT?????
I keep telling people if we don’t have these fights now, we are not going to have them at all. Because I have serious doubts that the Democrats will dismantle the lovely Unitary Executive once it is theirs. I doubt that the presumably Democratic president we have next is going to want to be the gal or guy who “lost the Middle East” by withdrawing from Iraq. It is now or never. Which means never, I am betting.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 25, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
If that were the trade, what’s the great benefit of having change-nothing Blues over us versus getting out of Iraq and having the country run by Reds who’d had their legs kicked out from under them? After all, in a fantasy scenario where half the Blue leadership lost their apparent deluded belief that they can “win” Iraq and thus show up the Reds once they take power, they’d even be willing to do things like actually oppose the Reds and try out that “fillibuster” thingie.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 25, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
I’ve never been fond of the “The other team kicks our butt because of their dumb claims that any idiot could see though – but sadly, we’re mysteriously unable to explain those points to all the idiots,” bit.
Comment by Gary Farber —
July 25, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Factoid:
I’d rather Democrats didn’t try to perpetuate factoids.
Comment by sglover —
July 25, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
I always thought a factoid was a small-ish or “minor” fact: Factoid is to fact as planetoid is to planet.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
July 26, 2007 @ 1:21 am
“oid” means “like” as opposed to “the real thing”. As in “humanoid” or “asteroid”.
Comment by Gary Farber —
July 26, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
As in “resembles, but isn’t.”
This is why I really think Democrats shoulddn’t be selling people falsehoods, nor calling for Democrats to engage in perpetuating “factoids,” or any other sort of falsehoods.
Being careful and precise in our use of language rarely hurts, on the other hand.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 27, 2007 @ 11:34 am
It’s also a convenient dodge from points one would rather not address.
Comment by liberal —
July 28, 2007 @ 4:25 am
socratic_me wrote,
My take on this: a lot of antiwar libertarians (meaning the right-wing variety) keep calling for the Dems to do more. But, were the Dems to incur great political injury after doing so, would said libertarians likely aid the Dems financially?
Yeah, right.
Comment by Charles —
July 28, 2007 @ 11:28 am
H–l, for YEARS I’ve been urging my representatives to chain themselves to the podium or go on a sitdown strike or whatever it takes to shut down that railroad. When they say they can’t do anything, they obviously haven’t examined what people who are genuinely powerless can do if they have the courage of their convictions.