Living in the Future
Things they didn’t teach you in ninth-grade social studies:
Senate rules don’t explicitly provide for a “hold,” but the mechanism dates at least to Lyndon Johnson’s days as majority leader. A hold is basically a way of signaling the intent to filibuster, and by tradition, it can be filed anonymously.
Wow. It’s even easier to block passage of legislation in the Senate than you thought! You don’t even need 40 votes. You just need one guy. The most recent one we know about relates to Republicans trying to stop legislation overturning a bogus executive order about presidential papers.
Not one Democratic Senator appears interested in putting a hold on the latest FISA monstrosity. Not one put a hold on the last one. Not one put a hold on the Military Commissions Act. Clinton could do this. Obama could do this. Dodd could do this. Webb could do this.
Nobody’s doing it. The GOP will use every rule and custom of the Senate to enable the unitary-executive program of unlimited surveillance and official torture. The Democrats will mount only pro forma opposition, and that fitfully. No one puts holds on bills. Nobody buries things in committee. Nobody uses any of the innumerable tricks devised over the centuries to kill legislation with kindness.
If social security was at issue, you can be sure they would leave no trick unturned. But it’s only the rule of law. No biggie.
Comment by Ishikawa —
October 5, 2007 @ 7:40 am
Proving once again that the Dems want the same unitary executive and the powers that go with it for themselves.
But of course, it goes w/o saying, they will only use that power for good and everybody gets a pony.
Right.
Comment by Nell —
October 5, 2007 @ 7:54 am
Agreed; the MCA would have been the ideal time for Feingold to step up.
Anonymous holds absolutely have to go, which requires making more explicit reference to them in Senate rules.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 7:55 am
Proving once again that the Dems want the same unitary executive and the powers that go with it for themselves.
Ummm…no it doesn’t.
I proves that Democrats have a battered wife mentality and inexplicably fear being labelled terrorist appeasers, etc.
It’s political, not ideological.
Now, the practical effect is the same. And I’m not sure that Democrats being a mess of cowards is necessarily better for them.
But to suggest that the Democrats agree with this shit is, I think, a demonstration of paranoia.
If Al Gore was President, or had been President over the past 7 years, this would not have happened. There may have been a PATRIOT ACT, but it would have been watered down with built in due process protections.
Guatnanamo would not have happened. The RAQ WAR would not have happened. And, thus, all of the commensurate probvlems stemming form the Iraq war.
I suspect, under Presdent Gore, what the libertarians would be bitching about would be over the increased encvironmental regulation, and domestic spending.
And, naturally, being libertarians, you’d portray an modet increase in SCHIP as if it were forced collectivization.
Comment by Nell —
October 5, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Just yesterday Obama acted uncharacteristically for him and for Dem Senators in blocking the deal between the two leaders on voting for FEC nominees. The Rs are pushing through a specialist in vote suppression with the cry that “we always vote on FEC nominees as a package”. Um, except when Republicans object, which has happened at least once in the last eight-ten years.
Von Spakowsky on the FEC wouldn’t be the broad and near-irreversible damage of the MCA and the FISA cave-in, but it’s a start.
Comment by Leonard —
October 5, 2007 @ 8:05 am
So you’re saying that even though they can do holds anonymously, they still fail to do them because they have internalized this inexplicable fear? But somehow that is not “agreeing with this shit”? Agreement has many forms.
If not even one Democrat Senator has the balls to anonymously fight against the Bush Security State… then they are not good for much, are they? They may not “agree” with it in some ethereal way… perhaps they confess volubly to their priest. Maybe a few of the more daring ones go on the Net and make anonymous postings on obscure blogs. But they seem to agree with this shit in every way that counts.
Comment by joe strummer —
October 5, 2007 @ 8:17 am
And, naturally, being libertarians, you’d portray an modet increase in SCHIP as if it were forced collectivization.
Yeah. It’s all the libertarians fault for opposing S-CHIP. Dude, pass all the S-CHIP you want, but for god’s sake will someone in the Democratic party stand up for the rule of law?
Comment by IOZ —
October 5, 2007 @ 8:28 am
Yes indeed. The majoritarian party of the 20th Century, which only recently gave us the most popular president in living memory, and which seems inexorably poised to retake the White House as well as both houses of Congress . . . it suffers from a “battered-wife mentality.” It’s like the “Hitler was secretly a Jew” of our times.
Comment by KipEsquire —
October 5, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Good on you, but we already knew this from Senator Sam “Not a Bigot” Brownback single-handedly blocking, for several months earlier this year, the nomination of a federal judge over her having attended (not officiating, but merely attending) a lesbian commitment ceremony.
The pesky fact that Brownback represents Kansas and the appointment was for Michigan did not faze Brownback one bit.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 5, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Hesiod is right, but not for the reasons that he thinks. If Gore had been President for the past several years we would not have experienced the same expansion of the security state. Oh, there would have been some expansion in the wake of 9/11, but not to the extent that we see.
You know why? Because Republicans would be fighting tooth and nail against letting a Democrat do anything, and talking about Black Helicopters and whatnot. And Democrats would be afraid to do so much as place an anonymous hold on the “Funding To Investigate Reports of Transmitters In Dental Implants” Act.
God, do I miss crazy partisan Republicans who reflexively feared the executive branch.
BTW, I made a similar point about Senate rules a few months ago, in regard to the East Germany Restoration Act:
Dems are useless.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 5, 2007 @ 9:26 am
Next on Oprah: Pwned by Their Co-Bloggers!
joe strummer: Come on already! Nobody who reads this blog would petulantly try to excuse Democratic misfeasance on civil liberties and peace issues by pulling some “so’s your old man” stunt about some libertarian on the internet complaining about S-CHIP. Please stick to real arguments made by real people.
What? Holy shit!
Comment by Timothy —
October 5, 2007 @ 9:30 am
I have to agree with Thoreau that the democrats are useless. They, as a party, have no inherent fear of executive power and thusly will let it expand in hopes of taking over. Crazy republicans, on the other hand, fear the democrats having any power at all, so they’ll fight executive expansion as long as there’s a (D) in the Whitehouse. Also, regarding S-CHIP: Hey, that’s not the government’s job, so, you know, S-CHIP can suck it, but on the great list of state-sponsored evils, it’s at most somewhere in the second tier.
Comment by Timn —
October 5, 2007 @ 9:39 am
It’s hardly fear. It’s a much more powerful emotion, love. Of money.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
October 5, 2007 @ 10:20 am
You know why? Because Republicans would be fighting tooth and nail against letting a Democrat do anything, and talking about Black Helicopters and whatnot.
Not exactly. The Republicans have tried to prove that President Gore stood down the Air Force, blocked the Moussaoui investigation and let the anthrax get out of the army base.
Which is why it would have been much better for both freedom and security if Gore has been (s)elected president and the Republicans had controlled Congress on 9/11.
Those who failed to vote for Al Gore in 2000 (myself included) are to blame.
Comment by Anodyne —
October 5, 2007 @ 10:40 am
I found out the hard way that understanding anonymous holds as an informal parliamentary procedure is a bit more complicated than it appears on the surface – unless of course you’re just determined to be outraged, in which case it’s pretty easy
This proposal, which falls under the category of strange bed fellows, might be of interest for anyone interested in a little backstory.
Comment by Barry —
October 5, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Comment by IOZ —
“Yes indeed. The majoritarian party of the 20th Century, which only recently gave us the most popular president in living memory, and which seems inexorably poised to retake the White House as well as both houses of Congress . . . it suffers from a “battered-wife mentality.†It’s like the “Hitler was secretly a Jew†of our times. ”
BTW – anonymity might not be a good assumption, particularly in the era of the Bush NSA.
Also, note how the press treated Clinton. If you told political journalists that he was (and is) more popular than Bush II and Reagan, I’d bet that most of them wouldn’t believe you, because *they* didn’t like him. Considering that those guys are Insiders, and permanent citizens of DC, I don’t think that this would be a coincidence. More and more, I’m assuming that it comes down to Big Money. If the economic elites like Bush’s policies, many senior Democratic leaders and much of the elite mass media will go along.
Comment by Nell —
October 5, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Thanks, Anodyne; that puts some substance around the point I was alluding to in #2.
People here are right to be outraged about the spinelessness of Dems on standing up for the rule of law, but I’m not sure this is the best example of that. Holds might be a useful tool. Anonymous holds are poison to democracy.
Comment by Noumenon —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:01 am
I don’t get Henley’s #10 — who’s the co-blogger? At first I thought the joe strummer: part was a quote, but now I’ve decided it’s the defense Henley would like to make, followed by the “What? Holy shit” realization that he can’t make it because Hesiod really did do that, making it a criticism of Hesiod instead of strummer.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Noumenon: Er, Thoreau?
Comment by Anodyne —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Wekkum, Nell
I confess I’m not particularly put off by or concerned about the use of anonymous holds as a practical tactic or in any symbolic sense. Informal means such as these come and go and come back again in the senate as circumstances seem to warrant.
But I did like some of the seemingly ironic twists and turns over this controversy, which, in this incarnation, has about a 10 year history. Note the activities in 2006 of one of the co-sponsors of the 2003 resolution, which failed to pass, btw. You just can’t make this stuff up. In any event, sometimes it’s better to keep substance and form separated if only for the entertainment value
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:25 am
So you’re saying that even though they can do holds anonymously, they still fail to do them because they have internalized this inexplicable fear? But somehow that is not “agreeing with this shit� Agreement has many forms.
If not even one Democrat Senator has the balls to anonymously fight against the Bush Security State… then they are not good for much, are they? They may not “agree†with it in some ethereal way… perhaps they confess volubly to their priest. Maybe a few of the more daring ones go on the Net and make anonymous postings on obscure blogs. But they seem to agree with this shit in every way that counts.
You are missing the forrest for the individual anonymous trees. Yes, a single Semator could block these things. But, the attacks will rain on the entre Democratic party and members of the Senate. Or so they believe.
In addition, such “holds,” are only effective if there is a credible filibuster threat behind them. Meaning, that it will be imposisble to gain the 60 votes nbecessary for cloture.
The problem is that not enough Democrats have the intestinal fortitude to ultimately back up a hold.
Comment by Tony P. —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:28 am
While you all are speculating about alternate histories of the current millennium, keep this in mind: had Gore been inaugurated in 2001, it’s quite possible that 9/11 would not have happened in the first place.
As for the Democrats-are-useless theme, I am as annoyed as anybody that Dems have not played hardball enough. But let’s keep a sense of perspective here. We need a Congress — or at least those plucky libertarian founders thought so. If Congress is to work, it cannot permanently degenerate into a tit-for-tat they-do-it-too schoolyard dynamic. In the long run, it is much better to change the tone in Congress by voting obstructionist GOPers out of office, than to call for equal obstructionism by the Dems. Note well: you don’t have to replace obstructionist GOPers with Dems, necessarily; you can replace them with better, less brazenly obstructionist Republicans — if you can find any.
– TP
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Yeah. It’s all the libertarians fault for opposing S-CHIP. Dude, pass all the S-CHIP you want, but for god’s sake will someone in the Democratic party stand up for the rule of law?
Nobody’s blaminmg anoyone for blocking S-CHIP (except for Bush, of course).
My point was, that if Al Gore were running things, the “rule of law” would not be under assault and the libertarians here would be bitching about increased greenhouse gas emmissions regulation, the implementation of Kyoto and the expansion of domestic spending programs for things like S-CHIP.
Now, we Democrats bitch about Ralph Nader supporters in Florida who cost Gore the election.
Well, I dare say there were enough libertarian voters in Florida who voted for Bush as the “lesser of two evils,” who can take some blame for this monstrous administration as well.
I guess my point is that you are now lumping the two parrties together in complicity, when in fact the motivations for both parties are entirely different. The Republicans ARE fascists.
The Democrats are weak-kneed cowards who are afraid to stand up for themselves or the constitution unless there is some proven political benefits — or at least no serious political risk — involved.
As I said, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Democratic party.
But, it is a fixable problem where the Democrats are concerened, because we have the power to sway them by demonstrating politcal benefits for doing the right things. It took then a long time to buy into the notion that running AGAINST the war last year would be a polirtcal benefit to them.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Yes indeed. The majoritarian party of the 20th Century, which only recently gave us the most popular president in living memory, and which seems inexorably poised to retake the White House as well as both houses of Congress . . . it suffers from a “battered-wife mentality.†It’s like the “Hitler was secretly a Jew†of our times.
Funny. I thought FDR, JFK, Truman and Lyndon Johnson were all dead. Not to mention George C. Marshal, Dean Acheson etc.
We are talking about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They are small when compared to people such as Tip O’Neill and George Mitchell!
The current Democratic party had been out of power for 12 years on Congress. 12 years. At least half of Congress was elected since 1994.
And, the Democrats have not had a Presidential candidate win a vote majority (other than Al Gore — who lost the lection in the electoral college) since Lyndon Johnson in 1964!
There are many who are trying to give the Democrats a backbone, and who are threatening primary challenges to “Bush Dogs,” but we are being undermined by fools such as you who are equating the two parties, without adequte justification.
We need better Democrats, I agree. But lumping everyone together is not going to help.
Comment by IOZ —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:43 am
“We need better Democrats, I agree. But lumping everyone together is not going to help.”
Dude. Political party. This isn’t Nam, Smokey. There are rules.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Hesiod is right, but not for the reasons that he thinks. If Gore had been President for the past several years we would not have experienced the same expansion of the security state. Oh, there would have been some expansion in the wake of 9/11, but not to the extent that we see.
Actually, we’re both probably right. Gore would not have sought to expand the national security state, much. Nor would he have invaded Iraq. [We KNOW this to be true because he spoke out against the invasion BEFORE we invaded at a time when it was unpopular to do so].
But, Gore would also be opposed on any attempts to do things such as expand the national security state by a recalcitrant GOP Congress.
Maybe.
I tend to think they would still use “national Security” and the alleged “timidity” of Gore to do “something to fight terrists” as a means to beat him in 2004 and to expand their majorities in Congress.
Republicans are fairly predictable.
Trackback by www.buzzflash.net —
October 5, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Living in the Future…
Things they didn’t teach you in ninth-grade social studies: ‘Senate rules don’t explicitly provide for a “hold,†but the mechanism dates at least to Lyndon Johnson’s days as majority leader. A hold is basically a way of signaling the intent …
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 5, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
That is one thing we don’t know.
I mean, sure, at this point I’d take the risk of that historical re-roll. But this is the Gore who was already an enthusiastic supporter of extraordinary rendition. This is the Gore who was in the administration that cheerfully supported (fortunately failed) attempts to pass most of the PATRIOT Act provisions back in the 90s.
I’ll willing to buy that he wasn’t interested in Iraq, but what would he have been interested in after 9/11, especially without that to divide his attention?
We don’t know, and while I’m sure Blue folks will say “global warming, catching all the terrorists while protecting our civil liberties, and giving us ponies”, I don’t have the same touching faith.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
Yeah Eric. And Thomas Jefferson was a libertarian wet dream — until he became President and did wild shit like deploying the US navy to fight barbary coast pirates, and makng the Lousiana purchase without Congressional authorization.
We don’t know what Gore would have done. He could have been another Hitler or Stalin, right? So, that justifies assummig he would act prety much the same way Bush has.
What a crock.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
INcidentally, Gore has spoken out against a lot of the things you are complaining about. And has been doing so for several years now.
Yes, it may be that he would do things differently if he were President. But we can only go by what evidence we have, and that suggests he would not have done the things Bush has done. Not even close.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 5, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
And Thomas Jefferson was a libertarian wet dream — until he became President and did wild shit like deploying the US navy to fight barbary coast pirates, and makng the Lousiana purchase without Congressional authorization.
You’ve just made the case that people who say all the right things can make end-runs around checks and balances. How does that reinforce your case that “Oh, if only the guy who’s said good things while out out of power had been in power it would all be better!”?
Comment by radish —
October 5, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Hesiod, WTF? You’re invoking some sort of Chinese Room to defend the integrity of the Dem Leadership? Doesn’t UO have penalties for mind-reading like ObWi does?
Look, if somebody argued that the PNACers genuinely believed that US hegemony and Pax Am was the best thing for the world in general, and that they’d hold the same beliefs if they were residents of Iran, you’d pee your pants laughing. That’s essentially the kind of argument you’re making here, and if it were accurate (which I do not concede), then you’d just be casting the Dems into the role of the Catholic Centre Party. Faint praise indeed.
If you want to identify and support “better” (presumably meaning non-fascist and non-fascist-enabling) Dems, then at some point you’re going to have to bite the bullet and start lumping the fascists together regardless of their party affiliation or their treatment of puppies and children. Cutting people slack over stuff like that is how you wind up with fascists in charge.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 5, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
No, it justifies not making your reflexive assumption that he could only be far better. But that was a nice way to try to spin it.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 5, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
We could just accept your characterization of Team Blue as accurate, Hesiod. But what is “Support us, we’re cowardly, incompetent, and utterly feckless!” supposed to convince anyone but a Blue to do?
Comment by Barry —
October 5, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Tony: “If Congress is to work, it cannot permanently degenerate into a tit-for-tat they-do-it-too schoolyard dynamic.”
IMHO, that’d be a step up. The current situation is one where a bunch of bullies are running amok, because experience has shown them that bad consequences for their bullying are rare.
“In the long run, it is much better to change the tone in Congress by voting obstructionist GOPers out of office, than to call for equal obstructionism by the Dems. ”
In the long run, this would be better. The short and medium runs are, of course, not the same thing.
Comment by Jon H —
October 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Note that, even without NSA or FBI abuses, hold anonymity isn’t terribly secure.
Didn’t Josh Marshall’s minions recently pin down the issuer of an anonymous hold? (I think it was on lobbying restrictions or ethics rules or similar).
If the person who issues the hold isn’t willing to lie, then it becomes a mere process of elimination – get senators on record with their denials, until you get down to the guy who waffles. There’s only 100, and even fewer if you can assume one party or the other isn’t involved at all.
These being senators, you know damned well there will be no Spartacus moment, so that isn’t a problem.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Is our Democrats learning?
“Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, postponed a press conference announcing new reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after progressive lawmakers banded together and said they would fight any legislation that did not include a set of eight principles on wiretapping that preserve the “rule of law.”
“What’s most significant is that the Progressive Caucus came together and said to the leadership that all 72 of us require that these provisions be included,” said Caroline Fredercikson, Legislative Director for the American Civil Liberties Union. “This changes the dynamic significantly.”
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
We could just accept your characterization of Team Blue as accurate, Hesiod. But what is “Support us, we’re cowardly, incompetent, and utterly feckless!†supposed to convince anyone but a Blue to do?
Instead of saturation bombing the Democratic party as a whole, target your fire on the bad apples who are causing the problem.
That would be a start.
Comment by IOZ —
October 5, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
A few bad apples. Where have I heard that before?
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
A few bad apples. Where have I heard that before?
Where did I say they were only a “few?”
Comment by Anonymo —
October 5, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
If the person who issues the hold isn’t willing to lie
HAHAAHAHAHAHAA
Comment by IOZ —
October 5, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
So, to clarify, Hesiod, you’re telling me that it’s not a few bad actors ruining the Democrats: They’re rotten from the top to the bottom of the barrel, but for a few ripe and lonely fruits? At last, my friend, we agree.
Comment by Hesiod —
October 5, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
So, to clarify, Hesiod, you’re telling me that it’s not a few bad actors ruining the Democrats: They’re rotten from the top to the bottom of the barrel, but for a few ripe and lonely fruits? At last, my friend, we agree.
No. I;m saying that the vast majority of Democrats agree with you on civil liberties, including a majority of those in Congress.
There are, however, just enough of them in Congress who are too afraid to do what we agree is the right thing to do and this — in connjuntion with virtual GOP unanimity — prevents things from being fixed.
However, as the link I provided above shows, that is starting to change.
I know it serves libertarian ends to cast a pox on both their houses. But doing so will only make it harder for Democrats to do the right thing, not easier.
Comment by Tony P. —
October 5, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Barry:
I agree with you that we have to survive short-term in order to reach the long run. My point is that the long run we are trying to reach, namely reasonable comity in Congress, would recede even farther toward the horizon if the Dems succumb to temptation and adopt all the tactics of the GOPers.
A lot depends on the voters, in a democracy. It’s the voters who must ultimately decide to elect Republican politicians who are not tooth-and-nail obstructionists. Alas, you run a democracy with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had. If we have no faith that the electorate will eventually tire of the games GOPers play, then tit-for-tat would be the Dems’ only plausible strategy. But in that case it’s the nation, not just the Congress, that we’re giving up on.
– TP
Comment by Jon H —
October 5, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
Anonymo wrote: “HAHAAHAHAHAHAA”
Yeah, I know, but it’s one of the weird things of Washington. Sometimes they dodge and weave and waffle rather than outright lying from the start.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
October 5, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Yes, it furthers our fiendish plans, or something.
Knowing that a handful of political cranks aren’t happy with them is just another item on the long list of things that saps the Blues’ will to do anything. It’s right between “I just suddenly remembered those bastards canceled Firefly!” and “Aw, man, I stepped in chewing gum.”
I’d say “saturation bombing” wasn’t deserved if the vast majority of diehard Blue fanboys who disapproved weren’t all cringing and making excuses for this. It simply doesn’t matter what the “base” thinks if the pols know they’ll vote for them come Hell or high water. And that’s not even considering the sheer self-delusion that’s out there among anti-war people pinning their hopes on candidates who are Iraq hawks in October 2007.
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 5, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
Speaking of the bastards cancelling Firefly, “Mrs. Reynolds” appeared on *Life* Wednesday night. Apparently playing . . . *Mrs. Reynolds*.
Comment by KCinDC —
October 5, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
According to IMDB, she was on Mad Men, but I haven’t seen any of that. What’s Life?
Comment by Jim Henley —
October 5, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
New oddball cop show on Wed nights.
Comment by Barry —
October 6, 2007 @ 7:25 am
Comment by Tony P. —
“Barry:
I agree with you that we have to survive short-term in order to reach the long run. My point is that the long run we are trying to reach, namely reasonable comity in Congress, would recede even farther toward the horizon if the Dems succumb to temptation and adopt all the tactics of the GOPers. ”
Not all, but they need to be willing to play hardball at least some of the time. Right now, it’s a rare game indeed.
And playing hardball might build comity. It could restrain the wilder GOPpers, once the moderates became convinced that they were causing trouble for everybody , not just the Democrats.
You might think of it this way – the Democrats have voluntarily diarmed themselves. Carrying guns, and occasionally using them, might help, in a world in which the bad guys routinely shott people down in the street.