(Update) Bipartisanship, a Bootiful Thing: Or, Nixon’s Revenge
By Mona
.
Sen. Frank Church is rollin’ and Nixon grinnin’ in their respective graves; Greenwald (brief ad click-through) has the eulogy for the Church Committee’s legislation protecting Americans from abusive government surveillance, protection which today will be severely maimed by Republicans and Democrats alike.
.
Someone wanna tell me again why I voted a straight Dem ticket in ‘06?
*****
Update:
Now that the Democratic-majority Senate has passed a bill that allows greatly expanded warrantless eavesdropping powers for out Leader, and provides amnesty for the telecoms who broke our laws spying on us in cahoots with the state that paid them lots of $$ for the “help,” Greenwald announces:
FDL has a petition, jointly sponsored by me, directed at House members, demanding that they reject this lawless, authoritarian Senate bill and defend their own, previously passed bill (the RESTORE Act). I encourage everyone to sign it. You can do so here.
Not that it will do any good; but I’m gonna sign it. I am verging on hating Democrats almost as much as I do Republicans. Is it time yet to take to the streets with torches and pitchforks?
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
February 12, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Because, like the rest of us, you were taken for a sucker.
Comment by Eric Martin —
February 12, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Well, I think we need to keep voting Dem, and then keep winnowing out the bad Dems from the better ones. Like Donna Edwards over Al Wynn today in the Dem Congressional primary.
That is, unfortunately, the best hope.
If you think voting for the GOP will improve the chances of rolling back GOP initiatives, well I’d question that strategy.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 12, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Now, somebody will probably point out that most of the Democrats in Congress tend to vote on the right side. Yes, that’s true, but what good has this accomplished? What sort of leadership have they installed? What sort of procedural tools have they availed themselves of? The real work in a legislative body happens long before the final up/down vote is held, and in that time procedural maneuvers matter a lot.
Comment by trainwreck —
February 12, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Well this Congress has been so corrupt for so long, it’s going to take more than one election cycle to clean it up, if it can be done.
Comment by joe —
February 12, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
You voted straight ticket to put people like Nancy Pelosi, who whipped her caucus into voting against the AUMF in 2002 by a large margin and passed a much better FISA bill than the Senate’s version last month, into the seat formerly occupied by Tom Delay.
Comment by mds —
February 12, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Yeah, well, let’s see what happens when the House takes up the Senate version, shall we? Because BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA! the terrorists are going to kill us all if the Senate version doesn’t get passed by Friday. Oh, it’s too much work to have a conference committee… just like back in August, when we were promised that the complete fucking over we got from the Protect America Act was just “temporary.” Well, technically they were right, because they’re on the verge of passing even worse permanent legislation.
Seriously, joe, I’ve tried to keep the faith here, but 67 worthless shitbags voted against stripping telecom immunity. An entire caucus of stupid patsies gave away the farm with their Unanimous Consent decree that required 60 votes to pass the “exclusivity” requirement, another painless filibuster for the Republicans. And all this for rule-of-law-gutting legislation that couldn’t make it through the last Republican Congress. So unless the House holds the line on this, and the Bush Dogs fail to stick the shiv in for a change, joe, shut the fuck up.
Comment by joe —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Juvenile.
Comment by joe —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
An entire caucus of stupid patsies gave away the farm with their Unanimous Consent decree..?
Bzzzt. I’m sorry, thanks for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts…
A case of Turtle Wax
A handbook on Senate procedures
And a prescription for Prozac.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
But true.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Mona: Because we were lied to.
Seriously, if you go back and look at the 2006 campaign, you’ll find a lot of what did seem like plausible talk about ramping up investigations, refusal to cooperate with the administration’s secrecy fetish, and the like. It wasn’t obviously disconnected from the better moments those folks had been having in recent years. There was an element of hope and wishful thinking on the part of voters, sure, but it was not all manufactured in a void.
Then they got into office and the leadership promptly set it all aside.
Comment by joe —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Speaking of sell-out, Blue Dog Democrats, one of them is about to lose his primary in Maryland.
Comment by mds —
February 12, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
A handbook on Senate procedures
Yes, joe, please read the handbook on Senate procedures to me and Glenn Greenwald:
We await the enlightenment of your supposed superior wisdom with bated breath, joe. I’m sure there’s a specific clause that empowers the minority party to dictate individual vote thresholds for amendments, and gives them the authority to make the Senate Majority Leader choose to bring to the floor the Intelligence Committee bill instead of the Judiciary Committee bill. C’mon, joe, chapter and verse from Robert’s Rules of Order and the Senate rulebook.
Comment by Timothy —
February 12, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Because you bought the hype.
Comment by mds —
February 12, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Cloture on the entire miserable fucking-over of a bill passed 69 to 29, joe. Please lecture us some more.
Comment by Mona —
February 12, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
joe, I think you are near a place I was before I had to concede the party I tilted toward was neocon, authoritarian sh*t. I made an arse of myself before I accepted it.
Your party is “better” by a degree that may not be significant/sufficient. The rot may well be bipartisan for all practical purposes.
Comment by Thoreau —
February 12, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
The question is not whether there are good Democrats. There most certainly are.
The question is whether they matter.
Comment by Eric Martin —
February 12, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
So what is the alternative?
I stand by my comment upthread.
The best hope is to vote for more and better Democrats. And pressure the ones we got.
I mean, how many Republicans voted against this bill in the Senate?
Answer: 0
Comment by Thoreau —
February 12, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Eric Martin-
I hear what you’re saying, but I’m more inclined to believe that this thing is on autopilot until it crashes. No, I don’t mean that in an apocalyptic Ron Paul Survival Report way (I won’t be stockpiling gold and ammo) but I do think that it will only end when some sort of event makes the status quo untenable. Until then, all we can do is try to keep the good ideas in circulation and promote their advocates, so an alternative can be offered when it crashes.
Comment by joe —
February 13, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
mds,
Glenn Greenwald didn’t make and misstatements of fact in that passage. You did, when you wrote “an entire caucus.”
Very simple, as you like to say about everything.
And since you wish to be lectured, OK. 59-29 means the Democrats voted against it approximately 50-29. That’s quite the “entire caucus” you’ve got there.
You should learn to convey your thoughts in a civil manner, so I’m not motivated to make you look the fool like this.
Comment by joe —
February 13, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Mona,
When your party turned into neconservative, authoritarian sh*t, they were voting in favor of things like this by either 100%-0, or something very close to it.
My party is voting against these things, by anywhere from 3-1 to 30-1.