As good as The Dodd (The Dodd abides)
By Thoreau
My other favorite Senator is Russ Feingold, and via Julian Sanchez I see that the good cheesehead* has introduced legislation to roll back certain egregious provisions of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments. I am quite confident that Congressional Republicans will see this as their best chance to curtail Hussein Obama’s atrocious liberty-destroying powers and work to speed its passage, and I am likewise confident that our fine President will live up to his civil libertarian rhetoric from the campaign trail and sign this bill.
You can use the next 150+ comments to flame me about something.
*It’s a term of affection from a fellow Wisconsin native.
Comment by J sub D —
September 19, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
From the good* Sen. Feigold’s website –
Nary a GOPer amongst them. No matter, with an almost filibuster-proof majority (soon to be fixed thanks to the Dem controlled MA legislature crudely rewriting election law to benefit their own party) the freedom loving Democratic congress in concert with a freedom loving Democratic president can pass this without any assistance whatsoever from the minority.
Now if you will excuse me, there’s a rainbow outside and I have to go get my pot o’ gold.
* Russ, don’t think I’ve forgiven you for the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Free Speech Supression Act. But I do give credit where credit is due.
Comment by J sub D —
September 19, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Why is strike out displayed in preview but disappears after posting? This is a blatant case of internet blogger malfeasance that should be addressed by legislation.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 19, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
I can’t see Obama vetoing a Democratic bill that passed a Democratic Congress, rolling back powers given to the Bush administration by a Republican Congress.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 19, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Let’s hope you’re right, joe.
And let’s hope that Reid and Pelosi work to get this bill to his desk.
Comment by J sub D —
September 19, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
I also don’t expect an Obama veto if it passes. I can see it being watered down prior to passage. I hope I’m wrong, but the cynic in me warns goverrnments are reluctant at best to let go of power.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 19, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Pelosi’s ok.
Let’s hope the temper tantrum the Republicans have thrown over health care is finally going to get Reid off his butt.
Comment by Cocktailhag —
September 19, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
Perhaps this will be the thread that, once pulled, finally unravels the cloak of extra-constitutional powers the Bushies vainly and flagrantly arrogated to themselves. Lord, hear my prayer. (as an atheist, I threw that in to add emphasis to the “when pigs fly,” that I would have written but I didn’t think went far enough…)
The question, beyond the unlikely veto, is will it pass? So many Democrats are such pussies, I fear the worst.
But now I know what Stephanie Miller means when she calls Feingold her “future husband.”
Comment by stras —
September 20, 2009 @ 12:16 am
The bill won’t need to be vetoed; like a lot of great Feingold initiatives, it’ll get sat on in committee and gather dust.
Comment by joel hanes —
September 20, 2009 @ 2:43 am
> Pelosi’s ok.
But Feinstein is emphatically not.
This’ll never get past the Senate Intelligence Committe.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
September 20, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Actually, very few Democrats are “pussies”. The people who voted in favor of the Iraq war, the PATRIOT act, McCain’s torture act — they voted in favor of these things because they were in favor of them, too. Recall that Sen. Clinton never walked back her Iraq War vote, no matter how strongly she was criticized on that point, and that was because she didn’t think she had made a mistake.
The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that civil libertarians and peaceniks are a significant minority constituency in the Democratic party, but no part at all of the Republican coalition. Unfortunately, the operative word is “minority”.
Pingback by Renewed Controversy Over Patriot Act | The Moderate Voice —
September 20, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
[...] Feingold and seven other senators are sponsoring legislation (h/t Julian Sanchez, via Thoreau at Unqualified Offerings) to correct the most egregious excesses in these three provisions. The legislation, titled The [...]
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 20, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
That’s a very odd thing to write, Neel.
You are the only person I have ever seen write that liberal Democrats were not pressured into supporting Bush’s War on Terror programs in the aftermath of 9/11.
Comment by Timothy —
September 20, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
So, joe, you concede that the Democrats in Congress are all pussies and dupes?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 20, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
Here we go.
Comment by dhex —
September 21, 2009 @ 9:14 am
thoreau, is it true they serve fried cheese blocks in wisconsin?
i can’t really think of anything to flame you about now, sorry.
Comment by Picador —
September 21, 2009 @ 9:32 am
Thanks for the sanity injection, Neel. I was confused for a minute there by all the comments from people who seemed to think that we were discussing a bill with an actual chance of passing.
Comment by Seward —
September 21, 2009 @ 10:27 am
J sub D,
Hopefully the Supremes will be delivering a deathblow to McCain-Feingold.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
September 21, 2009 @ 10:51 am
You are the only person I have ever seen write that liberal Democrats were not pressured into supporting Bush’s War on Terror programs in the aftermath of 9/11.
And as we know, quite a few of liberal Dems resisted that pressure and voted against the war anyway.
Which brings us back to Neel’s point: the Dems who voted for the war did so either (1) because they supported it, or (2) because they were spineless.
Those are your options, Joe. Pick one.
Comment by mds —
September 21, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
You lie!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Let’s take the 42% of Democrats in Congress who voted for the AUMF. I’d say that about 1/2 of them are pussies and dupes, which leaves about 1/2 (21%) who were True Believers.
Since 2002, quite a few of that 21% have left office, while other Democrats have come into office. On the whole, the new Democratic officeholders are better than those they replaced.
So, back of the envelope, I’d say about 1/6 of Democrats in Congress are pussies and/or dupes.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
I find it amusing that you people think this statement is, somehow, a challenge to me.
Just because I don’t buy into the Paulite cult doesn’t make me kneejerk partisan. Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely believe thing different from your beliefs, who aren’t just faking it for some Machiavellian purpose.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Yes: in fact, it was a landslide majority of 58% against, 42% for.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
September 21, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
OK then, Joe–in that case, what the hell was your comment at #12 supposed to mean? Yes, liberal democrats were “pressured” to support the war…so fucking what?
Oh, and as for the “Paulite cult”–you must have me confused with someone else. I’m a lefty who comes here because Jim and his pals are better on matters of civil liberties, imperialism, and a military-industrial complex run amok than 90% of the “liberal Democrats” out there.
On the whole, the new Democratic officeholders are better than those they replaced.
I want your evidence for this. Because I see none.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
UK: The Republicans lost a lot of seats in 2006 and 2008, and by and large the replacement Democrats — though I disagree with them about, well, basically everything — are superior to the Republicans they replaced.
Even if the actual individuals are no better, the norms of Democratic party discourse are ones where you have to pretend to care about human rights, whereas the norms of discourse in the Republican party are ones which require you to pretend to love violating them. This difference does change decisions at the margin. So torture at Guantanamo ends, even if it doesn’t end at Bagram, and that’s an improvement even if it’s not actually good in any absolute sense.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Gee, I don’t know. It begins: That’s a very odd thing to write, Neel.
Perhaps it was a response to some other point, and your confusion can be cleared up by scrolling back up, reading that point, and then reading my comment in that light.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Neel,
Right. But, then, a lot of those Republicans who got turned out had, themselves, replaced Democrats in 2002 and 2006 – Democrats who were most likely to have voted for the AUMF and other Bushite War on Terror policies, because they were largely Democrats in swing districts, and therefore, most susceptible to the political pressure brought to bear in the years following 9/11.
Hence, my comment about the Democrats who took office in 2006 and 2008 being better than those they replaced.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
er, “…had, themselves, replaced Democrats in 2002 and 2004…”
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Neel, I have no doubt that the Democrats that replaced Republicans in Congress represent an improvement, if only in the lesser-of-two-evils sense. I took Joe’s comment–”On the whole, the new Democratic officeholders are better than those they replaced” to imply that we’ve seen not just more Dems, but better ones, as the saying goes. So far I’m not seeing evidence of that.
But if, on the other hand, Joe meant what you’re suggesting, that’s pretty much indisputable.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Take the Indiana 2nd District.
In 2002, it had been represented by AUMF-supporting Democrat Tim Roemer. That November, he lost the seat to Republican Chris Chocola, which totally is NOT a made-up name. Chocola was a reliable Bushie.
In 2006, Chocola lost to Joe Donnelly, who turned around and voted in March 2007 for a bill requiring the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq on a timeline.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Maybe it’s about time to acknowledge that I generally know what the fuck I’m talking about when it comes to electoral politics, instead of deciding that everything I say must be wrong, cuz of teh partisan.
Comment by All Your Summer Songs —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Cannot vouch for fried-cheese, but wish I could.
The deep-fried Baby Ruth I had a coupla months ago was heavenly.
Comment by JasonL —
September 21, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
I would sacrifice representational democracy and all it entails to rename Indiana a Realm and name it’s leader Count Chocola. He’d be leader for life, and to hell with what anybody would say about it.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 21, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
+1 JasonL
Comment by mds —
September 22, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Then Indiana could declare war on Minnesota, in order to Franken bury.
Comment by Kolohe —
September 22, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Then, a delegation made up of a former secretary of state and a hall of fame wide receiver would be enroute to peace talks, but get hit by an extremist attack, resulting in Rice crispies.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 24, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
I don’t imagine the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, with its California-based leadership, would take too kindly to seeing a portion of the country revert to feudal governance, and my well take up arms to oppose it.
The Boxer Rebellion could take some time to put down.
Comment by the pick up artist lars —
September 27, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
hi das ist ja mal wirklich schön, weiter so ich werde noch zum Stammleser hier