My entire point was that they've caved so many times on these national security votes that the only conclusion one can come to is that they actually believe the government should have these extra-constitutional powers

i agree.

but then they should tell us that and stop pretending that they are incompetent and frightened of being called bad names by rove.

i'm so mad i worry i might break my keyboard - i'm pounding it instead of typing.

Selise, nice job on the timeline.

That said, it's been a real challenge to explain so many of these votes and I think the timeline on this one gives us something of a smoking gun. The ultra sad fact here is, we got punked by the leadership. LEADERSHIP.

It's always tempting to say, "The Dems totally caved," etc. But that's not what happened. The Blue Dogs did what Blue Dogs do: they became Joe Lieberman en masse. Still, they are a minority in the House Dem Caucus, so how is it they are so all-powerful in moments like these?

They get help. They get help from the Rules Committee (thanks, Louise). They get help from Pelosi, Hoyer and Clyburn. In the Senate, Harry Reid is always quick with a nod and a wink. "We just didn't have the votes," he says. The Blue Dogs provide the cover the LEADERS need to appear POWERLESS in all this. "Oh, I can't tell them how to vote, no way. Wouldn't be nice!"

Heh. I'm reminded of LBJ. If he had been so "nice" as these fine folks, the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and all the other Great Society programs would have NEVER passed. NEVER.

The problem is, almost no one, until now, has bothered to ask, "Just how hard did you work to defeat this gobshite in the first place?" (Apologies offered to anyone here who has. OR any other place, for that matter.)

In each and every case in which Dem votes proved instrumental in passing these dictatorial bills, there's always a slew of excuses, which most of the "left" has learned to accetp. It heartens me to see some healthy skepticism. It always seems to boil down to one of two basic responses:

"We're deathly frightened of X...."

or

"We're terribly naive and stupid people."

or both.

But now we've reached a strange pinnacle of peculiarity that even Fred Hiatt has no choice but to sit up and take notice. Imagine that.... but not too much.

Fact is, these nimrods seem to have chosen to be viewed as witless numbskulls, rather than admit to their own fascistic leanings. I suppose that's fair enough, but one does have to wonder why they felt those were their only options.

watching c-span it didn't look like a cave - it looked like a sell out. we only got punked if we don't call the dem leadership on it.

my representative, jim mcgovern (a pretty good guy), is vice-chair of the rules committee - that's one of the reasons i was prompted to try to understand the why different procedures were used by the house leadership to vote on the two bills (the dem negotiated one and the administration one).

Gotta laugh at your stating that my perception of you has changed since you've gone non-anonymous. Not too much implication of bias on my part there. No? When I first looked at a picture of you giving a speech I thought you resembled someone I once knew. A wife of a union worker and fund raiser who had met her husband when they were young and members of the Socialist party. Something that a lot of Americans leaned towards in the early half of the twentieth century. She was tack smart, opinionated and very knowledgeable of subjects she spoke about. Not an illusion of a role model that I thought anything but highly of.

But then we get to that point about "knowledgeable of subjects she spoke about." Maybe the key change in my perception of you came in your broad stroke painting of New Yorkers as racist in a post about Giuliani at what has been described as a police riot. Make no mistake. I'm no fan of Giuliani, but the racist in the political mix of that era was the existing mayor, David Dinkins, a man who never met a race card he didn't cherish. The New York police were sick of Dinkins because of his pandering to criminals and disdaining of police who were injured while performing their dangerous jobs. Dinkins would rush to console the mothers of criminals involved in shootouts with police while committing crimes. In contrast, Giuliani went to every police and firefighter funeral, including all those that died on 9-11, a logistical feat in itself.

The Giuliani of the police riot era also supported Mario Cuomo for New York governor over Republican political hack George Pataki. That alone should brand Giuliani as a dangerous turncoat to Republicans. He backed the supreme liberal Democrat.

For all his pre-mayor support from the police union, his hard bargaining with city unions, including the police and firefighters unions is what has cost Giuliani their support. Even the current controversy over Giuliani's treatment of firefighters during the clearing of the World Trade Center site is a pure union matter, actually outside of any proper sentiment towards the in the line of duty fallen. I've already described how Giuliani went to every police and firefighter funeral, even after 9-11. The situation the firefighters are attacking Giuliani about was actually a padding of their last year's income before retirement. The way some city union contracts work the lifetime yearly retirement pension is based on the final working year income, overtime included. Firefighters were adding to their income with overtime at the World Trade Center site long after it was apparent that no bodies or even body parts would be found. They were also greatly slowing the clearing of the site, even though now in hindsight, with the political football that it has become, there was no need for speed to restore the site to some semblance of something other than a hole in the ground. In the year after 9-11, when New York City had lost so many firefighters and was in great need of them, a record number of firefighters retired.

At the time I used to go to a bar in Williamsburg, Brooklyn where the steel workers who were rebuilding the Williamsburg bridge would also go after work. Many of those workers did volunteer work at the WTC site. That, without any padding of lifetime retirement pay or coverage for any resulting medical problems. Do you know that there used to be a foot race up the stairs of the Empire State Building? The first two years of the race it was won by a New York City firefighter. He was on heart disability retirement. The Giuliani-firefighter dispute is a union matter. For all the claims that Giuliani was pandering to the police union at the police riot, he was no knee-jerk supporter of unions, and considering the Cuomo-Pataki situation, he was then acting in the best interests of New Yorkers against an existing race pandering mayor.

Getting back to racist New Yorkers and the climate that gave New York Giuliani, there was the Crown Heights "riot," where a mayor and police commissioner, both people of color, stood by and watched (they claimed they knew nothing of what was happening even though it was on every news broadcast for three days and hundreds of police were standing by watching from no more than three blocks away, under orders to do nothing) as a modern pogrom progressed on the streets of New York City. Dinkins lost the Jewish vote with that racist pander and gave New York City Rudy Giuliani. But I guess to your knowledgeable view that makes New Yorkers racist. Oh, I forgot to mention, when Dinkins finally allowed the police to act the "riot" was over in twenty minutes. Three days of a pogrom on the streets of New York, where Jews could be seen on the six o'clock news getting stoned as they ran to their homes, and it was ended in twenty minutes.

OK. Back to your claimed admonishing of Webb. After posting Webb's Republican talking points that very serious people recognized the very serious dangers that somehow very suddenly threatened America and Americans, clearly requiring the giving of unconstitutional (and unknown) powers of search to a group in control of America that has shown itself ready, willing, able and veterans of abuse of power, you responded with the thoroughly lame -

..................................................
I believe him. I don't think it was political. I think he and the others sincerely believes that. And that's profoundly distressing.
..................................................

Yes. And I believe that George W. Bush devoutly believes in God. It's just that Bush's idea of God is a being that pats him on the back and says, "Good one, George" no matter what Bush does. Webb used the same Republican talking points when he supported the Iraq war supplemental, suggesting that voting for any other measure would be acting against "the troops."

The man's a Republican plant. Call him a hack. Don't excuse him and don't tell me your comment on Webb was extremely critical. My comment is extremely critical. Yours is an excuse.

Amos,

Obviously my writing is too nuanced for you. I most certainly wasn't excusing him and what I said was not a compliment. If you read through the comments you will see that everyone else understood that comment --- that the kind of people who "sincerely" believe that the government should have the unfettered power to spy on its citizens are authoritarian assholes. I'm sorry -- you just completely missed the point.

Amos, I don't think it was an excuse.

To say that Webb truly believes in something truly wrong is to say something very bad about Webb.

People are really angry over FISA, and lashing out, but I honestly don't think Digby is the right target or that her writing has changed since she came out.

If it expiries, he can't veto, 6 months, do nothing, it's gone.

Of course, that's asking a lot of Dems - to just do nothing, rather than crawl and give the Republicans what they want.

But I don't think it's impossible.

ian - ooks like it's worse than that (at least according to marty lederman (balkinization).... the law can expire - but bush can still continue his program's "acquistions" right through to jan. 2009.

it's what are they going to do with that power in the meantime? We are talking about Democratics caving to Bush here, do you think he is not going to spy on all the leading Dems, bloggers, and so forth in the next six months?

All that needs to happen for a (true) dictatorship to emerge is to let the markets crash, keep your enemies just busy enough to not pass meaningful legislation, and wait for one great splashy event to declare martial law. Hell, the damn Democrats would probably vote en masse for martial law if it came up for a vote after a national tragedy.

But don't worry my friends, I'm sure the "Dear Leader Protects Us" law will have a 6 month sunset clause too. We can just fight it then...

is that it assumes Bush will start doing something new. No, he's been doing this since 2001. At first he used a Yoo-ish unitary executive power thesis. When it became clear that even Bush appointed judges and Bush appointed attorneys wouldn't stomach it, he fell back on narrower arguments. This year, FISA judges slapped those down.

There's no need to "spy" on bloggers. If the RIAA can find whose computer uses a particular IP address, you think the gov't can't?

Martial law is also doubtful, because all the firepower is bogged down in Iraq. If there's a real crash followed by real riots, the only places he can protect are DC and the financial district in NY.

Yeah, he'll play chicken with the economy, chicken with Iraq, chicken with the courts and chicken with Congress. But the time to worry about a dictatorship was a couple years ago.

..with fighting terrorism any more. Looks to me that it has more to do with getting away with what caught Nixon: getting covert data on the Democratic Party ops and plans, to use against them in the coming election cycles.

In other words....what this regime has actually been *competent* at all this time.....politicizing everything. "We're in charge, so we're going to run the game against you all we can, and you can't do *anything* to stop us, nyah, nyah"

Frankly, what would floor me immediately would be if they actually manage to catch a terror plot using this....because I feel so sure they've not set up the operatus to do that sort of work.

-5.75,-4.05 Rule of the Great:
When people you greatly admire appear to be thinking deep
thoughts, they probably are thinking about lunch.

what are they STILL going to do with more warrantless wiretapping? I agree it's been on since 2001 for this program, but then why do they still need this program?

I don't have that answer, but just the question alone scares me. Martial law doesn't have to mean tanks rolling down streets WWII style, there could be a soft MA.

Imagine if there was a fairly major market crash leading to a good 6+ months of recession. This isn't too far fetched at all with all the sub-prime thrashing and credit contractions. Then a terrorist attack or some sort of major disaster. If Bush requested extraordinary powers for 6 months would the Dems stand in his way? Doubtful. And then he could go about freezing the bank account of those he finds most troublesome, Gitmo'ing some of the more radical left, and basically firing any public employees he doesn't care for. No guns, no soldiers, but it would put us all in a damn awkward position if he didn't stand down after those 6 months expired.

Improbable scenario but the fact that it even could go that far so easily makes me half sick to my stomach. I don't know, but I don't like any of this BS.

It was just a lot more likely 2 years ago. He could have done it then - he would have gotten Congressional and media support. But, I suspect, he thought he didn't have to. He believed Rove's MATH, so he followed the political path.

At this point there are 17 (I believe) of 93 DoJ USA positions open. Something like 40% of the upper positions in the DHS are vacant. Really, he's got almost no one left but mouth breathing true believers. And with the operation he runs, he can't allow in anyone but a pure loyalist.

Divide Congress up this way: Dems, Conservative Dems, GOP. On "security" issues, he's got CDs+GOP. But on non-hot-button issues, we've already got GOP defecting (the Energy Bill, while not veto proof, passed easily and is quite progressive... considering). He can't fully count on them, either.

He's running out of loyalists to run the military. He can't even trust people he put on the courts, and now that some of his guys on the 5th district decided to cash out, the most conservative district court is now 50/50.

I'm definitely not saying that he doesn't have more tricks up his sleeve. If there was a Nobel prize for slimy political tricks, these guys would win it hands down. But I seriously believe that his ambition at this point is to "preserve" (what he thinks should be) his legacy, and that takes getting out of office in the normal way.

It was created because Nixon was doing these things without any supervision. Federal judges serve on FISA on rotation. In fact, Judge Walton (of the Libby trial) is currently doing FISA duty (or was during the Libby trial).

If you did away with FISA, you'd probably have to shutter the NSA, too. And JPD wouldn't like that.

JPD might not like it, but I'm not sure I would mind much.

Might. But.... probably not. I question the real value of these things. I think they're mostly boondoggles.

...that the ghosts of the Dulles brothers walk the halls of State and CIA/NSA/NSC. No idea how to purge them.

On a good day I'd be willing to trade 80% of your nation's present military and intelligence capabilities for an American political system where there was more than a fart's worth of difference between the parties and an American electorate that could tell me as much about the history of the Arab world as they can about Paris Hilton.

"The spectacle of this great nation which does not know its own mind is as humiliating as it is dangerous." ~ Walter Lippmann

...than a fart's worth distance. And prior to those damn Dulles brothers, there was in foreign policy, too.

But until the Arab world gets the hang of viral videos, I'm afraid you're SOL on that one.

of the Democratic leadership in caving-in on the issue is a lack of information. We really have no idea what Pelosi and Reid were told in the briefing by McConnell that caused them to shit their pants. Whatever it was it was sufficient to cause them to persuade enough of their party members to approve this patently unconstitutional bill to allow its passage. One would hope it was damn compelling but one would also hope a lot from this leadership that one doesn't often see.

Now, instead of lying to the public, he swears the intelligence committees to absolute silence and lies to them. They can't get any more information, and they can't complain about it. If there's only a one in a million chance that he's telling the truth about the plot to kill a million people, odds are they are killing someone by doubting him.

anything even approximating the straight poop, if that still exists. I would still love to have been a fly on the wall at that briefing.