The ghost of Social Security Privatization

If the Democratic opponents of any of the Republicans who voted for this don't use it in their campaigns then they aren't worth spit.

The commercials will write themselves.

Why not Dubai?

I've heard some suggesting that Feingold is right to bring a censure motion but that he did it on the wrong issue. In particular, I've heard suggestions that he should have used the Dubai Ports deal because many more people were outraged by that then by the NSA spying.

I, respectfully, disagree.

The Dubai ports deal was stupid, both politically and for national security. But it was not criminal. It was not an assault of the very foundation upon which our Constitutional Democracy was founded.

You don't censure and/or impeach a President because they make a stupid decision. If we did then every President this country has ever had would have faced censure and/or impeachment.

Censure and/or impeachment should be reserved for those actions that are a direct threat to our very Constitutional structure.

Censuring for Dubai may have gotten more public sympathy, but that doesn't make it the right move. It just makes it politically craven.

The Wisdom of George W. Bush

I've tried repeatedly to get people to understand that dismissing Bush as just an idiot son of an asshole is to dig ones own grave.

He is an idiot. He is the son of an asshole.

But he isn't stupid and he does have his own perverse form of wisdom. It's the wisdom of P.T. Barnum. It's the wisdom of the grifter. It's the wisdom of the Music Man.

It's the wisdom that understands that while Lincoln was right that "You can't fool all of the people all of the time" you can certainly fool enough of the people enough of the time.

The sooner we come to respect the wisdom of George W. Bush the sooner we can defeat it.

Losing Faith

This country's leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, have lost faith in the people's ability to judge the rightness of a cause. This leads the Republicans to lie about their true motives and the Democrats to try and split the difference.

In fact, this is a problem of the whole Washington establishment. The wakeup call for me was during the Lewinsky scandal when that establishment, Republican, Dem and Media, were convinced that this scandal would bring down Clinton and were subsequently shocked when Clinton's approval ratings skyrocketed more than 10 points almost overnight. It was then I realized that that establishment was woefully out of touch.

Unfortunately, that establishment remains convinced that it was the public, not them, that didn't "get it". (In fact, I believe one of the underlying dynamics of the 2000 election was that the establishment, having lost respect for the judgment of the people, didn't really care that much if that judgment, in the form of Gore's popular vote victory, was overturned by the court.)

Some in the Democratic party are starting to "get it" as far as what it means to actually listen to the people. But we are a long way off from a true rapproachment.

Censure makes investigation more likely

NY Times:

We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness and incompetence of his administration. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening.

Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks.

-- -- --

When the Republicans try to block an investigation, as they surely will, Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should not be afraid to highlight that fact by shutting down the Senate's public business, as he did last year. This time, though, Mr. Reid needs to follow up. The first time Mr. Reid forced the Senate into a closed session, Mr. Roberts said he would keep his promise about an investigation into the hyping of intelligence on Iraq. But Mr. Roberts continues to sit on that report.

The nation needs to know a great deal more about the domestic spying. How many people's calls and e-mail were tapped? How were they chosen? Was Mr. Bush planning to do this until the war on terror ended -- that is, forever? The public should be asking why members of Congress are afraid to make those important and legitimate queries.

Ironically, they kind of support Feingold's point. Yes, an investigation should be held before a censure or impeachment. But the drive for investigation was being swept under the rug and Feingold felt (rightly) that something as bold as a censure resolution was the only chance we had to get it back out in the open.

Consider this: Feingold offering censure gives the NY Times the additionally opportunity to cajole an investigation as a compromise. If Feingold hadn't offered a censure resolution then would the Times have been as strong in their call for an investigation? Or would they have been a participant in the effort to sweep it under the rug?

One final note: The Times says "When the Republicans try to block an investigation..."

Umm, where have you guys been? The Republicans have already tried to block said investigation by voting against it in the Senate Intelligence Committee. They've tried to block it by not putting Gonzalez under oath when he testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now they are introducing legislation that would effectively legalize Bush's illegal activity after the fact. What further blocking maneuvers do the Republicans have to make before the Times realizes that the Republicans have already shown their true intentions?

Being a friend means being a thorn in one's side

This past weekened I watched a documentary on the lives of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. One thing that I got from that documentary was a sense of humility about our own situation. These two women fought a battle for women's rights that stretched over 50 years and still they didn't live long enough to see women get the vote. Now that's the perfect image of the "marathon, not a sprint" point of view.

Another thing I got from the documentary was the sense of true friendship between these women. They loved each other immensely, yet they did not always agree on the finer points of tactics and strategy. Anthony was much more willing to compromise for the sake of building the coalition she thought necessary to achieve universal sufferage. Stanton, on the other hand, was interested in the whole gamut of women's rights and frequently balked at Anthony's devotion to a single issue.

But their disagreements did not lead to a severing of their friendship. Nor did it lead to them ever standing idley by when one or the other came under criticism from both allies and enemies. Despite their disagreements, they defended each other against all attacks, even if they happened to agree with the substance of those attacks.

One of them, I can't remember which, referred to this by saying that a good friend is as often a thorn in one's side as they are a comforter in times of trouble. A friend who is willing to disagree with you is a friend who keeps you honest in your thoughts and deeds.

This is the kind of relationship I would like to see between the activist base and the party leadership. We don't have to agree with each other all the time. We should be willing to offer constructive criticism of each other when we feel it is justified. But we should also be unhesitating in our willingness to defend the other against attack.

To often the leadership runs away from the activist base anytime the latter faces criticism because they don't want to be painted with the same "far-left looney" brush. And to often the activist base is willing to presume the worst motives in the actions of the leadership because they want the leadership to be vigorous advocates for their particular issue.

It's really about time for both sides to realize that they make better allies then enemies.

Water vs. Rock: Water wins

Waiting for the Democrats to "come to their senses" isn't going to cut it anymore. We are going to have to force them to do it.

Activism means being active. It means pushing and pushing and pushing to the point of exhaustion, and then pushing even more.

I watched a documentary last night about Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. These two women worked for over 50 years to get women the vote, and died before it became a reality.

If they can work that hard for that long, I can certainly work the 10-20 years it might take to get the Dems to turn around (and yes, I think it could take that long).

I'm tired of waiting and I'm tired of those who are tired of waiting.

Talking Democrats off the ledge

Digby issues a timely warning:

I said this yesterday and I'll repeat it. This image of "powerlessness" at a time when the Republicans are on the ropes is the biggest problem we face for the fall elections. If Democratic pols don't understand that they are flirting with terrible grassroots defeatism, then they are going to lose. They must take action (and I don't mean boring press conferences and 10 point plans) or it won't matter a damn if the Republicans are on the ropes --- demoralized Democrats are not going to bother with them. Come on. Speak for us. If not now, when?

Many in the party leadership don't seem to realize just how precarious is the coalition of interests backing the Democrats this Fall. I am surrounded by Democrats who are as pissed at their leadership as they are at the Republicans, yet they stick with the party because it is the only hope they see of bringing about real change.

But that hope is balanced on the edge of a knife. It is threatened every day by the actions of the leadership that tempt many in the grassroots to just throw up their hands, yell "fuck it!" and walk away.

It is exhausting having to repeatedly talk Democratic activists off the ledge whenever the leadership craps on their efforts. Right now this coalition is being held together by an even smaller group of activists who are willing to make the effort to do that talking. But if the leadership isn't careful, no amount of our work will make a difference and the party will end up hamburger on the sidewalk.

My message to the leadership: wake up before it is to late!