While you and I both would probably agree that pigs wallowing in mud may be a little bit dirty and we may think it is gross, pigs love wallowing in it. In fact, for pigs, it is a necessity.
The reason I say this is because I just finished reading Glenn’s piece titled Democrats’ strategy: Strength through bowing:”
Historians writing about the Bush era were given a great gift yesterday — an iconic headline that explains so much of what has happened in this country over the last seven years:
Their rationale for doing that is that it prevents the Republicans from depicting them as “weak,” because nothing exudes strength like bowing. Here’s more evidence of the brilliance of the Democratic strategy to show how “strong” and “tough” they are by bowing to Bush and all of his demands, from this morning’s New York Times article by Eric Lichtblau…
At some point, it might be useful to decide if they are actually bowing at all, and that they, in fact, might actually support the things many of you all view as betrayals. There really is no other reason for their behavior- no one is this weak (when was the last time Pelosi faced a primary challenge from a credible opponent to the RIGHT of her?). No one is this incapable and unwilling of saying no to the least popular President of the modern era. Why do they keep passing stuff like AUMF? Why will this piece of crap bill, agitating for a blockade of Iran (an act of war, mind you), most likely pass? Why is the Department of Homeland Security seizing people’s electronic devices, rifling through their personal belongings and private information without any reason and without so much as a peep out of Congress?
At some point, it might be useful to recognize that where you and I see a wet pile of mud, Congress sees a cool and refreshing bath. There is no other explanation.
The Moar You Know
While it’s a terrifying notion, I can’t argue with the logic – they do support it. Pelosi seems to really support it – one gets the feeling she’s a Dem as that’s the only way to get elected in her district.
Back to the drawing board, folks. It’s gonna take years of primary challenges before we can get our country back.
El Cid
I agree that it is a charitable interpretation of Democratic Congressional leaders’ actions to view it as things they don’t want to do which they are lured into, falsely argued into, pressured into…
It is entirely possible, and maybe has greater explanatory power, to assume that they are doing what they actually want to do.
NickM
I’d say it’s more scraping than bowing, but it’s a close call.
cleek
i’ll say it again: Pelosi sucks. Reid, too.
NPR had basically the same story this AM : Dems fold and give Bush everything he wanted.
Congress has a 9% approval rating? golly, how could that be?
D.N. Nation
So after even more Democrats are elected to Congressional seats, and after a Democrat is elected to the White House…
…then what? Who do they cave into now? The last remaining roaming bands of wingnuts under the dome? The giggling morons at a declining FOX NEWZ? The oft-discredited think tank wankers? Who is even worth talking to anymore?
Which is why El Cid’s concerns give me the willies. Once Democratic dominance is confirmed and we’re still having these discussions, then something is very wrong with our team.
Napoleon
I’ll say again what I have said before, as of 2 years ago from now on every political contribution I make will be to a Dem primary challenger, or if a Dem seat opens up and there is a real primary battle that there are two plausable winners with one being clearly better then the other then to the good candidate. I don’t know if they believe in what they are voting for, but one thing for sure I really don’t see many of them as having an electoral gun to their head (Hoyer and Polosi for example). I hate to say this but I even have quit giving to charities I have in the past and instead I am using the money to try and pick off some of the clowns in the Dem party. And to put this in perspective 16 years ago I would have proudly called myself a DLC Demorcrat.
Dianne
I agree. The Dems could have easily pulled together to defeat this sorry sellout and they declined to do so. They expect a few years in power to enjoy the benefits of their betrayal is all I can figure.
When they are all busily spying on their Republican cohorts instead of vice versa, the uproar will be deafening. That is what this is all about, you know. Not about terrorists. The Repubs are listening in on all those phone conservations and trapping Emails like crazy and always staying one step ahead politically. The Dems just want their turn and have lost us our Constitution to get it.
Punchy
Every time I read this type of stuff, I remember a comment made on this blog about 3 months ago where a commentor claimed that he had info that said the Bush Admin has a stand-alone threat to go “martial law” before the elections (probably vis-a-vis bombing Iran) and postpone them unless they got a list of demands completed. IOW, blackmail on epic proportions.
Wilfred
I’ve argued this here before. There is no innate or inherent Democratic characteristic that would make someone be against FISA or the war or anyone of the other objectionable things Bush has done. They vote for these things because they support them. Period.
As for Pelosi, her constituents are happy with whatever she does as long as she uses her clout to advance their own interests. She gets to vote yes a lot and thus managed to secure her personal, ‘all about me’ political style.
El Cid
I don’t think any such thing will have to be done, and certainly not proven, in order for there to be an uproar by Republicans anyway.
We should be getting ready — if by luck we elect Obama and Democrats increase their hold — to enter a 4 year period of combined right wing / Republican / mainstream media uproar at Democratic failures and abuses of authority, real, imagined, or knowingly false.
asl
The telecom industry payscontributes to Democrats just as they contribute to Republicans. And you can’t very well immune the telecoms without shredding the constitution. Couldn’t it be as easy as that?
Dork
I still am waiting for Hoyer to explain how, after specifically and famously refusing to pass the FISA-immunity bill earlier due to the immunity clause, that he then draws up a bill, completely unprovoked, with that very clause as the central piece of the bill.
It’s like dumping a girlfriend b/c she’s cheating on you, only to start trolling for new girlfriends at a strip club or porno set.
E Stamm
I’ve read that pigs are actually rather fastidious, and they don’t like to roll in the mud. They roll in the mud to keep cool, since they can’t sweat. They’d prefer to wallow in clean water. Thus, congresscritters are actually lower than pigs. Don’t disparage pigs in this way. Thank you.
Genine
I’ve been thinking that for a while now. Ever since the Democrats picked up momentum in 2006 and didn’t seem to do much with it. My suspicions have increased, especially this Telco immunity and FISA business. There is no explanation other than they want to do it.
That’s why I always felt Obama was caving in to his party not, necessarily, caving in to the Republicans.
Scott H
Why do they do what they do? Just go noodling around sites like OpenSecrets.org.
Strategically, GOS loses by not getting behind picking two or three of these Critters to punish, as an example to the rest. Maybe just Pelosi. Politicians only fear not getting elected. Put Pelosi out, and it would be bearable to put up with the proverbial yellow dog in her seat for two years for the massive payoff.
Zifnab
Hurray! 1976 all over again!
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but the reason why this makes no sense to you is that you are ignoring too much of the relevant American political history which the “spineless” Democrats in Congress are paying attention to, which can be summed up in one word: Dolchstosslegende.
Go back and study the end game of the Vietnam War and the period from the Watergate scandals to the Reagan administration. What happened? An unpopular war which by the early 1970’s most people regarded as unwinnable and even Nixon essentially ran against in 1968 on a basis of implying that he would get us out faster and more effectively (than HHH) was within less than 10 years mutated in the popular mind into the primary evidence that the Democrats could not be trusted on national security issues, a club the GOP used to beat them with and win elections for a generation, and which still casts its long shadow over our political landscape today, almost 40 years later. The Dems clocked the GOP in the 1976 elections and have been taking a drubbing ever since.
The reason is that the American electorate treats an unpopular war like an aching tooth – they dislike it for as long as the pain is active and present and acute. Take away the pain, and they stop brushing and flossing and go back to sugary snacks again. In other words, the current war (not just Iraq, but the whole GWOT) will rapidly rise in popularity as soon as we withdraw from Iraq, and anything and everything the Dems did to please currently popular anti-war sentiment today will be used against them for the next 40 years, as soon as people can start pretending that we “would have won” if only the Democrats hadn’t fncked it up.
The Dems in Congress today aren’t bowing to Bush – they are bowing to the idiot voters in the 2020 elections.
And yes, we as a people are that stupid, ignorant and forgetful. Lessons of history, bitches, lessons of history.
jack fate
Which is why I quit the Democratic Party shortly after the 2006 elections.
Punchy
I’d love to be a liquor store owner within 5 miles of AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile’s headquarters today. Probably just made a year’s worth of champagne sales in one morning.
I’d also like to witness the massive power surge at the CIA Clandestine Spying division, 5 minutes after this bill is signed.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
shorter me: if you want better policies, you need a better electorate. Anyone who looks at the recently completed period of hysteria, fear and bedwetting circa 2002-2004 and concludes that the American voter is sober, careful, thoughful and rejects authoritarianism, is a fool. We are only one more “attack” (false flag or real) from going back to that era, and what stands between us and something like that happening is the combined patriotism, civic-mindedness, and competancy of the Bush administration.
Fledermaus
Because, republician or democrat, we are a nasty bloodthirsty people who really, really like war.
Garrigus Carraig
Sure. Except for one thing. They are weakening their own branch.
I’m reminded of the Seventeenth Amendment, for the direct election of senators. That thing had to be passed by 36 state legislatures. Why on earth did those guys basically cough up the greatest power they had, to the point where now only the wonkiest among us pay attention to state politics?
Similarly, when this 110th Congress coughs up its authority on waging war, or passes laws that endorse ignoring the laws its predecessors pass, or fails to back up subpoenas with contempt charges, I’m left wondering — what do they gain by weakening their own branch? Most of these guys aren’t going to get into the executive; most will stay in the legislature. So doesn’t it behoove them professionally (let alone the polity) to retain and wield the power they have, rather than give it away?
Or am I overthinking this.
Lupin
My own theory is that the US of A is at the stage where the USSR was around the time Brezhnev died. It’s hopelessly broken, slouching towards collapse.
The current leadership, product of our nomenklatura, is offering a choice between the “old guard” (Andropov/Chernenko/McCain) and the “new guard” (Gorbachev/Obama” — all “reforms” to work within the system, naturally.
(Louis XVI’s Versailles is not a bad analogy either.)
But it won’t work. Too little, too late.
What we need is a loud mouth like Yeltsin standing on top of a tank in Washington and a complete overhaul of the country.
Mark my words, it will happen because everything else won’t work.
But it won’t be pretty.
Karmakin
What ThatLeftTurninABQ said.
Things such as war and sacrificing the freedoms of others for perceived security may be opposed right now but the history is that it’s probably a VERY soft opposition, and once Bush is gone (or nearly gone), the support will increase dramatically. Maybe this is false, however, there’s no evidence of this.
That’s the problem. The solution is a better electorate. But griping in the blogosphere isn’t going to archive that IMO.
crw
Yes, I know it’s shocking, but the Democratic party – a party that likes expanded government power if it’s for the right cause – has an authoritarian or several in its midst. Also, don’t forget, a Democratic administration gave us nonsense ideas like the Clipper chip. In short, John may just be on to something. It seems many Democratic pols loves them some intrusive government surveillance.
Sloegin
One possibility to explain their thinking is that the Dems view a possible terrorist attack on amurika as the new ‘third rail’ of politics, and want all the same tools (when Obama gets in office) however non-proven and constitution-busting they might be.
Such thinking is inherently bunk, but I imagine appealing to the craven classes.
Garrigus Carraig
The reason it won’t is actually one of this country’s enduring successes, which is the fact that the military engages in no independent activity & is wholly subordinated to the civilian leadership. So there’s no way for a coup to gain traction. At least I think that’s the case.
Gregory
Worse, the Democrats never had to put this sorry sellout on the table in the first place.
Aiding and abetting the cover-up of Bush Administration crimesFISA “reform” was a dead letter until the Dem leadership pulled out this stinking “reform.”I sincerely hope Evan Bayh gets a primary challenger next time around.
Tim H.
My own opinion is that most of Congress likes the mud baths, especially the part where they get to towel down with thousand dollar bills.
nightjar
I still think this is their main motivation, plus not offending big business with their deep pockets feeding the campaign troughs. And IMHO, many of them support bill 362 out of overreaching loyalty to protect Israel, and to keep the lobby happy.
Now I’m waiting for Lanny Davis to come by and call me anti-semite. And Lanny, I do support protecting Israel, this just isn’t the way to do it.
Genine
I whole-heartedly agree. While I’m a political junkie, I also get involved in community work and coalition building. Most of my charity money also goes to projects that are about building positive and sustainable futures and creating opportunities for people in the long term.
So while, sometimes, when I concentrate on the short-term, I get angry and frustrated. I spend most of my efforts on the Long Game.
Shinobi
I think we are all overthinking this. I would bet that the reason most of the Dems caved on this issue can be summed up in one character: $
NonyNony
Might I say – duh?
The Democratic Party is not a unified interest group – it’s a coalition group made up of support from a wide-range of various interests. A sizable chunk of the politicians in that group are center-left pols who don’t think stuff like this matters. At all. They see it as political theater that keeps “real issues” from making it to the table. “Real issues”, of course, mean “the issues that matter to me personally, to my friends personally, or to the constituents of my state/district”.
Now, they’re obviously idiots. Because this is the type of stuff that authoritarian presidents in the future will be able to use to gain compromising information about THEM and use it for their own ends. And enterprising pols WILL do this.
But that doesn’t matter – the contingent of pols who think that the ideals of the Constitution and the Rule of Law matter can be counted. In fact, they’ve outed themselves with this vote. The Democrats have proven to have pitifully few people who understand or care about this.
But they have more than the Republicans do. I wouldn’t have believed it 20 years ago, but there it is – national Republican politicians hate the ideals that our country was founded on almost to a man. Not ONE Republican Senator swayed from the party line. And ONLY ONE Republican Rep in the House (Timothy Johnson of Illinois) bothered to show up and vote against the bill (that surprised me, I would have thought Ron Paul would have turned out to vote against it at least).
I was raised to believe that the Republican Party was the party that stood for limited government, for keeping the government out of your business, and for a strong, close reading of the Constitution. Clearly I was right when I figured out that I’d been lied to by my parents (no surprise – they also lied about Santa, God, and the Easter Bunny – so hey, I knew it was coming). Because from where it sits, the Republican Party is entirely made up of jackbooted authoritarian politicians who hate American ideals, while the Democratic Party is only mostly made up of jackbooted authoritarian politicians who hate American ideals.
Tsulagi
Given the actions of Bush’s new buttboys since the midterms, I’m thinking that’s a pretty safe bet now.
Previously said was giving Obama the benefit of the doubt that his changed FISA action was simply a gutless capitulation perceived to be in his self interest rather his actually believing the unitary executive form of government was all good for the country. Could be wrong. But he has company in his party.
It’s really impressive how well trained the Dems are by the 28%ers. 9/11 changed everything! Or maybe it was always in their genes.
Funny, one usually dim-bulb front pager at RedState made a comment in a post recently that the Dems are much more helpful and effective in the majority putting their agenda forward than they were in the minority. Doesn’t look like he’s so dim after all.
Lupin
@ Garrigus Carraig
Actually I meant the opposite of what you read; apologies for not being clearer.
A military coup did NOT happen in Russia precisely because Yeltsin convinced the Army to remain neutral. It was the old Soviet establishment who wanted the army to suppress the reformists and prevent the collapse of their system.
(Something to be kept in mind here, with the Christian extremists bent on controlling the military.)
I thought we all remembered that, but I should have been more specific.
ThymeZone
All those questions in the top post!
As luck would have it, we’ve already answered them. Let’s review.
Americans have voted for essentially bellicose government for decades. It’s a bipartisan bellicose government, the one Americans said they wanted via their selections of representatives over the years.
It isn’t seemly now to sit around and wonder why you have a bellicose government. What did you think you would get?
srv
People called me cynical at that time because I assumed he was holding out for a better deal.
How people manage to get excited about a new politician every four years is just insane.
JC
This is my continous question – cui bono, who profits?
As has been said – all of the supposed rationalizations, simply don’t make a lot of sense.
1. “Taking the issue off the table” – why would Congress weaken it’s own power, especially with such an unpopular President? That is simply a STUPID move, right?
2. “Telecoms bought the Congress”. But, per Congressman, the amounts were NOT THAT MUCH. It again, simply seems stupid to think that the amounts given by the telecoms, had much to do with the decision on this vote. Especially the FAST decision on this vote in the House, where the bill was railroaded through. Pelosi had to agree and manage, and with Hoyer, orchestrate that. Why would she do so?
If it is financial, it has to be some pretty massive buyout, not showing in the current books.
3. Cole’s position – they AGREE with laws like this.
Again – that simply doesn’t make sense. There has been one year, of this fight, where for example, we’ve gotten speeches by Pelosi on the importance of not caving on this. And she managed the process of voting, to NOT cave, through this July vote. If she AGREED with this, this would have been done last year, Christmas, etc. What changed this July, as opposed to the last year?
4. Some form of blackmail.
I don’t like tinfoil hat stories, but again – most unpopular President ever, only FOUR MONTHS BEFORE A NEW PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION – in that situation, why should Pelosi and others be AT ALL afraid of the President??
Unless there is some form of blackmail at work. Like the threat to attack Iran, before the election, unless the Bushies get immunity.
And yet, that seems too cynical. Could that REALLY be the case?
In the end, it simply doesn’t make sense. Like the Iraq War, which was launched for a variety of reasons – but the REAL reason was US control over oil flow – I’m sure the reason is simple, but it also is so simply stupid, I can’t see it.
What do other people think the reason is? Blackmail? To “get the issue off the table” for the November elections? Or because they simply agree with Bush on this – DESPITE – and remember, those speeches are there – DESPITE CLEAR and eloquent speeches by the same members who VOTED for this bill – speeches why they shouldn’t give away their power, or betray the Constitution like they are doing?
A case in point is Arlen Specter – who gave a clear and compelling case on how this bill gives away Congressional power, that can’t be given away, by the Constitution – then he votes for the bill anyway.
tim
John:
BINGO!
Congratulations upon joining the reality based community.
Tim Trollenstein
NR
Yep. And we can expect a lot more of this even if Obama wins, because while the composition of the Congress will change after this election, it won’t change enough.
If Obama wins, it’ll be a debacle, like Carter’s term, or the first two years of Clinton’s first term. During those six years, the Democrats had bigger Congressional majorities than they’re likely to have in 2009, and they were still unable to accomplish anything, unless massive airline and trucking deregulation, massive increases in defense spending (people think Reagan was responsible for this, but it started under Carter), a bad labor bill, and NAFTA count.
No matter how big the Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate get, there are still way too many conservatives in them for us to have a chance at making real progressive change in this country. If Obama wins, the bloodiest battles of the next two years aren’t going to be between the Democrats and the Republicans – they’ll be between progressive Democrats and conservative Democrats. And given how the latter group has been in charge of just about everything lately, I see no reason to think it’ll be any different after this election.
Garrigus Carraig
@Lupin
I think it was I who was not clear. I remember the events of 1991 in the USSR. There was an attempted coup there, which I think is a nonstarter here. So I can’t guess what kind of incident here under current circumstances would pave the way for a Yeltsin-type figure.
It’s a cliche, but I think Rome is still a good analogy. Maybe Bobby and Martin Luther King were our Gracchi.
El Cid
This is their last year to pass it while Bush is President, otherwise there might have actually been some accountability. They wanted to grant immunity, and they needed to make sure the accountability moment was removed before it was a threat. Under Bush and the signing of this law, Mission Accomplished.
Secondly, this is their last chance to pass it before the fall, when it might be more politically damaging.
LITBMueller
It’s little bit more like this:
1) Stuff that eviscerates the Constitution when someone from your party is not President sucks.
2) Stuff that eviscerates the Constitution when someone from your party is or likely will be President is cool.
This General Rule of Politics also applies to other tried and true political positions, i.e., spending is bad when the other party has the Presidency vs. “spending? what spending?” when your own guy is President (ex.: GOP Congress, 2001-04).
Its all about POWER, which is the only real reason why anyone gets into politics in the first place (its not because they love the pay, the hours, and the endless groveling for support and donations…).
Chris Andersen
Regarding Pelosi: while it is true that she doesn’t face any credible threat in her district from an opponent to her right, the voters who elect her are not her only constituency. She has to please the caucus she leads and a lot of the members of that caucus don’t want to have to explain opposition to FISA when THEY go back home to talk to THEIR voters.
I actually think that many critics are wrong to say that Dems are “bowing” on FISA because of a fear of being painted as weak on terrorism. That was the case back in 2002 and 2004. But I think 2006 showed a lot of Dems that that threat is a phantom one. And I certainly don’t think that Obama is afraid of being labeled weak on terrorism (otherwise he wouldn’t make opposition to the war in Iraq a central plank of his campaign).
However, I do think their is an element of political expediency on this issue and its one that you, John, have pointed out before: they just don’t want to spend a lot of time discussing an issue that they think they will lose on. They’d rather be working on other matters and so they just don’t feel the incentive to fight hard on this.
I certainly think that is why Obama decided not to push hard on this. He has made a calculation that the time and energy he would have to expend defending such a fight would be better spent in other ways in the general campaign.
I think he is wrong. But I am not the candidate.
And thank god for that.
OldKSGirl
Face it. The corporate take over of US politics was complete under the Regan admin. The theater we are left with, is poorly executed and barely believeable.
BombIranForChrist
I personally think this is a terrific point.
We have been so focused, with justification, on the Republicans’ misdeeds, that we have forgotten that some in Democratic Party can be just as craven and subservient to corporate interests as the Republicans.
I absolutely believe some Democrats believe that this bill was great. And we should make sure their constituents know this about them.
p.a.
Occam’s razor, my friends. The solution to any question will be the simplest possible. It just can’t be simpler than possible.
They do what they do because they believe in it. Unless you believe in some sort of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ for the Congressional Democratic Party. I don’t.
D-Chance.
Feh.
The Dems love it because they know THEY will be able to use it themselves in 7 months… and they want that power over the country and their political opponents.
Trabb's Boy
You … you’re not calling our duly elected representatives PIGS, are you?!??!!!?
LanceThruster
Yeah, Senate Dems! Real men/women take it without lube when they’re getting reamed up the @ss. And bowing is almost a perfect position for the buggering.
You really showed ’em!
(sigh)
Rome Again
It seems to me that if Washington were less about money and power exchanging hands and more about the people’s business we would have people there who care. K Street and the benefits of being in that position of power corrupt a person. They are pretty much all corrupted. The only way to change it is to take Congresses pay structure and totally dismantle it. They need to be representative of us, and they aren’t. They are movers and shakers and care nothing about those they represent.
Brachiator
Too true. And has been noted by many other posters here, there is no reason for the Democrats to continue to be so craven.
The only question is whether voters (and dollar contributors) can get the attention of these political cowards.
This is playing with the numbers, (Single-digit approval? Not exactly)
Chuck Butcher
WTF? You are in an uproar about FISA and not a squeak about RICO? The government gets to STEAL your stuff on the basis of an accusation and you jump up and down about fucking FISA?
The FBI gets to issue letters of intent and your business is just given up with no notice to you and FISA has ALL your outrage and attention? The FBI can sneak and peak your house looking for basis for a warrant and you scream about foreign phone calls? THIS kills the 4th???
Democrats? How about the numbnuts electorate that doesn’t give a flying rat’s ass? Period. Not about FISA, the whole stinking deal. Including all these damn rants.
jethro
Democrats’ strategy: Strength through
bowingblowing.Fixed.
And think how much stronger they’d be if they just sucked harder!
A. Hidell
In my book you only get to claim incompetence or cowardice so many times before it becomes obvious that what looks like a bug really is a feature. The timing and support that the FISA vote got is just additional evidence in my book.
A. Hidell
This is the same Democratic-controlled Congress that censured MoveOn.org and Senator Pete Stark. The Democrats in Congress will stick a shiv in his back every chance they get. With friends like this, the next 4 years are likely to be very very ugly indeed.
nepat
It’s official: “progressives” reveal themselves to be the dumbest and most self-hating people on the planet. McCain/Clinton ’08!!!!!!
Lulu
Garrigus Carraig Says: …It’s a cliche, but I think Rome is still a good analogy. Maybe Bobby and Martin Luther King were our Gracchi.
Yes … and Cheney is our Sulla. And probably, some even worse jackboot-wearing thug will be our Julius.
Aaron
Another deep insight from John Cole reminds me why I read this site.
/not sarcasm.
I’m from NY. I’m a lifelong Democrat. Im a Bill Clinton supporter. And Hillary Clinton is my Senator. Sometimes I’m proud of her and her record of strong constituent service. I wanted Edwards but would have been a little disappointed but fine with it if she won the presidency.
With what John has said in mind I must now reach the following conclusion:
HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD BE TRIED, CONVICTED AND EXECUTED FOR HER COMPLICITY IN THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ AND THE MURDER OF ONE MILLION IRAQIS (more or less).
And so should every other politician (and many others-rummy rice powell, etc.) who voted for the invasion.
I would consider a safe harbor for those politicians who renounced the invasion when it became obvious it wasn’t about self defense. (lets say by Fall 03)
We need to execute these people- for so many reasons.