What does "support" mean here? Not dealing with them, or making sure they know they've lost the blogisphere.

I'm totally down with the latter, but I don't understand the former - are we really going to let this stand without a fight?

Look, the bill is worse than we thought, and it's going to take a real effort for Democrats to fix what they fouled up, but they are not without tools, political and congressional to do something about this.

And this time, even Fred Hiatt seems to realize that the bill was a truly bad one.

I've refrained from posting about this one, in part, because I was too angry to think straight, and in part, because I believe the blogisphere has a right to be furious, and yes, with Pelosi and Reid. But clearly Democrats, including the leadership, realize they made a mistake.

What they are going to have to do is make a big fucking deal of this in order to explain it to Americans, and don't tell me that a majority of Americans don't object to the notion that any administration, and especially this one, can listen to, peruse, search any kind of communication of any American if some reasonable connection can be found to link them to anyone overseas, from an Irish grandmother, to having been on vacation abroad, to have received unsolicited mail from an international organization, like CARE, maybe - and let's face it, that is essentially what the bill's complexities allow. It is left totally up to the discretion of the AG and the head of a spy agency.

Americans need to be told, Democrats have to do it, and along the way, yes, they may have to say, we made a mistake.

Enough for now...I'm just trying to figure out if it's really enough to keep saying what jerks Democrats are/were, or whether anyone is up for seeing what we can do about this abomination.

Why is "incompetence" (i.e., "they got rolled again") a dodge and not an explanation?

What is the evidence for the oft-stated (or -implied) alternative, that Nancy and Harry connived to score this power for future Democratic unitary executives -- which they shrewdly chose to do in a clusterfuck vote that made them look like fools or worse?

With so much on the line, we should be just as blunt in dealing with incompetence as we are with ill-intent.

You said it! I just wish they were...

My Senators split on this one 50-0 (one voted for the atrocity; the other didn't bother to show up and, who knows?, may have been kidnapped by aliens from Planet Nine -- hasn't been heard from since as far as I can tell), and right now a lower tool-to-actual-Democrat ratio sounds pretty damn good to me.

With kind regards,
Dog, etc.
searching for home

I could accept the incompetence dodge--"they were rushed, and didn't have time to read the bill." That's pretty bad, of course.

The reasons to believe worse (either LIHOP or MIHOP) instead of bad:

1. Reid, as is well known, is a master of the legislative process and of the arcana of Senate rules. Yet he somehow managed to pass a Republican bill? WTF? (See Greenwald: "This would not have happened without the full participation of the Democratic leadership. They control the bills, what gets voted on, how long Congress stays in session, all of it.")

2. The various intel people (thanks, DiFi) had to have been more clued in than the membership. Even if they didn't check the language, surely they were clued in on what was happening?

3. After the Leahy hearings on Gonzo, how could anybody give him any more power at all??!? Surely, this had to have been known.

So, I'm seeing incompetence of proportions so massive as to beg for other explanations to be sought.

Now, Atrios carefully and tactfully says "Democratic leadership." For now, I think we should support primary challengers, especially to the Wittle Blue Widdlers. (Matt Stoller has one proposal.) And see, e.g., Scary Shit:

of the 41 congresspersons who voted for the FISA bill, 36 were either DLC, Freshmen Democrats targeted by Rahm Emanuel [thanks, Rahm, you tool) and the DCCC, or Blue Dog Democrats. These three variables account for 88% of the FISA capitulators. That is a pretty damn strong result.

Why not let Howard Dean over at the DNC know what you think about the DLC, Rahm Emanuel's DCCC Freshmen Democrats, and the Blue Dog Coalition in relation to FISA?

Phone number:
202-863-8000

E-mail them here.

We should support Dems who do the right thing on a case by base basis. We should never support a Republican. But there's no reason at all to give money to any apparatus that the leadership controls. They will be very well provided with corporate money anyhow. Sort of a "millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" style of thing.

I don't know why Harry and Nancy did what they did. And I don't think that the Democrats are unified in favor of a unitary executive of their own (at least Edwards isn't. Hilbama have been conspicuous by their silence on this). But for them not to have known what was in the bill... That's incompetence of a suspiciously high order.

NOTE I think it would be great if this were some sort of massive deking maneuver by Reid -- Give Gonzo the power, then impeach him so nobody has the power, but I see no evidence of that, and in any case one part of leadership is preparing your people for the moves you're going to make, which the Beltway Dems, institutionally, seem almost incapable of doing. Yes, yes, 100 hours, but as I asked at the time, what about the first 100 days? And I've been amply answered.

UPDATE Matt Stoller has an interesting exegesis of the procedural Clusterfuck here, but I keep going back to point #1. These guys are supposed to be better than that. Selise, at Big Orange has a second time-line. It would be interesting to compare them....

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

I'm asking the DU community to see if someone can fill in my knowledge gaps about what the "leaders" could and should have done differently.

For want of that info, I don't fully understand the nature of the incompetence -- what specific steps, beyond failing to inspire the rank and file to defend the Constitution, they got wrong.

Reid's mastery may be over-rated. Rather than fight the "nuclear option" on the filibuster, he failed to throw his body in front of the Alito and Roberts nominations. Even if he'd lost, the public would have begun to understand that we've gone into an extra-Constitutional bizarro world, and nothing else really would have changed. Except that the nuclear option would have come to haunt the Repubs after the mid-term elections, that is.

Those would be interesting data points, indeed.

Of course, there's also the issue of why the recess date was sacrosanct.

If Reid was going to work some kind of technical magic to prevent Bush from doing recess appointments, wasn't there anything along those lines that could have been done? Maybe the DU guys would know that?

Did they really have to pass it, at midnight, and then blow town?

The other thing Clusterfuck does... I keep thinking that Pelosi's strategy of "to legislate is key" just isn't right. (You get rid of the termites eating away at the foundations before you put in new kitchen cabinetry, you know?)

But if legislating is the strategy, and plenty of Democrats still do think of themselves as legislators, as opposed to lobbyists with training wheels or Conservative shills, then wouldn't it have made sense to have mastered the legislative process?

Particularly when it's crystal clear, by this point, that Bush brutally games it?

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

... more sacred than the Constitution is pretty repugnant, isn't it?

VL, here's a range of possibilities:

- The Incompetence Dodge: The Democratic leadership did not have sufficient skill, experience or intelligence to avoid being outmaneouvered by Bush and the GOP.

- The Process Dodge: Something about the arcane workings of congressional procedure and insider politics determined the outcome, there was nothing the Dem leadership could do about it.

Both of the above assume good intentions by the Dem leadership, intentions that were thwarted by forces beyond their control.

This allows "supporters" of Democrat politicians to believe that the pols "share their concerns", and really want to do the right thing but, for one reason or another, cannot.

Back to Leah's question: what does "support" mean, exactly? I think it boils down to "don't say bad things about Democrat politicians or the party itself, regardless of what they do or say". With the implication that without your support, the Democratic party will lose the next elections and we will be condemned to continued GOP rule.

- The Bad Faith Theory: this assumes the Dem leadership is actually misbehaving deliberately and they are granting Bush all these authoritarian powers because they want to someday have them for themselves.

I think this is a stretch, and it strangely allows supporters to maintain their faith in their leaders because under this scenario they are not bumbling idiots, as in the Dodge scenarios, but are instead cunning authoritarians in sheep's clothing.

- The Leverage Theory: Congresscritters do what they feel they have to do, not what they want to do, just like the rest of us. People in difficult situations choose the path of least resistance and the path that will be to their greatest personal advantage.

To believe that Congresscritters act only out of heartfelt idealism is silly. Of course they build their careers on convincing voters that they do feel your pain and will stand tall for freedom, justice and the American Way every time. Close observation of the workings of US politics and of human nature tells us: not so much.

This post is about how the Right Wing forces politicians to do their bidding. They do it with a massive infrastructure of money (lots of it), brick-and-mortar lobbying and think tank outfits with specialized staff, and a massive operation to get their ideas propagated by mass media.

This is what the left has to do: make the politicians do the right thing. They are not going to do it on their own.

Blind faith that politicians will be persuaded by heartfelt arguments and moral appeals is never going to work. It's all about leverage.

It doesn't help when activists make excuses (see the Dodges) for politicians when they fail to represent their wishes. This is the time to apply pressure, not to find ways of justifying continued "support".

In the end, policy outcomes are all that matter, regardless of which of the above theories is correct. Are we out of Iraq or not? Do we have universal healthcare or not? Are our (formerly) constitutionally guaranteed freedoms intact or not?

I'd forgotten that one, Shystee, to my discredit.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Need more freshman house reps. That will fix things. I mean, sure they voted for FISA II, but if only we elected more of them.

I know you think I'm getting old, but some people (and most of big orange) remind me of when IBM was getting killed in the DRAM business.

They couldn't make memory cheap enough, so the plan was literally to make more of it. They were losing about $0.20 per chip they shipped out the door, but they were planning to make it up on volume. True story. So that is the new Dem strategy. Making up for spinelessness and incompetence by providing more examples of spineless dems.

It's just that the "more" Dems are going to have to get there on their own, which I'm sure Rahm will get plenty of corporate bucks to do, and when the Dems fuck up I'll try to slap them silly. This is a voice strategy, rather than a loyalty strategy (bringiton, I would say), or an exit strategy (your's, I would say).

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Though you assume good intentions are an impossibility (those scenarios are categorized as "dodges" and not "theories"), something accounted for the healthy but insufficient number of proper votes.

Were the good votes only because voters in certain districts and states held their Reps' and Senators' feet to the fire? Or is it possible that a majority of Dems do in fact vote their consciences much of the time?

"I think it boils down to 'don’t say bad things about Democrat politicians or the party itself, regardless of what they do or say'" is, methinks, something a straw man. I could point to one post that flew a little close to that flame, but few would suggest that Dems who vote against essential American freedoms -- and the leadership that fails to manage the voting process -- are beyond reproach.

It's more satisfying to declaim the whole tub than to go about the subtler business of separating baby from bathwater, which is indeed a job for leverage. I'm working up a magnum opus on this, which I hope to finish in the next couple of days.

I should add that we shouldn't be shy about using Voice and working the Overton Window; we should just aim to use them to maximum effect. If we end up badmouthing good people and encouraging more "Exit" behavior, that's not maximum effect in this reality.

If we provide more air cover and inspiration for politicians of conscience and more fear for those less-so, then I think we're doing a fine job as citizens.

to protect the telcos from liability ("alleged" ...)

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

I agree. I do have a tendency to think, why praise them for what they ought to be doing anyhow, but that doesn't work real well as a theory of managing human relationships...

But how do I do that?? I went to the progressive caucus website, and it was rather dispiriting.

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Helping propel constructive, progressive memes does double-duty as carrot and stick.

For example, the extensive advocacy in the blogosphere for gay marriage provides a degree of air cover for those very few bold proponents -- and also creates anxiety for the John Edwardses who haven't quite taken the leap, and encourages them to at least be solidly for civil unions.

Perhaps secular advocacy and the popularization of books like Dawkins's emboldened Pete Stark to come out as a skeptic.

On issues with broader acceptance, such as health care and climate-change, progressive advocacy is providing extremely valuable air cover.

Our pet topic here could be expressed as figuring out how to give air cover to those who might be persuaded (in a friendly manner or otherwise) to take a stand for the Constitution.

/angry rant/

"they were bought and paid for, and voted the way their masters in the MIC wanted them to vote."

sorry kids, but all this talk about incompetence and misguided intent and the rest seems like a broken record to me. after the votes on MCA, the BK bill, the supplemental...gosh, i could go on. but really, when are we all going to stop acting like abused wives? they don't love you. they don't even like you. indeed, many of them despise you. how can i make it clearer, Little Rube?

how about we do a break down of those who voted in favor of FISA, along with some other key bills, and then compare that to how much and from whom they've received money? toss in trips they've taken recently and with whom they spend their "more precious than the constitution" vacation time. i love you leah, but the democratic leadership and the traitorous "blue dog" contingent don't "realize they made a mistake," they are only a little surprised that the anger is bubbling up despite full court press misdirection in the mainstream media.
it's really becoming clear to me now, harry is a Playah of consummate skill. i love it when a word works so perfectly.

anyway, i'm off to read the stoller post lambert linked to. it better say, "here is the blogosphere's 20 pronged plan of attack in the primaries." otherwise, i'm going to relegate that post to the same well loved pile of dirty clothes i'm putting most blogosphere discourse about the dem leadership these days. yes, we're all angry now: welcome to my world, i'm sorry it sucks. unless and until our "leadership" directs our silly little mass to do something about MIC control of "our" party, i'm spending time in the gardens and on the ground locally.

hang on, i have to go find a quote from the crack den yesterday- some newbie summed it up perfectly...

matt is thinking about google ads. because, that will scare them into voting more progressively, you bet.

well, i guess i just don't know anything about politics and power and what really matters. but re: the logic of motivating "the influentials" as he calls them, here's a crazy idea- there are influentials in elections too. people who, well, show up and vote. in the primaries, only a little sliver of that great slumbering beast known as "the electorate" quivers into action. so the impact a small group of motivated, organized people, like say, i don't know, bloggers or something, can have a greatly magnified impact on the outcome.

another pitifully small bunch of crazies tried this a few decades ago, i think we call them "neocon masters" today.