The Reality-Based Community

When the Democrats looked up after all that 'triangulating', they were like Wiley Coyote- supended in mid-air, way past the edge of the cliff. Not a problem easily solved by being careful what we say in the last weeks before an election.

It's the truth, though, isn't it? The Democrats won't oppose torture, so they are cowards. Simple as that. If they won't stand firm on a principle like that, there's no sense in worrying about whether the election "restores" checks and balances. The Democrats are no more likely to provide anything more than token opposition to the President when they have a majority than what they're doing right now.

There is no leader. There is no one person to stand up, as Martin did 35 years ago, and say with absolute conviction and integrity, "We are not afraid." The American people would stand shoulder to shoulder with that leader, I still believe that. If Kate Smith was right and God still does bless America, then such a one will rise up before it is too late.

By not fighting this bill the D's label themselves as cowards.

Give us a majority and we will do the things that we won't do now?

A staffer at Sen. Reid's office has just told me that no final decision has been made abotu a filibuster.

The number is 202 224 3542.

Call.

What's the point of winning a house of congress now anyway?

If our goal truly is to get some checks and balance what on earth would lead one to believe congressional democrats are the answer?

> Give us a majority and we will do the
> things that we won't do now?

Very nicely stated.

I would also ask:

1) Where are the "Democrats of Faith"? Why aren't they standing up tall, strong, and proud _in_public_ denouncing torture? Mr. Obama in particular could gain the attention of the press; he did so when he wagged his finger at "some Democrats". But for torture, not so much.

2) No one really knows why the red-purple people vote the way they do, but one common explanation is that while they might agree with many Democratic positions they believe that Democratic /politicians/ as a group have no spine and won't stand up for what they believe in. These actions address that perception how?

I gave money to Kerry, I worked for Kerry, I voted for Kerry - even though I didn't like him much. I have given more money than I can really afford this cycle to Democratic candidates I don't really like either (Tester, Webb). I have sucked up and played the good little child for my betters at DNC headquarters.

But if they won't stand against torture, what will they stand up against? When?

Cranky

It's a defining moment. This torture bill is being debated NOW, not in six weeks.

And, the Democrats gain control of one house or both, and then, they do what? Suddenly, with power, we are supposed to believe that they will grow spines and find consciences?

Are they going to impeach his royal highness? Are they going to repeal this torture bill? Are they even going to investigate any of his "state secrets"?

It's not rude, Mark, just wrong.

By walking right into the trap of going along with the Bush-Cheney insistence that we have to have a detainee (torture/tribunal) bill before the recess, the Democratic caucus has been doing Rove's work for him. By counting on "allies" like the most likely 2008 Republican presidential nominee to achieve a decent bill and/or to run out the clock by holding out for one, Democrats have been doing Rove's work for him.

We are merely pointing out the truth: that there is one chance left to demonstrate that our party's willing to fight for the Constitution, and that nothing but political cowardice is holding it back.

Or should we not point out the cowardice involved because it's a state secret?

Do you include the New York Times editorial board among the 'Blue opinion leaders' you're addressing, Mark?

I agree about the words. And I won't say them publicly.
Too bad the Dems actions scream cowardice, too.
As Markos pointed out yesterday, we have a long road to hoe - and many of these Dem "leaders" have to be gotten rid of - but first we have to win this election. Chin up, everyone.
Perseverance furthers.

Would it be stating the obvious for me to note that the Democrats are doing Rove's work for him?

it's not that by not fighting this that the democrats label themselves as cowards...it's that by not fighting this they *demonstrate* that they are, in fact, cowards.

What is there left to check?

The Executive Branch was just made infallible by the Congress, or did you miss that whole "The President can capriciously grab and torture whoever he wants outside the reach of the judiciary" thing?

All of that said, this is what America wants.

We've become a terrified, ignorant nation afraid of things our forefathers actually believed in -- and could explain.

The truth hurts, as they say.

Thanks to all of you for making my point more clearly than I ever could have.

And yes, the New York Times editorial, eloquent though it was, still made Karl Rove smile when he read it. As the late Michael Harrington said to the McCarthy crowd as it sat out the 1968 Presidential election and handed the country to Nixon, "Coalitions are built by victories, not by defeats."

The thought of Henry Waxman with subpoena power ought to make every Bush-hater salivate, as it makes Bush tremble. Let's have the post-mortem after the funeral, not before.

It wouldn't be intolerably rude. It would be wholly inverting the set of known facts. Oh. It would be insulting. And diversionary.

Democrats ARE cowards in how they've handled this issue. That's not a MEME--that's the actual pattern of behavior.

Anyone who cannot be moved to defend and uphold the Constitution has no claim to the mantle of courage or leadership. They should be RUSHING to filibuster these bills.

It's a matter of principle, it's a matter of faith (these liberties and rights were endowed by our Creator), and it's a matter of values.

Either you believe in this country or you don't; either you're willing to fight for principles that can never be compromised and liberties that can NEVER be suspended--or you have no claim to courage or leadership at all.

It's NOT us doing Rove's bidding: the Democrats Senators and Representatives ARE DOING Karl Rove's bidding EVERY time they fail to fight for the Constitution.

The American people respect those who fight, and who stand up for what they believe in. That doesn't describe any Senator right now--every last one of whom should have been filibustering. Lanny Davis, btw, is an amoral hypocrite for suggesting filibusters were a terrible thing b/c Strom used it for evil ends.

It's clear Sherrod Brown has no claim to progressive, Democratic, or American leadership. He is Chuck Schumer's mistake--Paul Hackett was without question deserving of every last sweat droplet and penny of support.

I don't care how likable or "nice" Brown seems to be--anyone too gutless to stand up for this country/this Constitution--has no claim on votes or power. I'll say that straight to his face when I see him--for ALL his works that've gone before are NOTHING in light of this profound betrayal of his obligations, his pledge to uphold the Constitution, and whatever honor requiring him to bind support for our soldiers.

Brown's breach of trust will ensure that he looks the other way when it comes time--as it surely will--for other nations to torture OUR soldiers/pows. He won't be able to look anyone in the eye--and I'll stare him down.

Brown--and the rest--are a shame and a disgrace on this country, on the American people, and on the founders of this country. (Some of my ancestors fought in 1776). Nothing--NOTHING--gives Senators and Reps the capacity to knowingly pass illegal measures, to betray the Constitution, or to suspend Liberties.

Sherrod Brown does Karl Rove's work. Without Sherrod Brown, Karl Rove would be OUT OF work.

Who, exactly, do you see out there "spreading the 'Democrats are cowards' meme"?

Is is the bloggers, writers, and grassroots activists, who are willing to stand up and take an unpopular position in defense of our Constitution? Or is that meme being spread by our elected senators and representatives, who are running away from this fight with their tails between their legs?

I'd have to say that Reid and his compatriots are the ones who are about to define the Democratic Party in the eyes of the nation. If they allow the torture/habeus bill to become law, then Americans will see that these people have no bedrock principles and no courage whatsoever.

Even the people who love this bill would have to admire the Democrats for standing up against it. But if the opposition just rolls over and gives up without a fight, then all of us - red and blue alike - will see this bunch of "leaders" as a shifty bunch of chickens. Karl Rove will laugh all the way to the poll booth.

It's time to get a little more "reality-based," Mark. Only the actions of the Democrats in a time of crisis will determine whether they are labeled "courageous" or "cowardly." The nattering of "blue opinion leaders" won't matter much at all.

if the dems are going to act as cowards on this, i really don't care much if calling them on it does rove's work. they've made their bed and can sleep in it. perhaps they don't deserve the power of subpoena, if this is their way.

"is it really a good idea to spread the "Democrats are cowards" meme six weeks before an election that might restore the system of checks and balances?"

That calls for a question as its answer: Is it really a good idea for Democrats to *ACT* *LIKE* *COWARDS* six weeks before an election? What do you think's worse, acting like a punk, or calling someone a punk in the hopes that they might change their ways?

We agree on that, right? Or do we? Do you think Democrats will show how tough they are by helping the president legalize torture? It's too bad we don't have a test case for this theory, that siding with the president on a stupid, politically-motivated and bullshit-based policy initiative would pay electoral benefits.

Oh, wait, we do. It's called the rush to war in Iraq, and it's called the 2002 elections. How'd those go? You remember those, right?

"Would it be intolerably rude of me to note that you're doing Karl Rove's work for him?"

Would it be intolerably rude of me to note that you're joining the esteemed company of Marshall Wittmann, and recycling one of his most annoying rhetorical tricks: that of telling anyone who disagrees with him "You know you're just doing what Karl Rove wants you to do, right?"

Karl Rove is apparently the new "terrorists": "If you don't (vote for Bush), the terrorists will have won" is replaced by "If you don't (kiss my ass), Karl Rove will have won."

And would it be intolerably rude of me to note that past efforts by Democratic strategists to psych out Karl Rove have - coincidentally, I'm sure - involved the time-tested Democratic strategies of not attacking the president as a liar, accepting the GOP's claims that the president is strong on national security despite a laundry list of screw-ups that would make the Keystone Kops proud, and generally letting Republicans get away with murder while they're clucking about how they just want to get along with everyone?

Why are people allergic to the idea of Democrats fighting for what's right? And then, when challenged, actually fighting back? And why do you think encouraging this mentality is going to help us win elections?

I'm with Nell. It's the Democratic Party that's doing Rove's work, not those of us who are angry at the party.