No guts, no glory.

Two words: "Ron Paul"

The damned Dem's will find that that their equivocation will lose the election for them.

What they don't seem to understand is that -winning- isn't necessary. -Fighting- is necessary.

I read those statements from Obama and HRC earlier, and thought the same thing that I think now: why are these two the front-runners? Those are two of the biggest hedges I've read in a really long time. Hell, I hedge from time to time, and I thought those were massive hedges. Clearly, these two are more interested in getting into the white house instead of serving their responsibilities as senators, effectively challenging the Bush administration on behalf of the populaces that they represent and who also want them to actually grow a spine.

There's a critical margin of members who just won't back any position that can't also attract substantial Republican backing to provide "cover."

Lets have their names, so we can put pressure on them or vote them out of office. Failure to stand up to the administration when it breaks the laws might as well be active support for the lawbreaking, for all the difference it makes. These spineless Democrats deserve every bit of blame that the Republicans do. Their acts of omission are facilitating the corruption and destruction of our Republic.

Here's what's disingenuous about this whole mess: Obama spoke out against retroactive immunity the same day that Dodd did. But let's pretend that he didn't and ask him if he supports Dodd's filibuster. He says that he will support a filibuster if it comes to the floor in its present form (i.e., with retroactive immunity). Nope, not good enough for Glenn. Why? Because he said IF it comes to the floor in its current form. Now, why would he hedge like that? Um, let me think, oh yeah . . . the bill is still in committee. That's not a hedge, that's recognizing reality.

I applaud Dodd for talking the talking. And when he walks the walk, I'll applaud that too. But at this point, nothing has happened. No bill has been introduced on the floor with retroactive immunity. Dodd hasn't placed a hold on that bill. Senator Reid has not overriden that hold. Dodd has not filibustered that bill.

I wish Glen was placing as much emphasis on the two REAL pressure points at this stage of the game: the Judiciary Committee and Senator Reid. When was the last time a Majority Leader threatened to override a senior member of his caucus? WTF!

Seven words : New Party, New Elective Officials, New Government

The Democratic Party (along with their most likely presidential candidate) threw the far left off the bus a few months ago.

The leftists are still sitting in the dust at the side of the road, not only pretending they're still on the bus, but that they're actually driving it.

I just love NONTROVERSIES.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

I don't get why Obama's statement is considered a hedge. When he says "in its present form" he is *obviously* referring to the telecom immunity section, since that is the whole reason for the proposed filibuster.

Anyone asserting that Obama means that if a non-immunity section gets changed and the immunity section stays, that he will then not support a filibuster, is simply another useful idiot doing the GOP's work for them.

This crap as really got to stop.

*

One problem with both Clinton and Obama is that neither seems to be actually in the forefront leading the way on any of these major issues. The inability of the rest of the Democratic leadership to take a principled stand on anything is bad enough, but this void in those who want to be President doesn't give me much hope for the future of this country.

What Turley said.

And I think a good reason to have term limits, "none of the above", instant runoff voting, or proportional voting option would be to enable us to get politicians that are not careerists, that want to lead, and that do not have to be afraid to risk their seat.

Most of these people are far richer than the rest of us, have basically unlimited futures should they leave Congress, and are absolutely cowardly in the face of the worst abuses in our history.

Our "leaders" are truly disgusting.

Can we get instant runoff voting for house and senate Kevin? If so, how do we get there?

According to Greg Sargent over at TPM Election Central, the Obama camp has now issued an unequivocal statement declaring that Obama will support the filibuster of any bill containing retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

Good for Greg Sargent.

I think it is way past time we started asking ourselves why so damn many so-called progressives continue to lie about Obama and twist his words and spin them in the most unfavorable light.

I don't know how my dad actually voted. But he did tell me several times, to just vote against the incumbents. Go figure, I'm turning into my dad.

tbrosz: The Democratic Party (along with their most likely presidential candidate) threw the far left off the bus a few months ago.

And yet just the other day you were calling her a flat-out socialist.

Slightly off topic, but Condi has decided to appear before Waxman's committee after all. I doubt, however, that courage had much to do with it.

The leftists are still sitting in the dust at the side of the road, not only pretending they're still on the bus, but that they're actually driving it.

Compare that to tbrosz, who sold out his every so-called "conservative" principle to support the fiscally feckless authoritarian Bush Administration, and the "leftists" still look a hell of a lot better.

And they don't have to adopt a new handle because their old one sank in a cesspool of intellectual dishonesty. I can't think of a better way for ol' tbrosz to acknowledge the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of his position. One only wonders if "harry"'s frequent use of tbrosz' well-know verbal tics is a sign of carelessness or a desperate need to be recognized, if only as a shameless, unprincipled authoritarian hack.

Shame on you, tbrosz.

Oh good god. How does Mukasey not know what waterboarding is? Google that shite for Christ's sake Mukasey. or go here
http://tshirtinsurgency.com/blog

Ace: "I read those statements from Obama and HRC earlier, and thought the same thing that I think now: why are these two the front-runners? Those are two of the biggest hedges I've read in a really long time."

Hypothesis: they hedge because they *are* frontrunners. They don't want to change any dynamics. Non-frontrunners (Edwards, Dodd) do want to rock the boat, so they can say what they really think.

What Jerry said and asked.

I don't believe the Dems are afraid that defying Bush would cost them votes. Every poll says that not defying Bush will cost them votes. I believe they're afraid that defying Bush would cost them money from lobbies and corporations.

I believe they're afraid that defying Bush would cost them money from lobbies and corporations.

Bingo.

It's also an admission that the Dems just don't have the savvy or muscle to pressure enough, if any, Repubs their way.

It's still early in the race. I believe we'll see HRC, Obama & others stop hedging as the primaries draw near. Taking strong stands this early gives opponents too much time to dismantle them - legitimately or otherwise.

Would the Dems lose politically if they defied Bush on torture? Here are some poll results from last January. Interpret them as you like.

"Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?"

12% Often Justified
31% Sometimes Justified
25% Rarely Justified
29% Never Justified
3 % Unsure

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

Would the Dems lose politically if they defied Bush on torture?

How nice of "ex-liberal" to concede that Bush supports torture and Democrats oppose it. Of course, we -- and the readers of the New York Times -- have no doubts about "ex-liberal"'s support of torture.

Shame on you, "ex-liberal".

"It's official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton: ...To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies..."

"...When informed of Obama's decision, MoveOn expressed relief. "Excellent -- this is the kind of leadership we need to see from the Democratic candidates," MoveOn spokesman Adam Green told Election Central. "Dodd, Biden, and Obama all agree. Will Clinton get on board?..."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php

OBAMA DIDN'T HEDGE...GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT!

.Democrats hope to win the World Series without ever leaving the dugout: They want to denounce torture but won't expend the political capital it would take to fight a time-consuming and risky confirmation battle.

and nothing like confirming the suspicion held by many that democrats are gutless cowards

So Linda tell us how you really feel. Why don't we add that Republicans are soulless, heartless zombies.

And yet just the other day you were calling her a flat-out socialist.

It doesn't mean she doesn't need to play to the center to win. The Left's problem is that she's far enough ahead of her opponents that she doesn't have to bother to play "commie" for the primaries any more.

Kind of fixated on the identity issue, aren't we? As if your mom named you "shortstop."

By European standards the Democratic Party is a right-wing party; usually it is to the right of most mainstream western European rightist parties. At least this is how it is seen from the Europe. But it is hard to know exactly what the Democrats stand for in an activist sense. They really should be labeled the status quo party. No matter what the status quo is they stand for it even when it is defined by the right. They may offer something less savage, but it will be a variant that shares the same goals and frame of reference. The Republicans are the activist party with no one to their right.

Although the progressive American left is similar in outlook to the European left, actually they are more free market and more individualist; they have no political party.

Retroactive immunity for the telecoms?

What, are we somehow violating their privacy?

Well, if the fillibuster fails, Cheney will make classify them as National Security secrets.

"I believe they're afraid that defying Bush would cost them money from lobbies and corporations."

And I believe they think torture works. They believe in it. That's why they take the positions they take.

tbrosz wrote: Kind of fixated on the identity issue, aren't we?

Just amused at your tacit admission that your previous handle had no credibility left, and at your mission to blow your credibility all over again -- in defense of the mendacious, incompetent, corrupt and tyrannical Republican Party of George W. Bush, yet! -- under your new one.

I always acknowledged that you, unlike many of the authoritarian Bush Cultists who post here, were at least capable of debating honestly, if so often you chose not to. Do you ever, ever stop to consider that having to stoop to such dishonestly as you routinely do -- including slinking back under a new pseudonym -- invalidates your defense of the GOP already, you jackass?

Oh, but I forgot -- the GOP promises you those sweet, sweet tax cuts. I'd say you've sold your soul, tbrosz, but it looks increasingly like it was a worthless commodity to begin with.

Shame on you, tbrosz.

tbrosz: It doesn't mean she doesn't need to play to the center to win.

Got it. She's a socialist who's thrown the commies under the bus. Thanks for your unique take on where the center of American politics lies.

You know it's just going to get even lonelier and more frustrating in your garage from this point out, don't you?

Kind of fixated on the identity issue, aren't we?

"Fixated" because I call you by your name? What an odd way to look at it.

Why don't you post as tbrosz anymore, by the way? Why create half a dozen sock puppets in a single thread to pretend to have people backing you up? Does that seem like rational or mature behavior from a fellow who's always telling us he's the only sane voice in our particular wilderness?

As if your mom named you "shortstop."

No, it was my dad; Mom was holding out for Designated Hitter. What everyone outside of PA calls me is just my nickname. How'd you come up with "harry" after having been a Tom for 50-odd years?

Amusingly ironic that bellumregio's clearsighted post came just after Tom Brosz' latest Commie Clinton hallucination.

Oh, and tbrosz? Sure, shortstop uses a handle, but she always uses it. Unlike you, she's quite willing to accept the reputation that goes along with her history of posting. And unlike you, her record merits respect.

The issue, as you well know, isn't that you post pseudonymously, but that you do so dishonestly -- dishoneslty seeking to hide from your well-deserved reputation for dishonesty, and using the presumed credibility of an unfamiliar handle to push yet more dishoensty in the form of the usual hackneyed GOP talking points.

Are you even capable of arguing here without resorting to intellectually dishonest straw man arguments? Doesn't it ambarrass you to be caught in such tawdry intellectual dishoensty over and over again?

Shame on you, tbrosz.

Oh, and tbrosz? Sure, shortstop uses a handle, but she always uses it. Unlike you, she's quite willing to accept the reputation that goes along with her history of posting. And unlike you, her record merits respect.

Appreciate the support, but let's not get carried away with assigning me virtues I don't hold. I've been known to do a one-off or a few-off under another handle now and then. But, no, I wouldn't kill "shortstop" and pretend to be a whole new person in an attempt to bury my previous shame. And if I ever found myself making up creating numerous sock puppets with which to have a fake conversation with myself in a thread, I'd seek medical attention at once.

moi: And if I ever found myself making up creating numerous sock puppets with which to have a fake conversation with myself in a thread, I'd seek medical attention at once.

And if I ever caught myself writing a sentence like this, I'd seek emergency editorial attention at once.

The Left's problem is that she's far enough ahead of her opponents that she doesn't have to bother to play "commie" for the primaries any more.

I don't get it. Does that make her a Bakuninist or a Lassalist?

let's not get carried away with assigning me virtues I don't hold. I've been known to do a one-off or a few-off under another handle now and then. But, no, I wouldn't kill "shortstop" and pretend to be a whole new person in an attempt to bury my previous shame.

That's all I'm saying, and it puts you one up on ol' tbrosz.

Personally, I'm embarrassed by my typing, but no new handle could fix that.

Oh, but I forgot -- the GOP promises you those sweet, sweet tax cuts. I'd say you've sold your soul, tbrosz, but it looks increasingly like it was a worthless commodity to begin with.

Beautiful.

It's funny 'cause it's true!

So now he has no soul and his taxes are about to go up again. Sucks to be tbrosz.

So now he has no soul and his taxes are about to go up again. Sucks to be tbrosz.

Yeah, but since no woman has ever touched him, at least he doesn't have any children who will be saddled with the debt he and his ilk have racked up. That's a win, right?

There are no real leftists in the United States. If you read the blogs you find no trace of the powerful socialist critique of orthodox laissez-faire. When was the last time someone got into ideas about the right of contract? The central critique of laissez-faire by the socialists in Britain in the 19th century was based on the idea that men who are unequal in material wealth cannot enter in a free contract. The poorer man was already at a disadvantage and the contract was not fair. A major pillar of the non-interference of government ideology is that free men should be able to enter into contractual agreements without a referee deciding on the fairness- from which we get no minimum wage and no unions and no government decisions regulating the workplace.

But no one in the US even thinks about this or tries to undermine the philosophical and moral basis of money-making. Most “leftist” critiques are merely charges against unfairness and cruelty. The US tends to be split not into capitalists and communists but between those who embrace a authoritarian form of aristocratic anti-statism (for some it is just domination by the propertied class but for Southerners of the recent past it was racism) and those who want a more pragmatic utilitarian capitalism.

It seems to me the Democrats can't figure out a way to "end" the Iraq war because no matter how they do it, some number of troops would be there for what? At least 6 to 8 months as they pack up and leave?

And there surely isn't any way to judge how close or how far away the Iraqi gov't is from presenting some semblance of control that would constitute "victory". Throw in the supposition that if we leave, or confirm we're leaving soonest, the level of violence is reduced to a level that would constitute "victory".

There doesn't seem to be any reason not to temporize more than a year from the election. It can't be because of the polls; if it were, the Ds and the Rs would both be voting to leave Iraq.

The eyes are on the prize: 2008 majority control of Congress (an effective one) and the presidency. The election can only be lost from here, until, of course, the NYT/WaPo/Networks/Cable start bashing the leading Dem so there can be a "horse race" like in 2000.

Mukasey was obviously warned by Bushies.

Obama is fine on his filibuster position for now.
Don't forget, they're out on the campaign trail
and don't necessarily stay up on legislating.

Clinton shows raw courage in saying, 'maybe'.

My problem with both is they aren't leaders and right now we're desperate for some real leadership. Dodd showed that and deserves kudos for it. I hope he keeps it up with help from Russ Feingold.

America has suffered from Republican 'small government, personal responsibility' philosophy for a long time now. A lot of problems have gone untouched and under-resourced. We need leadership and a real desire to solve a LOT of problems. Even the current Senate Republicans are dedicated to stopping any big 'wins' for Democrats and would rather let soldiers die, children die and California homes go up in smoke than let Democrats get things done.

In that vein I'm supporting John Edwards.
Dodd is my second choice.

There are no real leftists in the United States. If you read the blogs you find no trace of the powerful socialist critique of orthodox laissez-faire. When was the last time someone got into ideas about the right of contract? The central critique of laissez-faire by the socialists in Britain in the 19th century was based on the idea that men who are unequal in material wealth cannot enter in a free contract. The poorer man was already at a disadvantage and the contract was not fair. A major pillar of the non-interference of government ideology is that free men should be able to enter into contractual agreements without a referee deciding on the fairness- from which we get no minimum wage and no unions and no government decisions regulating the workplace.

I suppose one reason why no one is arguing against that position anymore is even those arguing the rightist position are arguing mostly at the margins; their arguing against raising the minimum wage, or applying it to particular classes of workers, or some other detail (often one with significant impact, but that's beside the point I'm making), not against having one in the first place. At least, those seriously discussing real policy measures in the present. Ditto with workplace safety measures, environmental measures, etc. The Right largely grants as given the fundamental leftist arguments about having policy, but seeks to subvert its functions by tinkering at the details at a level that can be obfuscated more easily and turned into battles of dueling experts that lay voters will tune out, and let the interest with the most money to influence policy win.

The absence of an honest Right makes the kind of theoretical Leftist critique you suggest superfluous—it has, on the big picture level, nothing to argue against.

That's not to say that there isn't a dearth of practical leftism as well, but the kind of theoretical arguments that you see as missing would seem superfluous.

"Flash": Jeffrey Toobin (wrote Bush v. Gore just said on Charlie Rose, he thinks if Hillary is elected she will appoint Obama to the SCOTUS.

he thinks if Hillary is elected she will appoint Obama to the SCOTUS.

That's one way to defeat your competition....

I'm an Edwards supporter, but if one of the others is in the general... don't you think that Edwards would make a PERFECT attorney general in any Democratic administration? Interestingly, it could be like RFK going after the Mafia in the 60's...

Why do Democratic presidential candidates have to be so prodded into doing the right thing?

There's a choice: Vote Green.

You mean, vote green, elect Bush (or Giuliani or Romney in 08)?

No thanks!

Reminder to mhr:

Torture, including "waterboarding" (simulated drowning), is *very* effective at getting false confessions: tortured people will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. It's completely, utterly ineffective at getting accurate information of any sort, even from people who have such information.

Why do you want the US to generate loads of false intelligence? Don't you want to actually find out what's going on? Use the utterly non-torture methods used by the Nuremberg interrogators (recently revealed).

Not only is torture evil, it's worthless -- that is, unless you simply want to terrorize people into mindless obedience (obedience which will likely only last until they get a chance for escape, or indeed for well-justified revenge). Unfortunately that is the best explanation for Cheney & company's advocacy of torture -- they are, at heart, terrorists.