When I argue the position it is both. President 25% and his merry band of fuck-ups aren't able to drive the nation at this point. The only reason to think they could is that you are a moron and don't recognize that fact. And even if I am 100% wrong, it is still the right thing to do.

All of the above. B first, but then A. Warrantless wiretapping is the kind of thing that, if you weigh it politically, proves you are unfit to uphold the Constitution. That said, upholding the Constitution and doing it proudly and loudly will get you votes, so the answer is "both."

buckle up kevin -- i got, um, criticized rather sharply in the comments over there. this is a really passion-driven fault-line. i'm not sure i understood the depths of it.

I would also add that the Democratic positions on these issues is not the "progressive" position, it is the Constitutional position.

Putting it that way makes it so much tougher and refreshing, something the Dems, for some reason, cannot or will not do at this point (aside from Dodd, Feingold, and a few other noteworthy badasses).

(a)

I agree with abject funk, that if you're weighing the FISA issue as a matter of 'what won't piss off my electorate more', then you've ultimately failed the first test.

Not to mention that a good half of the votes on these contentious issues came from Senators who don't face votes for at least another 4 to 6 years. It's hard to say that these votes will immediately send them in the dog house with the electorate with that many years to rehab their image. There's no excuse for those who are already out of the electoral troubled waters, so to speak.

"The reason we can't defund the war is because Dems in swing districts think they'll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops. Ditto for FISA, Kyl-Lieberman, the "General Betray-us" ad, shutting down Guantanamo, the Military Commissions Act, and a host of other related issues."

On what planet is this not already happening? Did you sleep through the Max-Cleland-As-Osama episode?

You really expect us to believe that Republican attack ads are somehow based on reality? Wake up, Kevin.

What happens when Democrats stand up to the most unpopular president in polling history?

How many angels can dance on a head of a pin?

What difference does it make? Neither one is ever observed...

It depends on the issue. The FISA issue is Constitutional. If an elected official can't see that one he or she should be voted out of office. The General Betrayus ad is purely political. If a Democratic Congressman needs to distance himself from MoveOn that is alright by me.

Kyl-Lieberman involves the question of whether another war in the Middle East is in America's best interests. Lets ask the real questions at the heart of Kyl-Lieberman. First, what is the upside to America of a war with Iran? Exactly what do we expect to gain from such a war. Second, what is the downside? Is America safer if we make enemies out of the Iranians for at least 100 years?

Third, what about Israel? I suspect a lot of the really serious people pushing the war with Iran think such a war will enhance Israeli security. Will it? The future is a long time. The sun is going to come up a lot of times. After a while America is going to get bored with doing Israeli bidding. What happens to Israel if it remains perpetually at war with its enemies? I don't see going to war with Iran as being in the long term best interests of Israel. I might be missing something. What?

Each of the other issues demand similar independent examination.

SPEAKING of "having the votes", here's some essential reading on the state of "democracy" in Amerika:

Will the GOP Election Theft Machine Do It Again in 2008?
By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman [The Free Press]

With record low approval ratings for the Bush/Cheney regime and the albatross of an unpopular war hanging from the GOP's neck, do you think that a Democratic presidential candidate will win the White House, get us out of Iraq, and end our long national nightmare?

Think again - the mighty election theft machine Karl Rove used to steal the US presidency in 2000 and 2004 may be under attack, but it is still in place for the upcoming 2008 election.

With his usual devious mastery, Rove has seized upon the national outrage sparked by his electoral larceny and used it as smokescreen while he makes the American electoral system even MORE unfair, and even EASIER to rig. Thus the administration has fired federal attorneys when they would not participate in a nationwide campaign to deny minorities and the poor their access to the polls. It has spent millions of taxpayer dollars to install electronic voting machines that can be "flipped" with a few keystrokes. And under the guise of "reforming" our busted electoral system, it is setting us up for another presidential theft in 2008. ...
__________

To think!: Once upon a time the saying was "My vote cancels yours." Now it's simply "Your vote is subject to cancelation."

Hispano-fascism and infiltration of terrorists are far and away the greatest security threats, and Dick Durbin is leading the way in pro-terror.

The problem with questions like these is that people who are actually in the "B" camp will answer "A", and think they really mean it. I've been dealing with these people long enough now to know that they don't actually care about winning, and the ability to influence policy that goes along with it; they just want a "tough" Democratic Party -- a party that "takes a stand," and damn the consequences. But they will actually argue at length that this approach will win elections (if it did, wouldn't the Republicans, dug in behind the immovable object that is the Bush presidency, still have a majority in Congress? But
I digress...). We have our share of people who are such ideologues that their judgment, and capacity for intellectual honesty along with it, become warped, just like the other side does.

Of course, the whole point of HAVING a senate with six year terms was to put a decision making group in the process that isn't constantly worried about their next election. Consider that even the senators in swing states probably have a 99% re-election guarantee due to incumbency. Even bringing the subject up shows how utterly gutless they are.

(a)

There is no evidence that all these issues that matter so much to us on the left make much of a difference to centrist voters. Maybe if these guys took a leadership role on a controversial issue, but just voting for it will maybe make it into an ad, but definitely make almost no difference on their reelection prospects. See openleft.com for various analyses of this. The simplest argument for this is just that many centrists do not vote against their party, and are reelected just fine.

A totally separate argument is that these guys deserve to lose if they aren't helping the party and can't even fend off a Betrayus attack ad; replace them with someone more worthwhile. But the main point is (a) -- they are cowards that no actual polling data suggests would lose based on these votes, much like the Democratic leadership recently.

(a) is the correct answer. Nobody respects, or wants to vote for, candidates who demonstrate that they are unprincipled cowards. Or if they aren't unprincipled cowards, are willing to act that way. What's the difference? Progressives need to effectively demonstrate that they can support and defend vulnerable Democrats who do the right thing.

So here's my question: when we blogosphere types complain about this weak-kneed attitude, are we complaining because (a) we think the centrists are wrong; they could keep their seats in marginal districts even if they toed the progressive line on national security issues. Or (b) because we don't care; they should do the right thing even if it means losing next November?

The FISA collapse doesn't fit here. Legislators' consituents are not clamoring for immunizing the telecommunications companies; it's the Bush administration, lobbyists, and their shills who are making what little noise there is. Dodd, Feingold, and the principled minority are making the only logical argument in Congress. The other side--insisting on retroactive immunity--is simply insisting, offering no argument and no evidence for its position.

The frame you set with your question doesn't capture what is (and what is not) going on with FISA. Senators are not folding because they have been convinced by evidence or legislative reasoning; they are capitulating without a fight and without explanation. In the absence of transparency and public debate, I have to guess that money is the deciding factor here.

It's (a). Emphatically so.

The lesson of the 2006 election was that clear, forthright opposition to the Iraq fiasco was a winner, and "blue dog" Republican-lite-ism was a loser. Cf. Harold Ford. Of course, none of this stopped the Beltway swells from trying to spin the 2006 election as some triumph of the moderate or conservative Democrat.

The party that shows that it stands clearly for something and is willing to fight for it is likely to sweep along many undecideds. Ceding to Bush and his enablers the privilege of setting the parameters of acceptable discourse is insane, especially as we know how a large swath of the population has finally seen the bankruptcy of so-called conservatism and is ready and willing to embrace a new set of guiding principles and values.

Build it and they will come. But if you go to the other side's field, no matter how hard you play, you'll always be the Away team.

if it did, wouldn't the Republicans, dug in behind the immovable object that is the Bush presidency, still have a majority in Congress? But
I digress...

The difference here is the fact that the public is on the Democrats' side on most issues in theory. Just that most of the Democrats we have won't actually fight to support that side.

Whereas the Republicans continue on a bullheaded march with the same unpopular platform and positions that continue to dig themselves deeper in a hole with the public. The only reason their succeeding politically is because the Democrats keep conceding, out of some idiotic sense of reconciliation or need for some kind of facade of bipartisanship. That's where the outrage is coming from. Dems were elected because the public wanted them to change things. They're responding by actively capitulating instead of passively. That's unconscionable.

or we think option c) If Dems in congress fight and show spine it might help in swing districts.

A lot of swing voters I know are fed up with the Republicans but feel that the Dems don't stand for anyting. That Dems in Congress will do whatever it takes to get elected. If you cave to the Republicans on issues when they call you names, how will voters know what you will do when the going gets REALLY tough?

Little blue dot has a point.

A lot of the perception of weakness is precisely the fact that many Dems seem to appear too calculating. They don't make a stand. It doesn't help that much of that calculation is bat**** wrong too. Like the idea that they need to go along with the REpublican scheme du jour or they'll look soft on terror and weak. The irony that's lost on them is that it's that very capitulation that makes them look weak in the first place.

As someone has noted above, even if the Dems do not defund the war, there is no guarantee that they will be spared GOP attacks that they are weak on national security. As a matter of fact the attacks are guaranteed even if the Dems pour in extra trillions in the hell hole of Iraq.

I for one am tired of the Dems making such execuses for their spinelessness.

What I wouldn't give for a politician to say to the voters "if you don't like my decision...vote me out of office. I am trying to lead, but I will stop my efforts once you let me know you no longer want me in this position."

It is not as if any of the politicos will have a hard time at life after losing an election. It's really, really crazy when you think about it, that is, deciding how to vote based on politics instead of an idea about what is the correct thing to do, consequences (minimal at that) be damned.

Anyone who says anything about "political realities" is merely talking about "re-election realiities" and that is such a sad and vacant way to address issues such as life and death, wealth and poverty, hope and despair, as to be immediately disqualifying.

Especially when everyone elected to congress, by definition, is rich based on their salaries, and almost always independently wealthy aside from their congress critter renumeration.

On some issues, it is true that loyal Democrats are in the minority (given Lieberman and a couple of conservative Dems who will defect). But on such issues, the Democrats need to adopt tactics suited to a minority: use the rules of the Senate to stop actions that violate basic principles.

It doesn't take 60 votes or 67 votes. Where funding is concerned, 41 will do. Without 41 votes, Bush can be blocked from doing all kinds of things, but too many Democrats are afraid to use such tactics.

Clearly (a) is the proper road to take. No matter how they vote, those Dems in dicey districts are going to get hammered over the head by Republican opponents for not being supportive of the troops. Tell them that THEY should frame the issue and not wait for the Repubs to do it for them. THEY should jump on the very things that got them elected in the first place and force the Repubs on the defensive on issues, and there are a multitude of them, where the Repubs are weak.... corruption, health care, social security, etc. etc. etc.

I couldn't disagree more, as this defense of the Democrats entirely misses the point: the Democrats aren't pursuing the appropriate strategy given their inability to override filibusters.

First, they need to be far more aggressive in politicizing each vote, i.e. they need to scream bloody murder at Republican obstructionism. They need to do this for months on end before the average voter will even notice. If the concept of 'Republican obstructionism' gains traction, you can help the average voter draw the conclusion that Democrats aren't to blame for the lack of progress on Iraq, health care, etc. but Republicans. The solution? Elect more Democrats.

The failure to do this has left the congress with a lower approval rating than Bush, with few people appreciating who is to blame.

Second, if you can build up enough consensus that Republicans are obstructionists, you can start to do what the Republicans did: start demanding an 'up or down vote' on every bill, or threaten to remove the filibuster.

Third, if you can't pass a bill, you don't have to worry about the consequences of it being implemented. Vote to bring the troops home every month, then you'll be in a better position to unseat Republican incumbents who voted against bringing the troops home over a dozen times.

There's even an upside to getting enough votes to provoke a presidential veto: you can now tell the American people that the only thing standing in between them and X (whatever the bill is - bringing the troops home, universal health care, etc.) is a Republican president.

Sadly the Democrats are completely and utterly failing to leverage their position to their advantage in the upcoming election. Pelosi and Reid are both incompetent wallflowers that exhibit almost nothing in the way of leadership, charisma, backbone, or even sound strategic thinking. Heaven help this country if they remain in power and in control of the Democrats until the '08 election.

This is not the question you asked, but in relation to the other part of the post "if you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes", there is a difference between not getting the legislation you want passed, or passed without a veto or threat of a filibuster, and passing bad legislation. The democrats have passed bad legislation that the did not have to. Leaving FISA alone would ahve been better than the law they passed. Of course, you have to defend your position, but then you get to the question you asked, in which I agree with those who say both a and b. You defend the consitution, and there is enough resonance with that throughout the country that you could defend that position. but you hav to do it, and be aggressive and clear in your explanation to the public. Many of us are disappointed in the democrats that they cannot speak as eloquently about this as I read many times a week by in posts by digby, publius, greenwald and others.
Just an added point, FISA in particular seems to be as much about the corporate money as much as defending your position.

There is a way to do right and be right. The democrats are doing neither now.

They have made no attempt to take the message to the people. Do they even understand the message? We have criminals in charge.

There. Is that hard to understand?

1 The country poll after poll has shown that it knows what the problem is. But the dems have not even begun to change the terms of debate to focus on showing the country that it understands those concerns.

2 They have not taken over the levers of power -why does Joe Lieberman still have a chairmanship? That is so basic that it is dumbfounding and Reid should just go home in shame. Pelosi can take the next flight.

3 Why do the Democrats flinch every time the GOP SAYS it will fillerbuster? Why do the Democrats end up defining bipartisanship as doing whatever the GOP says should be done?

4 There is of course no unified voice in the Democratic party. The GOP overcame with with its contract. Can't the Dems come up with a oh I don't know let's call it a platform?

If I was there I would kick the Democrats ass too regardless of whether or not I agreed with them of Bush - Just because I could and I would get my Rep stoked.

Shit this ain't rocket science.

Nobody respects, or wants to vote for, candidates who demonstrate that they are unprincipled cowards.

Your theory doesn't hold water. Need I remind you that two of the biggest Vietnam-eligible warmongers this country has seen took a pass on that one?

Successful Dems throughout history didn't shrink from their policies. They talked about them as if they were right and the other guys are wrong, period, end of story. Dems today start the discussion by conceding certain basic assumptions to the Rs and are immediately on the defensive, which puts the centrists at a disadvantage against a swaggering, doubt-free election opponent.

Dems, progressives and centrist alike, need to do a better job of selling their position as the strong, patriotic one and branding the witless, fanatical Rs as the ones destroying the country with their policies. It's a pretty simple message: stupidity is a form of weakness. The situation we're in today is because Republicans were spectacularly, stupidly wrong about everything, and we'll do better. Most Dems actually believe this. They just don't talk like they believe it.

I really can't imagine I have to write this Kevin (I mean, you are by far one of the smartest bloggers around) but the WORST thing the Democratic leadership has done is allowing embarrassing votes reach the floor. That's PSCI 101. How do I know this - It's the class I bloody teach! Besides the fact that Democrats are allowing WORSE legislature to reach the floor (FISA for example) they also allow floor votes that make them look bad! This is pathetic. Policy preferences aside, I can take my VERY WORST students and they can explain to you how majorities and the Congressional committee system works. Why Democrats can't figure this system out boggles my freakin' mind. They continue to look bad Politically, Strategically, and Morally. That I cannot abide.

If you define a centrist as someone who, in order to be reelected allows the subversion of the Constitution to be redefined as protecting the country, your center is seriously in need of recalibration.

The root question here is, are the voters smart enough choose wisely if presented with a principled framing of an issue. If the answer is no, we've got bigger problem than campaign strategy.

I worked for many years in the Hawaii Legislature for the House Majority Democratice leadership, and since I was the person in charge of scheduling bills for votes on the House floor, I understand a little something about parliamentary procedure.

The one ironclad instruction the Hawaii House Speaker had for me was this: If we (meaning the majority) even have an inkling that we might not have the votes, we don't schedule the bill until we know for certain that we do.

Democrats in Congress need to play hardball, and not be so accommodating professionally to their colleagues across the aisle. Democrats control the calendar, which is no insubstanial power. They need to be smart in how they wield it. Once a bill makes it to the floor, it's subject to any number of amendments or procedural motions, and it's easy to lose control of the measure's fate.

Sen. Harry Reid should not calendar the FISA bill for a vote. Let the Senate Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) come up with the 60 votes, for a change, in order to pull it to the floor. Why do the procedural work for them?

Your theory doesn't hold water. Need I remind you that two of the biggest Vietnam-eligible warmongers this country has seen took a pass on that one?

Who's the biggest coward, the coward or the coward who cowers before him?

Whatever happened to (c)?:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Pandering to mere political prurience or would-be "expedience" is not the function of the citizenry OR the press, of which bloggers should consider themselves a part. Our job is to demand what's right and in the common interest, regardless of the targeted recipient's "political affiliation".

If you believe the Democrats have presented a significant alternative to the prior Republican domination, you simply haven't been paying attention. And what's the good of tacitly accepting an allegedly "pragmatic" posture of utter moral ambivalence from a political party, merely to have it retain "control" and thereby CONTINUE engaging in the same "politically expedient" moral ambivalence? That very notion sets a precedent for a continuum of APPEASEMENT where staunch opposition is what's earnestly needed! (Need I even mention Neville Chamberlain?)

The Republikans have pretty much "crashed and burned" already. But the Democratic Party appears fully poised to nullify its own "advantage" by adopting a tactic of "weasel and burn." Let them TAKE A STAND, for Chrisake! They might even get RE-elected for such notable expressions of integity. (Consider Cynthia McKinney's congressional "resurrection" -- not her last, I certainly hope!)

What the Democrats need to do, campaign-wise, is to play a little "hard ball" of their own by, this time accurately, resurrecting ad strategies similar to the anti-Goldwater campaign of the 1960's -- i.e., depict further Republikan rule as the ushering in of UNLIMITED war, complete with mushroom clouds! In our time, that scenario is not at ALL "far-fetched".

The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave man only one.

You garner nothing but contempt when you run from a fight because you are afraid to lose. Stand firm against Bush, and if the 70% of Americans opposed to the war turn on us, then let them have their damn war. We can't run as Republican-lite and then turn into Liberal warriors after we are elected.

Donald - off topic, but I need to talk to you about native rights in Hawaii, and what I heard on NPR today. I am emailing you right now...

The reason we can't defund the war is because Dems in swing districts think they'll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops.

Good. If a Dem can't put principals in front of price then he/she shouldn't be there. Period. Fuck the posers...

Amen, Poilu.

I will die on my feet, thank you. All others are welcome to live on their knees if they wish, but as for me?

Should that day come, I would make it a point to have my name fall from trembling lips. I would want my visage on posters with REWARD! across my forehead. I would want the merest mention of my name to invoke terror in the psyche of my enemy.

I would not rest so long as my enemy could rest.

Doubt me? Try me.

The price you pay to nowhere has increased a dollar more...

The reason we can't defund the war is because Dems in swing districts think they'll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops.

Really? They really think to lose their seats to Republicans? The Republicans who still mindlessly support a historically unpopular president? The Republicans who, while 80%+ of the country wants out of Iraq, want to keep surging away? The Republicans who spent the 2006 campaign arguing a vote for the Democrats would have our troops leaving Iraq and our government following the whims of MoveOn, and then failed to win a single seat?

*Those* Republicans?

Let's be honest here - after the debacle of the last couple of years, the Republicans can't say shit about national security, and most people aren't buying into them even if they're saying it. Arguing that you fear the mighty Republican response is 100% bullshit - it's like saying you can't defund because Rush will get mad, or you won't get on Don Imus' show! It's "no one anticipated the levees breaching" stupid - the person saying it is either a completely misguided idiot, or actually lying to you, or both. Either way, such a person shouldn't be anywhere near Congress.

both.

there's some risk of it losing seats, but: (1) not, in most cases, a very high risk; (2) worth it.

Why are we concerned about keeping a majority? So we can do nothing again? This is absurd. I am so disappointed. Hell, we're in danger of losing the majority for not doing anything, not doing too much. A1's response was right on the money.

To echo and expand on scarshapedstar, on the big picture stuff, any Democrat will be painted soft on terror, a tax-and-spend liberal, etc. so you ought to go ahead and fight those battles with your head up.

I always thought that the idea behind allowing Democrats in more conservative districts some leeway is that they may need to help out local constituencies and industries by supporting bad policies (i.e. ethanol subsidies in a corn producing district). Either that or it means, generally for straight male progressives, that we should look the other way for conservative Democrats voting for anti-woman and anti-gay bills.

But really, how many Americans think it's absolutely necessary to our national security that telecom companies have retroactive immunity? What is the attack ad against a Democrat voting against that going to say? It would need about five minutes of straight exposition to even explain the connection.

I think the idea that swing districters lose their seats if you defund the war is flat wrong. I guess if everyone decided to pretend that defunding the war ment letting troops in the field run out of bullets rather than forcing their withdrawl then it might be a problem, but of course that's not true at all.

Oh wait...

Seriously, defunding the war is a political winner in swing districts if it's advocated forcefully and effectively. The problem is reps lack the stones (and in some cases the ernest belief) to do so.

Sure you can say that polling is mixed and this is unclear. It is. But that's true in a universe where defunding the war is not the unified accepted and argued position of the Democratic party. If it were, i think it's reasonable to expect that forcefully making the argument could increase support for that policy.

Also, morally it is the right thing to do. I would rather end the war 6 months early and lose a majority. Because LESS PEOPLE WOULD DIE FOR NO REASON. And that's GOOD.

Sort of sad that this needs to be said.

It's a testament to the perceived strength of the well oiled rightwing propaganda machine that few dems are willing to risk confronting it. Sure they have a couple of decades of think-tank research supporting their proganda efforts, but if we don't have any confidence in the power (and desire of the people) of truth, then where does that leave us. We have got to vigorously oppose them, don't be afraid to call a lie a lie. If the people are so lost that they won't respond to that, then all is lost anyway.

This is supposed to be the Mother Fucking United States of America, God Dammit. And if it's not going to stand for what it was supposed to stand for, government by the people for the people, of the people--and a government of laws, then it has no business existing.

So b.

Blech, the B is on FISA and Torture. Like it or not, it seems a plurality of Americans support torturing the darkies over there somewhere.

For everything else, it's A.

So MNPundit has my back. Anyone else?

Arguments 1 & 2 - It doesn't matter, and it's just not Iraq. It's the whole cave to Bush mentality.
I worked hard, and gave hundreds, to Dem's in 2004 under the belief that they meant what they said - if a majority, things would change. What a chump I was!
While the situation with the base for Dems may not be as dire as for the Repubs, since more of the fickle middle is currently leaning their way, the Dems are still in trouble.
I've given up on them. Their flyers go in recycling. Their calls go on the take me off list. And, living in Michigan, where they refuse to campaign, although not take my money - fuck 'em.
The only place I see where they might make a difference is in the courts, especially the Supreme. But they've pretty much rolled on that too.
As a previous lifelong & committed Dem, fuck 'em.

sal, Dems really don't campaign in Michigan? That seems rather impractical.

I wonder if there's some sort of grassroots way to push for a change of leadership. I would hate for this to become a regular way of putting pressure on a Dem congress, but they have been given a year and I am really not impressed. Does anyone know if there's something like this in the works?

Politicians are craven, opportunistic bastards. Surely someone more competent than Nancy Reid can be persuaded to take the reins if he or she knew they had popular support among Dems.

Why don't the Dems break the FISA bill in two? One can be the technical fix they thought they'd agreed on with McConnell before the August recess; the other can have whatever else the Blue Dogs want in it.

The Dems can pass the first one and get it to Bush quickly. Then they can tie the second one in procedural knots in the Senate, which would still give the Blue Dogs in the House a chance to vote for it.

Looks like win-win to me.

Most Americans at heart are cruel, unthinking, xenophobic, homophobic fascists. As long as Republican politicians appeal to those traits Democrats will have an extremely difficult time dominating the legislative agenda. How to win the battle? Democrats also need to appeal to the desires of the majority. Goose step, goose step, goose step.................

B at the core, but almost certainly A as well.

Sure, there's a *risk* involved that Republicans will be mad at you and do mean-er things when you don't pass their legislation, but as many have said they'll probably do that anyway. There will *always* be something to use as a club. There will always be veterans to accuse you of sucking up to someone.

The extent of the risk depends on how the Democrats *behave* - gonna underline a previous commenter -

Successful Dems throughout history didn't shrink from their policies. They talked about them as if they were right and the other guys are wrong, period, end of story. Dems today start the discussion by conceding certain basic assumptions to the Rs and are immediately on the defensive, which puts the centrists at a disadvantage against a swaggering, doubt-free election opponent

Amen.

the congressional oath of office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

bush ignoring FISA is only a political issue for members who forget their oath of office.

I vote for all of the above. Even if we lose a few districts somewhere, I think we'd pick up more elsewhere. I think Dem turnout would improve a lot if people thought they actually stood for something. And besides, these are not issues that should be compromised on. What profiteth it a party or a country to gain a swing district yet lose its soul?

B.

Particularly with regard to Bush's illegal and unconstitutional wiretapping program. He should have been impeached for that within 24 hours of the Dems taking over Congress. I don't care one whit about the politics of it.

Considering the life of luxury most of our ex-congresscritters lead as lobbyists and defense industry employees -- in the very few instances where they actually DO get un-elected -- you'd think they wouldn't be so worried about getting re-elected. I'd bet Santorum, for example, is making a shitload more money now from wingnut welfare than he ever did legally (and I emphasize the 'legally' part) as a Senator. Or does that only work for Republican ex-representatives?

As to your question though - I'm past the point of caring why they are so spineless. I don't particularly care if Dems in red districts lose because they won't vote for democratic principles. Be gone with them then! Might as well let the republicans win in their districts, for all the difference it makes.

How about I'm okay with the Democrats compromising on the war, given how slim their control of the Senate is. Our political system is designed to resist change until there is overwhelming support for change.

But at the same time, compromising on the FISA bill was stupid and gratuitous.

And if Telecom Amnesty goes through I'm not voting in the next election.

Neither a nor b is true. These are the same people who said that the democrats would get clobbered in 06 if they ran against the occupation.

This weird idea that being against this disastrous occupation is "toeing a progressive line" needs to be stifled. These are WINNING issues in November.

Now whether the Rahm and consultants are, perhaps like the republicans, bed-wetting pantywaists, scared of their own shadows or are, perhaps like the republicans, venially committed to corrupt beltway political practice, is not relevant.

Run against the occupation. Run on the Constitution. If they call you weak on Terra, call them scaredy-cats. They're AFRAID of the big, bad Iranians? The Cubans make 'em wet their pants? There are guys in caves who thing bad things about America?

Make fun of them. Don't get fooled again.

Neither a nor b is true. These are the same people who said that the democrats would get clobbered in 06 if they ran against the occupation.

This weird idea that being against this disastrous occupation is "toeing a progressive line" needs to be stifled. These are WINNING issues in November.

Now whether the Rahm and consultants are, perhaps like the republicans, bed-wetting pantywaists, scared of their own shadows or are, perhaps like the republicans, venially committed to corrupt beltway political practice, is not relevant.

Run against the occupation. Run on the Constitution. If they call you weak on Terra, call them scaredy-cats. They're AFRAID of the big, bad Iranians? The Cubans make 'em wet their pants? There are guys in caves who thing bad things about America?

Make fun of them. Don't get fooled again.

The answer is a. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

It's pretty obvious that "centrist Dems" are of marginal popularity not because they are Dems, but because they are "centrist".

There's also no point in winning office to do the wrong thing. Progressives will be less willing to vote for you, and that means you may very well lose because you try to curry favor of right-wing voters. Right-wingers aren't going to vote for you, anyway. (Harold Ford.)

A good politician should be able to make their case to their constituents. Hell, even the Republicans have managed to do that, and they have no case. With 53-88% of Americans supporting progressive policies, it shouldn't be that hard for a decent liberal politician to make the case and win.

We don't need more Republican-Lite Democrats. They hurt us dramatically, because they make the whole party look bad.

It's (a), Kevin.

I'm wondering if you live in a bubble. "Letting corporations break the law" is not a popular position anywhere.

Let's be honest why people in Congress are helping the telcoms. It's not because they are "afraid" of "looking weak". It's good old-fashion money talking. Telcoms have lots of money and politicians like people with money.

Sadly, no one understands the FISA issue. You can explain it and explain it, but all you do is confuse people because it's a technical matter that most people do not understand.

If our intelligence agencies are serious about catching terrorists, they'll use the appropriate technology to do so. Warrants will be issued where appropriate, and so on and so forth. No reasonable person would conclude that there would be any roadblocks in their way.

This issue centers around a roadblock that exists solely to keep these intelligence agencies from spying on US persons. Once and for all--you do not turn the vast spying apparatus of the United States on US persons WITHOUT A WARRANT. Note that, as long as you have a warrant, you can eavesdrop on US persons.

There is no way a Democrat can win on this issue--precisely because the Republicans will shamelessly exploit fear, ignorance, and confusion in order to score political points. That is entirely the MO of Karl Rove and his disciples. If you had a decent discussion of these issues, all sides could reach a compromise and move on. It should not be a political decision but the Republicans realized that, because they are wrong on the war and haven't caught bin Laden and have squandered every ounce of goodwill, they cannot remain politically viable without resorting to scare tactics and fear mongering.

So get a goddamned warrant. That way, we haven't completely shredded the constitution because of our fear of the bogeyman. Insist on warrants, and call the Republicans on their tactics. Expose their tactics. Take care of the issue at hand and remind people why they can't be trusted. The Democrats need to make an issue out of the dishonest fear mongering of the Republicans, especially as it relates to their presidential candidates.

End of story.

Kevin presents a false choice to choose from. The reason 'we' can't defund the war is not "because Dems in swing districts think they'll lose their seats if a Republican opponent can club them over the head next year with a 24/7 barrage of grainy black-and-white commercials accusing them of not supporting our troops." The reason 'we' can't defund the war is because most Democrats in Congress support the war.

They support it! They don't want to defund it!

So so so so so many liberal commenters keep making the mistake of thinking that Democrats in Congress believe what they, the commenters, believe. The Democrats in Congress really want just what I want, they're just having a hard time getting it because Bush and the Republicans are so darned tough.

No. False. Entirely false.

For instance, telecom amnesty. If all the Republicans in Congress died tomorrow, there would still be a majority of Congress in favor of passing the telecom amnesty bill. Democrats support it! They're not trying hard to block it and failing... they're trying hard to pass it, and succeeding.

Any commenter who writes as if the Democrats actually want X but are somehow blocked from passing it, when most Democrats are on record as saying "I do not support X at all", is a fool. On the war, on telecom amnesty, on so many other subjects - the Democrats in Congress do NOT believe the same things that their liberal supporters do.

Any commentary which assumes the Democrats in Congress want to do something but are blocked, when most Democrats are on record saying "I don't want to do that", is just worthless. This piece: worthless.

In the case of red-state Democrats who vote with the Republicans on a bunch of issues, what I'd like to know is the explanation for their votes. Is it

1. He/she is voting his/her conscience. (Pretend that the following sentences are all gender-neutral.)

2. He is pandering to his constituents.

3. He is sucking up to the pundits and opinion-makers.

4. He is sucking up to his campaign contributors.

Kevin's question, "Do we do what is politically expedient, or follow our conscience?", only makes sense if the explanation is 2. It's not at all clear to me that that is the case in most of these votes.

I just don't see how B could even come into play (at least in the senate). Is there a single democrat who's likely to lose in 2008? I think the entire list of democrats who could lose looks like this:

Mary Landrieu (D-La)
The end.

I suppose Tim Johnson could lose, but I would expect his health to play a larger role than his votes.

I wish we could stop having these conversations, but until the dems step up and fight over something, it won't end..

Wow. I just noticed that one of the commenters, apparently in all seriousness, used the word "Hispanofascism". Life is great when you can take any prefix that represents some group of people (a.k.a. "the others") and take "fascism" on the end.

Pimlicofascism - authoritarian rule by jockeys
dominofascism - authoritarian rule by black rectangles with white dots on them
pandafascism - authoritarian rule by giant bears FROM CHINA!

Definitely (a). The centrists could keep their seats in marginal districts if they would quit letting the consultants and right wing intimidate them and instead learn to define the issues in Democratic terms.

Why do dems allow Republicans to define what is so obviously wrong. Change the dynamic and define the Republican penchant for spying as un-American, unneccessary, an abuse that is illegal and un-Constitutional, and one only fearful people who are willing to give up their rights support. Define the Republicans as the party that treats Americans as fearful children who give away their money and their rights and as the party that will not respond to the American peoples wish to get out of Iraq, the party that will not be accountable to the American people.

Remaining in Iraq, stripping the Constitution, raping the Treasury, always threatening war and being accountable to no-one are actions that should be defined as weak, fearful, reckless and un-American.

You're afraid of Republicans running attack ads... against the Constitution?

C) Even moderate Republicans are becoming worried about the amount of power being placed in government hands, and you can't go wrong running on freedom and the Constitution.

Stop being such whiny cowards. This is why Dems lose when they should win - they refuse to stand up for principles. If they won't defend us against the Bushies, how can they defend us against Al Qaeda?

Since no one else is mentioning it, there is a thing called AIPAC. I suspect we are in Iraq and that we are rattling the saber against Iran in large part because the AIPAC lobby has been pushing both parties to support their cause.

It would be nice to see more politicians stop taking money from them. But then you get into a discussion about public financing of campaigns and who needs that?

Stop being such whiny cowards. This is why Dems lose when they should win - they refuse to stand up for principles. If they won't defend us against the Bushies, how can they defend us against Al Qaeda?

Again, the great irony lost on them being that strategists for the party seem all too willing to convince them that selling out to the administration is the only way they can look strong on Nat'l Security and terror.

Wow. I just noticed that one of the commenters, apparently in all seriousness, used the word "Hispanofascism". Life is great when you can take any prefix that represents some group of people (a.k.a. "the others") and take "fascism" on the end.

How dare you, good sir. How dare you.

You left out the most galling and dangerous sort of facism there is:

Friggatriskaidekafacism: Authoritarian Rule by FRIDAY THE 13TH!

Vote Vorhees, or he'll kill your family! If that's not facism, I don't know what is!

defunding the war is a political winner in swing districts if it's advocated forcefully and effectively

You haven't thought this through. If you "defund" the war by refusing to pass a supplemental approppriation, what happens next?

You don't really think that what happens next is that Commander-in-Chief Bush salutes and meekly orders the troops home, do you?

We don't want to go there unless we have the votes to win the resulting constitutional confrontation by impeaching Bush and Cheney--which we don't.

3 points:

1) How about we just choose (a few)battles wisely? They don't have to do everything, at this point I'd be satisfied if Reid&Co. could do anything - merely pick an occasional battle that they demanded full party fealty to, and then took that fight all the way home - I mean armtwisting, 3-month long full court press on the media, procedural tricks, whatever. I haven't seen them win anything that progressives can attach some hope to. FISA, GITMO, war defunding, limiting Bush's ability to make war with Iran, Cheney impeachment, universal healthcare, hell - a bill to shore up the nation's bridges - I don't really care. Just do SOMETHING before November 08.

2)I think we progressives suffer from the weakness that we only pay attention to the polls we want to, so we probably get angrier at the Dem politicians than we should. I catch myself thinking the whole country agrees with me sometimes...we look at 'best-case' polls that show up on Kos or Eschaton, meanwhile pols have to look at 'worst case' polls. I see people on this thread throwing around "70% against the war". OK, let's be honest here. 70% of Americans may feel negatively about the war, or think it was a bad idea, but that doesn't mean 70% of the people are ready to leave/defund etc. Same with GWOT in general, torture, FISA, SCHIP, impeachment, and other issues. Sure, there's alot emotion, but also lots of mixed feelings out there. Lead and people will follow? Maybe. But maybe not. That's where I go back to point #1.

3)Reid/Pelosi's message control, and ability to manipulate the media has been just utterly atrocious. How in the world, for example, could you lose the public debate over a bill that gets the troops more time at home? And yet, somehow they did. My goodness - I am just amazed at how incompetent the Blue messaging is. Hey idiots: these are AD CAMPAIGNS! You are selling PRODUCTS to the American people! Now go hire some friggin people who know how to do that.

Kevin,
Obviously, (a). The GWT as Bush conceives it hurts the "national security" of the United States. I mean, duh.

Republicans have shown that they will attempt to paint Dems as weak on national security regardless of how they have voted, therefore you may as well do the right thing.

The so called "political realists" of option 1 are like generals fighting the last war. The war in Iraq is unpopular. Bush is unpopular. Americans are beginning to realize that Republicans are not that good at national security, and they do not want us to start a war with Iran.

We are in a time when being serious about national security, as opposed to adolescent approach of the Bush administration, is good politics as well as good policy.

Republicrats buy into Republican talking points and believe that doing the right thing means losing in November. I wonder how many elections we will win when we start leading instead of lying around in our own excrement taking suddenly available money from telecoms?

Kevin Drum:

You'd make an excellent Democratic strategist with this argument of false dichotomies, with the underlying essential premise that Democrats must always remain passive.

You haven't thought this through. If you "defund" the war by refusing to pass a supplemental approppriation, what happens next?

You don't really think that what happens next is that Commander-in-Chief Bush salutes and meekly orders the troops home, do you?

We don't want to go there unless we have the votes to win the resulting constitutional confrontation by impeaching Bush and Cheney--which we don't.

Why is it that we're expected to meekly get behind Bush then when he demands his money for his war?

By not letting supplementals through, we put a spotlight on how much the war actually costs, as well as showing just how ridiculous the amount Bush keeps asking for on top of it. We show the real monetary costs of this war.

Then we say 'no more'. We hang this across the necks of Republicans and Bush who want to continue the war by showing both the egregious monetary costs and the physical costs both in lives lost, soldiers discarded or otherwise kicked in the nuts by this administration despite the ridiculous amount of extra funding we're giving this war still, etc. We stand up.

I saw a lot of people compare the costs of the SCHIP program and put it into scope in regards to how much just one DAY of our war in Iraq costs. Yet this never made it out into the mainstream or really seemed to be echoed much by Dems in the Congress. That's one thing they could have done which they just don't do. Frame the costs both in just outrageous amount as well as the fact of how much Bush is denying for good programs that cost a fraction of what we keep funnelling into Iraq.

These are ways Dems can start putting a hold on this war while keeping the blame and focus rightly on Republicans, yet this doesn't even seem to be under consideration amongst the leaders and their 'strategists'.

The USAmerican people are desperate for a real leader, and will flock to the first Dem to rise to the occasion.

You have to give Reid and Pelosi credit for knowing their recent history--when the majority party in the 1990s (the Dole/Gingrich Congress) went after the President, they lost nearly every battle except Health Care and made the President more popular than he ever could have hoped to be.

Reid and Pelosi are taking the hit because they're not going to give Bush and his base a reason to reunite. Their efforts at least have created a solid voting record for Republicans to have to defend next year. Each and every time they vote against the Democrats, they are voting against the preference of the American people.

Anything that keeps the Republicans from rallying behind Bush is a good thing. Keep him in the mid-twenties and keep forcing Republicans to vote against the troops, against health care and against global warming initiatives. And raise money for Democrats in 2008. Drive as many of them as possible into retirement and oblivion.

The approval rating for Congress is supposed to be low. People are supposed to dislike the overall concept of a "Congress."

But have you noticed that it's an incumbent racket? People disapprove of Congress but they sure like the guy they keep sending to Washington, don't they?

Kevin,

As atrios points out there is no ground swell popular movement to immunize telecoms. There is literally no one but lobbying money on the pro side, and there are millions of us on the anti-side. This issue is a no brainer. This isn't like guns where you have real living breathing people like the NRA who are going to run candidates. There is no political cost for this, particularly if the Dems get out in public ahead of the president and show that the presidents intransigence is the only thing keeping the bill from passing. The guy is at 24%, Dana Perino is looking rather tired. There's no way a he can go to the mat on this without losing unless, the dems permit him to create the media framing.

Reid and Pelosi are taking the hit because they're not going to give Bush and his base a reason to reunite.

Hmm, I dunno. If this is really what Reid wanted, he should have just offered his job to Hillary Clinton. Two birds, one stone.

Wow. I just noticed that one of the commenters, apparently in all seriousness, used the word "Hispanofascism". Life is great when you can take any prefix that represents some group of people (a.k.a. "the others") and take "fascism" on the end.

I am still trying to figure out why Islamunism and Saddamunism never took off.

My goodness - I am just amazed at how incompetent the Blue messaging is. Hey idiots: these are AD CAMPAIGNS! You are selling PRODUCTS to the American people! Now go hire some friggin people who know how to do that.

Right on. The Dems seem to think that they can win by out-wonking the other side. They haven't yet figured out that this is show biz.

I just noticed that one of the commenters, apparently in all seriousness, used the word "Hispanofascism".

I assumed that was a ref to Franco....

Sorry, my Hillary comment seems kind of glib just looking at it up there. What i mean is, Senate Majority leader is an organizational role I think Hillary could manage quite well, and it would distract her from running in a general election where she is.... quite likely to rile up the GOP base into voting against her.

Now granted, they would have to go for some line about how horrible it would be if Hillary ran the Senate under a Dem president, but that would certainly be less compelling to to Johnnie Bible-thumper than keeping her out of the White House again.

> Reid and Pelosi are taking the hit because
> they're not going to give Bush and his base a
> reason to reunite. Their efforts at least have
> created a solid voting record for Republicans to
> have to defend next year.

Um, its not hard to defend a solid record of _wins_, particularly when those wins include humiliating your opponents. If there is anything that cause the mushy middle to waver it is seeing a winner crushing and burning his enemies - waver /in the direction of the winner/ that is.

If anyone seriously thinks that defensive pantswetting by the Democrats is going to lead to victory in 2008 then I suggest they are deluded or on Rove's payroll.

Cranky

(NB: Forgive me. For ease of writing, I'm going to use concepts of "left" and "right" that comport with the MSM version, not reality. Use "left" as a stand in for Democratic, even though I know better, and "right" as a stand in for Republican, even though EVERYONE should know better than to use right and Republican in the same sentence, in any context and on any issue. That said...)

First, Pale Rider's comment is very perceptive, and I think right. Not about what the strategy ought to be (put me down as an "a" person to a degree), but what it is.

But this isn't just a "me, too" point I'd like to make. Instead, I'd like to reply to ppg, who wrote:

The lesson of the 2006 election was that clear, forthright opposition to the Iraq fiasco was a winner, and "blue dog" Republican-lite-ism was a loser. Cf. Harold Ford. Of course, none of this stopped the Beltway swells from trying to spin the 2006 election as some triumph of the moderate or conservative Democrat.

Or you could say that Ford, as far to the middle as he is, was already too far to the left for his district. Obviously, taking on the Bush Administration is a political winner in, say, Barney Franks' district, or in Charlie Rangel's district. And Pelosi's opposition in SF is because she's too far to the middle. But that's not the whole electorate.

We made this mistake in '94. We noted that those seats which were lost were the ones with the most moderate members (measured, as I usually do even though I know its flaws, by the Americans for Democratic Action liberal quotient), and we thought, "See? Being an outspoken leader is the way to win!" It didn't occur to us that those who lost were in the most vulnerable district, and that *for their districts*, they WERE being outspoken leaders. If you look at the rabid dogs that, by and large, replaced those who lost in '94, and see how popular that is, the electorate was stretching pretty far left to accept those who lost, and eventually that rubber band snapped.

Last year, some of the rubber band snapped back. So some of these new legislators can be be strong on these issues. Their districts are ready to move in "my" direction. That's why I think "a" is true. But it's not a universal.

Finally, to those saying, "Yeah, but it's NOT about safety and grainy black and white photos! It's about the CONSTITUTION!" Well, all I can say is that you're fooling yourselves. To those paying attention and to those watching The Daily Show, it is. But in a 30 second spot, if you don't know as well as I do that it's going to play out just as Kevin has predicted, you're either smarter than that and fooling yourself, or you've not been paying any attention. To anything. Not to Max Cleland, not to Bush-Kerry, not to anything. It has happened that way in the past, and it will continue to happen that way.

My mother taught me that a good definition of insanity is doing the same thing you did yesterday and expecting a different outcome. It may be that we can reframe this as defending the Constitution. Or, as I prefer, the WATB's being scared of freedom (thanks, Atrios). But we'll have to do it, and do it well, because it's going to play out EXACTLY as Kevin predicts.

Look, there's a problem with "not having the votes" these days. Used to be, it meant not having a majority, 51 votes. Now the Democrats are taking "defeats" in which they have 58, 59 votes, and they're taking it dozens of times with barely a note that this is not democracy. This is obstruction of democracy by a determined minority.

And what Augustus said above too. They ought to tar the Republicans with being undemocratic in the small "d" sense. I mean that's what the Republicans did to them when they filibustered a half-dozen judges. Cripes!

If anyone seriously thinks that defensive pantswetting by the Democrats is going to lead to victory in 2008 then I suggest they are deluded or on Rove's payroll.

What you suggest is exactly what Newt Gingrich thought he could get away with in 1995 by shutting down the government. He was hubris personified. He did not do anything defensive--he was offensive from the get go. He went right at Clinton and had his ass handed back to him. (And this led directly to the ascent of Tom Delay).

How is it defensive to create a massive voting record for Republicans to have to go out and defend? They're now on record as having voted against a one year in Iraq, one year home break for the troops, against a timetable for withdrawal, against SCHIP, against benchmarks and against increased VA benefits. Every single thing the Democrats have tried to do I support completely--they sent those bills to the floor and the Republicans blocked them. Why would I blame a Democrat for something a Republican blocked? This Republican minority is obstructionist in nature, and they can be crippled by that. It requires patiently forcing them to vote against good bills and it requires putting them in a box they can't get out of. As more and more of them retire, and as fewer and fewer Republicans decide to run, it sets up a perfect storm for 2008 that will sweep the obstructionists out of power. Right now, they CANNOT RAISE MONEY. They are broke. That means they know they're going to lose and no one is backing their dead horse. All they have is obstructionism.

What they're counting on is misplaced blame. If people blame the Democrats for their obstructionism, they win. I refuse to take the bait. They're the problem, not the Democrats.

Now, if the Democrats get 60 votes in the Senate and still can't get anything done, start firing them and replace them with people who can get something done.

It seems a little pissy and immature to complain about the people who at least tried to do the right thing when the evidence is clear--the people who want to do the wrong thing are the obstructionists.

c) centrists want to continue supporting their industrial military constituency and are Kyl-Lieberman wannabes who desire more war, more spying on citizenns and more military aid to Israel.

(c) we're pissed because the democratic cacaus never seems to even *try* to shape public opinion on these matters.

anything that's short of 60% public support - at the *outset* - dems won't push for. defunding the iraq war has maybe 40% support but we know 60-70% want the troops home asap. why don't the dems educate people on our options here and build public support for the defunding route?

on warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention without charge, geneva conventions, torture, etc. public opinion is perhaps more even divided. but if democrats cannot rally around *the bill of rights* and *the rule of law* and at least *try* to bring the public to their senses, what are they good for? minimum wage increases and stem cell funding?

> But in a 30 second spot, if you don't know as well
> as I do that it's going to play out just as Kevin
> has predicted, you're either smarter than that
> and fooling yourself, or you've not been paying
> any attention. To anything. Not to Max Cleland,
> not to Bush-Kerry, not to anything. It has
> happened that way in the past, and it will
> continue to happen that way.

Watch the scene in the last episode of /Lonesome Dove/ where Captain Call tries to hand over leadership of the group to his bastard son Newt. The biggest, nastiest, stupidest dude in the group challenges Newt to a fistfight. Newt _immediately_ charges in with both fists swinging - and gets his butt kicked. At which point the group picks up Newt, says "good fight", and rides off under his leadership - leaving the big guy spluttering "bu bu bu but I WON the fight".

This theme is echoed in just about every Western, war movie, coming of age movie/play, etc ever made. It is an archetype. The group knows who the best leader would be, but they need to see him PROVE THAT HE WILL FIGHT in a tough situation. He doesn't have to win by himself, but he has to be tough enough to _try_.

The American public has seen Democratic politicians lying down in front of the Republicans, peeing their pants, and begging for mercy for the last 10-15 years. I ask you: why would _anyone_ vote for self-proclaimed "leaders" who act that way?

Cranky

It's definitely A for Kyl-Lieberman (too hard to explain in an ad, if they use that against you they can just make up anything anyway). I think it's also A for specific withdrawal deadline Iraq War measures and for MCA. I think the leadership should be able to pass a FISA