As usual, Steve is setting a good tone for a necessary debate. I hope folks on both sides of the aisle are listening.

BTW, re: one of those close to Vice President Cheney

There's a "UN and Bolton" debate/discussion on the Kojo Nnamndi Show at noon EST today. His show is broadcast on WAMU, American University's NPR-affiliated station. You can listen online, live or streamed. Don't think this particular show is available as podcast.

I'm sort of sick of hearing about "Un-named Officials" who are secretly upset about Administration policies. If they exist, their cowardice is one of the main problems.

i'm very glad that there's someone like you out there, steve, who can engage in such candid conversation with someone like senator reid, another individual who holds my greatest respect...

thanks, steve, and good luck, harry... i'm looking forward to hearing the outcome of the caucus...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

This person is introspective and self-critical about these problems and wants to fix them. He wants to address the problem and to reconnect to real debates.

What, because he told you he was "introspective" and "self-critical"? By and large, the good people have been driven out of this Administration; the ones that seem decent now are only hedging against history's condemnation. At this point, I think the substantial burden's on them to prove that words about "address[ing] the problem and ...reconnect[ing] to real debates" are anything more than window dressing.

I hope there are a whole bunch of current and former Bush Administration officials who go public and speak up against this adminstration this year. There are probably many of them. There are also many true, genuine conservatives and/or Republicans who see this administration posing as a Republican/Conservative administration for what it truly is.

THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com

"I complimented Senator Reid for invoking Rule 21 and shutting down the Senate to compel Senator Pat Roberts and the Republican Senate establishment to stop dragging its feet on its investigation into the administration's use and potential abuse of WMD intelligence. Reid relished telling the tale of how it all unfolded."

"I told him that such demonstrations of backbone needed to be less rare -- and that the absence of such resolve in the Alito confirmation process was disheartening. He said that he was meeting today with the Democratic caucus to see if there are 41 Senators willing to say no to Alito -- and really say no (meaning a filibuster). He indicated that there was only a 50/50 chance that there were 41 Senators and sounded doubtful."

Steve, thats bullshit. And whats worse, I believe you KNOW thats bullshit. Stop giving Reid credit for forcing an issue that WAS NEVER TRULY FORCED. Reid got his press exposure for that stunt. So did Roberts, for that matter. BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DIDN'T GET JACK SHIT. A Phase Two progress report, AT THE VERY LEAST was promised by Nov. 14th. WHERE THE HELL IS IT?? Have you seen Reid EVEN MENTIONING the failure of Roberts to turn it over, much less following through and DEMANDING IT publicly and forcefully?? I think you are gullible, Reid is running a CON on us. He has no intention of fillibustering. And Feinstein has come out AGAINST a fillibuster,as have a couple others in the Dem camp. Go look at Reids blog. It is a morass of right wing trollspeak, and mewling cowardly CRAP supposedly posted by Reid, where he even goes so far as to COMPLIMENT Bush about his new found candor on "how" we went to war, and also compliments Bush on "hearing the calls" of americans about pulling our troops out of Iraq. Why you continue to support the mewling pissant, yet totally IGNORE the efforts of John Conyers is beyond me.

Next time you talk to Reid, ask him where the hell Phase Two is, will ya? And just what the hell WE got out of that publicity stunt he pulled.

Steve,
Do you really think there is any remedy for Bush besides impeachment? I'm serious. Bush is no doddering, senile fool like Reagan---he will not allow caretakers to come in and tell him what to do. I'm glad you're getting the inside scoop from dissatisfied officials, but to what end? Do you really expect any change to occur?

Short of impeachment, it seems to me that the only remedy to Bush is that he be politically neutered by Congress, but that can't happen without a change of many seats, and if the Democrats get in power, Bush will be impeached.

Bush is both the most stubborn, ignorant President this country has ever had (yes, he might be intelligent, but he is a proud know-nothing). His Medicare policy is turning out to be an unprecedented disaster which will cost more than the Iraq war---money that we cannot afford to waste.

So, to what end comity?

All well and good, but Congressional Democrats need to take real action.

Polls show the public now thinks the Iraq War was a mistake and that they oppose domestic spying. Yet Congressional Dems do little or nothing on these issues.

Here's a tell. Al Gore's speech blasting Bush on spying. It got lots of press and attention, yet to my knowledge, not one Congressional Democrat has supported what Gore said. I find this pathetic.

The disconnect between rank and file Democrats and their 'leaders' is enormous and obvious.

I'm with Reid. As long as the ethics issues are associated with Republicans and being talked about by Republicans, the better. That's one anvil Reid is smart to let them have.

As far as your reasonable administration friend goes, these are not reasonable times. I appreciate your desire and longing for civilized debate, but, well, you're going to have to wait till '08 or perhaps beyond. The times do not favor you or anyone speaking in low voices. I fear the few who persist will burn out or become disillusioned.

I was told once that acceptance doesn't mean I have to like it. I accept that others would jail me or do me harm for my political and sexual views. I am not reasonable with these people.

To the victor goes the spoils. Unfortunately, American government is spoiled...rotten. Stinking, smelling, biodegraded, and reprehensible. It is starkly possible that the great American experiment in democracy is over. Who holds the Bush criminals to account? Not Congress. Who holds the Congress to account? That should be the American people. Unfortunately, the American people have been beaten severely about the face and neck and lie dormant in a profoundly vegetative state of disinterest. Steve, I agree with your moderation. Sadly, I think it is simply too late for 'we the people'.

"Personnel is policy," ...Norquist.

I understand the mutual protection society that is the Washington policy establishment requires a distance be maintained between policy and personality in order that risks be taken and discussion be open. Yet the mess we are in today in large part was caused by the lack of consequences for the knaves and fools in the past. We would be so much better off if Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Abrams, Poindexter had had their reputations and careers publicly destroyed by their peers a generation ago. You don't see it, but your attitude is precisely why those men are in power today.

I think I actually agree with both Senator Reid and with you, Steve, regarding the issue of bi-partisan reform.

Now, for Senator Reid's side: I really don't believe that we'll have anything other than business as usual from the Republicans until there is a lot of new blood in the party. The people who are in power in the Republican Party today only really know one way of working, which is to keep the extremist and the fearful sheeple stirred up by pandering and wrapping themselves in "us v them patriotism" while they help themselves to everything they can. The entire structure of the party, which is all about keeping power and helping themselves to the seed corn today, and not one whit about good governance or the long-term health of the country, is geared towards this. Their "party discipline" has driven out or silenced any moderate Republicans who didn't go along with the program.

In this climate, and with this House and Senate, anything "bi-partisan" simply means that enough Democrats have been fooled into going along with something architected to suit the Republican power structure. The only recent thing that had -real- bi-partisan support was the anti-torture bill, and even with all of the Republicans as well as the Democrats voting for it, the Republicans have been studiously silent as Bush redefines it as a law that - he - isn't bound by in his signing statement. They can't stand their ground and insist that he must follow the law rather than redefine them to suit him because they cannot afford to have any oversight going on -- pull a thread too hard, and the whole system they depend on will start to unravel.

I don't believe that "Republicans are corrupt" and "Democrats are honest." But I do believe that these Republicans are corrupt, and they must go for the Republican Party to reorganize itself and return to health. The only way that's going to happen is if the people who have taken over the party are handed a stunning defeat.

As human beings, and as organizations, we really don't learn very much from our successes -- we just keep doing it, without much introspection, as long as the success continues, and we want to protect the status quo. It's only when the way you operate isn't working any more that you examine it to see how you should change, and it's only when the pain of change is massively outweighed by the pain of staying the way you are that you do change.

The problem in the Republican Party isn't just the K Street/Abramoff scandal -- that's just one manifestation of it. It is out of the grass-roots takeover that has driven out or silenced everyone not willing to adhere tightly to the agenda, turn off any independent thought, and spout the talking points of the day.

We need two strong parties. But we need all of the people in the Congress to be Americans first, before they are Republicans or Democrats. When the future of a Party's power is more important than the future of the country, it's a cancer that must be excised.

And I say this as someone who is still a registered Republican. But my country is much more important to me than any "tribal affiliation" and the Republicans in power sure aren't my kind of people -- or even my kind of conservatives.

Now, my agreement with you: "...generating constructive and positive policy proposals -- that fix problems and that would appeal to "most Americans" meaning Dems, reasonable independents, and independently minded Republicans" -- are vital parts of a successful political strategy..."

But I don't think it will be bi-partisan, at least in the sense of the current Congress, because I really think there are very few independently-minded Republicans there, and those who are keep their heads down less it be lopped off by "party discipline." I hope Sen Reid does come up with a great reform plan that is really good for the country, and that "independents and independently minded Republicans" among the voters will support. But I don't expect bi-partisan legislative support until after some house-cleaning has taken place.

I am so glad for your sentiments, Steve, as I have been increasingly dismayed by the virulent, abusive, and obscene language that is found in Democrat blogs. This is counterproductive to progress.

I am a Democrat who is moderate, and has been hoping that all the hatred on both sides would die down and be replaced with rational, reasonable discourse, designed to solve our common problems. We are all Americans, and we are all Citizens.

If you say the Senior Administration Official is sincere, I'll take your word on it. But his assessment of the situation, that the problems the administration faces are "public relations disasters," is exactly an enormous part of why this administration is so incompetent and so dishonest. Every problem, from Katrina to Iraq, from Medicare to Iran, is seen as a PR problem. Facts on the ground are irrelevant to them. Everything is PR. That's all they know, and that is why they are so dishonest, if sincerely so, and so incompetent.

Alan S,
You make an excellent point. If the SAO is only seeing a PR disaster, then he is part of the problem.

The administration official[s] ... believe that there have been huge public relations and policy disasters surrounding Guantanamo, the management of accountability after Abu Ghraib, the rendition of prisoners abroad, the administration's battle with John McCain over torture policy, and even the NSA intercepts.

And here it is once again. The Bush administration's fervent belief that the problem is the message, not the policy.

Maybe they can come up with a way to convince us that what's happening at Gitmo is OK; that Abu Ghraib was OK; that renditioning prisoners elsewhere for their torture sessions is OK; that illegal NSA interrupts are OK.

But does your official-without-a-name never think that these things are just plain wrong? That no amount of spin and PR posturing will make us think they're justified?

Steve,

I actually agree with Harry Reid that this is not the time for a bi-partisan bill. We'd end up with a watered-down bill that achieves the minimum, just so that a smiling bi-partisan group of senators can be photographed patting each other on the back.

The Dems need to come out swiftly, with as much power as they can muster, for dramatic reform. You write that Reid said, "this was the time to draw a line and to show how 'our side' differed from 'their side'." I couldn't agree more.

John McCain will take the lead on the Repub side, and he will (I'm guessing) face some resistance from his Repub colleagues on getting meaningful reform. Should the Dems fall in line behind McCain, or come out with their own hard-hitting effort? I think the latter approach will yield a better result, when all the compromising is done.

Time to get rid of all the "goodies" tacked on to every bill that gets passed.
Our job is to scream loudly, call, write, and do everything we can to make sure the Dems don't let this opportunity to show leadership pass.

This is precisely correct: I'm sort of sick of hearing about "Un-named Officials" who are secretly upset about Administration policies. If they exist, their cowardice is one of the main problems.
Posted by: KT at January 18, 2006 10:33 AM

We don't get to vote for or against these SAOs you hold up to us to admire for their discomfort at what this administration has done, Steve.

Here is the big point: In effect, you hold yourself up as a surrogate for these SAOs. You become them, because you have access to them and they use you to pass on to the little people, us, "be patient and calm, because we know there is a problem," and you use them to make the similar point that your calm centrism is the ticket.

You can be as centrist as you want to, Steve. It doesn't change the fact that you are condescending to us through these SAOs' comments. I'm sorry that Tom Bradley treated you badly, but I'm tired of being talked down to.

Answer this question: When is it put-up-or-shut-up time for these SAOs you so admire? And by extension, when does that time apply to you?

Steve,
your experience with Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum should have taught you lesson one of politics in America:
Corporate America is soundly in control of both parties and owns most of the House and Senate as well as the Administration.
Simply look at the legislation that has passed over the last two decades --- since Reagan at least and even back to Truman if you like --- and notice who has benefitted most by this legislation.
The most recent tax cuts for the wealthy and a ridiculous energy policy and unbid contracts to corporate cronies and the Abramoff Scandals and the new Medicare drug plan all point to a Corporate Faxcism which has unveleditself as the Unitary Executive.
If either Party was worth a damn, Bush and Cheney etal would have been impeached and tried for War Crimes among many other charges.
It's time to stop pandering to either of the two parties in this two=party system and begin to mount a true Third Party, independent and populist and reform.
The country needs a complete top down change and it must be enforced from the bottom up, because we have the most to lose.

I share the skepticism expressed by others regarding the presence of well-intentioned Republicans within the ranks of the Bush Administration. If by some unlikely chance such creatures had been present at the beginning, how could they have survived all this time? What could they possibly have eaten? If their nutritional requirements included honor, integrity and rational discourse, they would have starved. How could they have concealed themselves, in the midst of so many natural predators of the honest and upright?

Such Republicans -- if they exist -- must be as rare as yeti.

They have also been remarkably silent and ineffectual at influencing the policy and behavavior of their Party (unless you expect us to believe that without their influence the policies of this Administration would have been even more disastrous!) Such timid creatures might as well be Democrats; indeed, I think it is too likely, Steve, that you were decieved by agent provocateurs merely pretending to be moderate Republican moles. Forgive me, if I refuse to believe in their existence, since I have not seen any myself or witnessed any signs of their activity. I am not unpersuadable; I simply need more evidence.

As for the rest, whose presence and its consequences are unmistakable, Harry Reid -- perhaps from his experience with the Mob in Los Angeles -- seems to understand the most salient fact: there are those with whom one cannot possibly negotiate (especially from a position of weakness). The Bushistas are such. They must be fought and defeated, or at the very least -- like the archtypal playground bully -- so badly bloodied that that they are willing to consider calling a truce.

Alito must be filibustered because of his views on the unitary executive. His appointment would complete the evolution of the Supreme Court into a pliant tool of the Executive. This evolution is already far advanced, as demonstrated by Bush v. Gore and the recent decision regarding assisted suicide, in both of which Scalia and Thomas (joined now by Roberts) shamelessly reversed themselves on the issue of federalism to produce opinions desired by the Cabal. Right or wrong, federalism is a principle; it can be defended with honesty and integrity. One could negotiate with persons of principle. One cannot negotiate with liars, cowards, hypocrites and thugs.

If our invertabrate Legislative branch is somehow able to evolve a spinal column, it will not be able to stand against both the Executive and the Judiciary combined, if the Judiciary is wholly subverted; hence, this nomination is critical.

Speaking of evolution and survival, Mother Nature is not kind to organisms (like timid Democrats) who are unable to recognize when they are confronted by life and death decisions. Message to Senate Democrats: it is no use trying to disguise yourself as a leaf or a twig. The Republicans already know who you are. Now is the time for fighting.

If our side prevails, we will have plenty of work for reasonable moderates to do, both Republicans and Democrats (or whatever; we need two or more political parties; it doesn't have to be these guys), but we have to save the Republic first.

Boy! I sure hope that PissedOffAmerican is wrong, and Harry Reid really is working earnestly on our behalf. If he's just playing political games, things are going to get really ugly for a while.

I am simply astonished. Do you not have eyes to see or ears to hear? These are calculating cold blooded CRIMINALS running the country.

What has dialogue and negotiation with the NeoCons gotten so far SC? I don't care how "nice" some of the peons are who serve them at the lower levels. The NeoCons criminals are not going to quit until they WIN and destroy all obstacles to complete power. Winning at all costs is their strategy. To hell with the Republic, to hell with the Constitution. You have KNOW that and yet you write about seeking a dialogue and what amounts to accommodation?

These are not rational men. They are CRIMINALS. Either work diligently and single mindedly to defeat them or get the hell out of the way of those who will.

"Fiddle fiddle fiddle. I don't smell any smoke." Shame on you. SHAME on you.

"Democrats don't have a monopoly on decency or fair play."

Tell it to Thomas Paine or Daniel Webster. We are in serious trouble. The above comment is spoken from a position of weakness. To put it another way: Bush is turning the United States into a police state and you are apologizing for Democrats not being perfect.

Steve,
Once again, I appreciate your genuinely constructive approach in sincerely listening and interacting with both parties, and here, with a Bush SAO. It is necessary, and critical, not to isolate those Bush officials (any further). Yet so many Bush officials have bailed for reasons of conscience that it has become less and less possible to ascribe conscience/sincerity/integrity to those officials remaining on the job.

Which is ALL the MORE reason to value your respect and approach in listening sincerely to those officials and maintaining a substantive dialogue with them.

My sense, though, is that these people must be either a) utterly torn between their values and the actions and policies they're required to execute, and are thus wracked with doubts, guilt, and dismay; or b) suffer not a twinge of remorse, fear, or conscience at having grievously violated the core tenets that define us as a nation.

In short, this SAO being able to interact with you, Steve, with a thoughtful, introspective demeanor is NOT mutually exclusive from a continuing willingness to carry out policies and decisions that are hardly in the public or national security interest, let alone consistent with the law and it's Constitutional substrate.

The clue here, as mentioned upthread, is his concern with PR -- not with sound policy, not with the public interest, and not with the America defined in the Constitution.

The PR obsession/"recognition" is really telling -- ironically so, for it shows just how badly he misunderstands the nature of his "PR" problem.

It's as though BushAOs met in a room and exclaimed,
"Gosh! The American people sure have reacted negatively to the tacit suspension of the Constitution, the open violations of civil liberties and Constitutional protections, the adoption of Brit colonial(1776) tactics that incited our own revolution and the adoption of Nazi/Stalinist torture techniques that America's "greatest generation" fought and died to end [etc., etc.]. Who could have predicted THIS result?!? We really need to get our poll numbers up! [cue wildly spinning Orwellian PR-meisters, w/ Keystone Kops-like ineptitude.]"

I'm sure this SAO is aware of the Congressional pork, the corruption, the warping of Congressional procedures until they are unrecognizable in the context of our democracy, and as you mention, the unlawful if not impeachable offenses relating to torture, treaty violations, etc., etc.

So how come he isn't equally aware that the American public has eyes, ears, brains, and you know, might actually read the newspaper? Or that Americans value, you know, America, and the rule of law?

Core Point here is, these inalienable rights& liberties are endowed by our Creator -- not by law, nor by government, and certainly not by any unprincipled and presumptive aristocrat-fop. That Truth applies to ALL human beings -- by definition -- not only to American citizens. Else America itself has no real meaning. Government has no right nor any business suspending the Constitution or curtailing liberties -- such practice is merely another instance of "treason-by-lawyer" , dressed in a moderate's sheep's clothing.

Has he NO idea what damage these policies do -- rather than merely how they look? The famed "disconnect" that pundits cited during the Clinton hubbub to describe the public's lack of outrage over a personal matter is at work here again. It's a gaping chasm, and it exists in, and on the part of, DC and it's self-regarding bubble.

OT but related to everything.

Time is running out to ensure our votes will NOT be counted in secret on hackable tabulators.

If you haven't already, please inform yourselves, get involved with election integrity groups in your area and start working NOW for our votes to be counted with transparency and fairness.

If you doubt we have anything to be concerned about please AT LEAST read "The Companies" and the "Technology" chapters at WHO'S COUNTING.

http://www.whoscounting.net/TheCompanies.htm

Thank you and pass it on, jen

Steve,

Re Democratic tactics and Harry Reid.

Of course, Dems must have a constructive policy bundle to put forth. It seizes the agenda and frames the debate. Clinton's welfare reform is an example; reforming military procurement, armor issues, vet benefits would reinstate Dem national security credentials.

But when to go that route?

Signing onto McCain's deceitful "anti"-torture gimmick and like projects only assists in providing cover for policy-fakery carried out for PR purposes. McCain cried foul on torture, then promptly reinstated torture in the final product. Bush signed, and promptly claimed not to be bound by the law.

To participate in a "reform" that actively reinstates the rottenness it purports to correct would be the height of foolishness -- and it would be political suicide, tarring any Democrat that naively presumed there are points to be gained in participating in half-measures, charades, and lies.

Participation in a process that makes a mockery of everything the democratic process purports to be serves no useful political purpose for the Dems -- & reduces the ability to critique.
_____
Taking a real stand, though, has immense benefits. Bill Clinton standing up to Newt Gingrich, calling his bluff, is the prime example here. Reid has a Trumanesque presence, and the moment is beyond ripe for this tactic.

You don't try to be reasonable with unreasonable people. Accommodation is a recipe for failure; it's just appeasement. And all it takes is a firm stand, on principle, to fully expose the political costs of reckless violations of principle and oaths of office (oafs of...?)

It keeps the Repubs on the defensive about their own decisions and actions, and invokes the accountability/responsibility meme.

BUT --- does Reid really MEAN it?? Or is this just all talk, directed at bloggers and 'reasonable' people, and democrats who want to see action? To allay your concerns, and deflect any political action you might deploy re Alito???

Upthread, a post asked what became of the Phase 2 report, due Nov 14th, that Reid had demanded from Pat Roberts. Good question! Why hasn't Reid -- and every other Dem -- been beating the drums every day, and every time they open their mouths, to demand that report??? I.e., you can't just take the stand (or appear to take the stand), you HAVE TO reap the harvest by collecting your political points. It's why Democrats don't make gains in the polls corresponding to Repubs falling polls.

Point being, was Harry Reid REALLY sincere with you? Illuminate us a little on the specific details. Because he cannot be unaware that Feinstein & others are saying no to a filibuster, and conceding Alito's confirmation. So why would Reid say he's checking into the numbers for a possible filibuster?

The Gang of 14, conventional wisdom has it, eliminates the possibility of a filibuster? But is that really true??

The only way to hold the line, Steve, as you rightly point out, is through the filibuster. And the ONLY way to prove Reid's mettle, I think, is to test the strength of the Gang of 14.

That way, you put the 7 Dems and 7 'moderates' on the spot, and force them to defend a stance that puts the likes of Alito through, but refuses to defend core American principles that are currently at risk. Like who writes laws, Congress? Or Bush?

I'd suggest that the Gang of 14 are not strong or willful enough to prevail when push comes to shove, and the choices are framed in full view of the public.

Further, Frist & co., whether bullies or merely presumptuous, cannot win any confrontation. It's the nature of bullies & power, but politically, they can't win on the issue. Invoking the nuclear option at this point would provoke a firestorm.

The key, of course, is whether Dems are willing to actually address the issue, and force a debate on executive power. Reid claims yes, but the noises coming from Feinstein, Biden, Leahy, Lieberman -- they all say no.

They all say the structure of governance that defines us as a nation, set forth in the Constitution, is not worth fighting for.

Now is the critical juncture in which it is necessary to make that point. They should force the words out of Alitos mouth. And hold up proceedings until he does so. It would be a monumental smackdown of Bush's overt & impeachable policies, and a humiliation for complicit Republicans in Congress.

Will Harry Reid do it? Will Reid be our Nathan Hale, our Lincoln, our FDR, our Harry Truman?

No way in hell.

Steve, I'd like to hear more from you about what he had to say. But methinks he was only feeding chill pills to 'reasonable,' 'thoughtful,' 'introspective' moderate bloggers who want to see some action on that. Hope you're not taken in -- and hope you're right that Reid will really fight on this.

Al Gore is right; lawlessness and secrecy breed incompetent government. The quiet fair-minded Bush SAO has been neutered by the radical ideologues who have taken control of the federal government. By not echoing Paul Krugman’s cry of truth about these radicals, corporate media and the SAO are enablers of the right wing revolution.

Steve,
I had another thought. You have many Republican friends who are in politics.
What are most of them telling you? Are they still gung-ho for Bush? Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes? Do they think that Democrats are dangerously misguided on national security and that Bush will protect us?

In line with the last question, what do your Republican friends think is really going on in Iraq? The people I know who are Republicans and have any operating intelligence left claim that Bush is pursuing some devious policy that he can't explain to the public here because either they wouldn't support it or because publicizing his strategy would thwart it.
For instance, one popular theory is that the main purpose of the Iraq war is to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop funding terrorism.
I believe this is George Friedman's arguent.
Of course, this theory is counterfactual in the following sense: given that Bush was clearly planning to invade Iraq from at least Jan. 2001 (according to Paul O'Neill, for example. The point can be debated, but there is a great deal of evidence in support of this thesis), and given that Bush had no counter-terrorism strategy before 9/11 ---quite the opposite, counter-terrorism was on the back burner (indisputable), then how could the desire to pressure Saudi Arabia be the key reason? It's impossible.
This is just one sample of what "intelligent Bush supporters" say.

I am with the rest of the people who are quite tired of hearing about anonymous, cowardly SAO's who skulk in the alleys with Centrists at night but play war criminal during the day.
Why don't you use your contacts to tell us what the Bush supporters tell you in private. I think it might be quite illuminating if you shared their viewpoint with the readers.

I agree with the comment regarding how both parties are bought and paid for by corporations. The real question is how to reduce their power and take back our country short of violent means. My faith in fair elections is about gone, but I'll continue to vote and hope for now. At least in Vermont you fill out a paper ballot and drop it in the box yourself.

Another great point was how democrats give up the battle before actually fighting it and republicans act like they're winning when they're behind. Democratic representatives must stand up and speak the truth, not the soundbite. (those few not in the corporate pocket)

Thank you Steve for bringing up all these topics and exposing yourself to the abject reactions of those who disagree or denigrate your views. We have to keep talking and getting information to work to effect positive change. The alternatives are too scarey.

Your comments were spot on about the example being set by the Bush administration for emerging democracies. Pushing for democracy is one thing, but to do so while you're essentially flogging democracy in your own backyard is utterly irresponsible. What's a former Soviet republic - among others - to think? That the Americans say it's okay to spy on one's citizens? That the torture of one's opponents and/or enemies is acceptable? Must we exhort young nations that look to us as a shining example of democracy and freedom to "do as I say, not as I do?"

I am heartened by the knowledge that there are some sane, rational people scattered throughout the Bush administration. Simple probability should lead us to believe that. It would be welcome, however, if they would begin to stand up and be counted in spite of the likely risk that poses to their careers. Sometimes principles must come before self-interest.

While it would be preferable, all things being equal, to see Harry Reid be more interested in fixing than pontificating, I certainly see the near-term value in focusing on the many negatives of the other party. With the approaching elections, driving a wedge between the Republican leadership and its supporters is a critical step to taking back the Senate and the House. Let's face it, it's a lot easier to work for change when you have the power than when you don't. And the Dems have been on the short end of that stick for several years now.

I just hope that the Dems don't let the Republicans off the hook so easily by letting much of the dirt get swept under the rug. That would be a fatal mistake at this juncture.

Steve wrote: "But we have three years left of one of the most dramatic and often disturbing presidencies in decades"

I hope we have only "three years left". I'm starting to have my doubts about even that. Especially if the country is hit again.

I'm afraid that I am forced to agree with Bob. The Democrats have not been hard enough on the so-called Republicans. It was clear by 1991 that the Democratic party had muffed its chance to clean house when it comes to the fascists and the anti-Constitutionalists. The failure to completely clean the Enterprise of the Contra-connections has come home now to haunt not just the Democratic party but our democracy itself.

Daschel was a percieved threat to Bush and the King's Men, so he was summarily thown out of his Senatorial seat. In fact, now we see why they were scared. Its because none of it is legal. Its all a shame. And we got Reid--a guy whose been in the pocket of the energy interests in Nevada since day one. And also comes from a State that does not have income taxes because of gambling interests. Is any of that a coincidence? No, I doubt it. I'm willing to bet that Busholini let it be known that he favored Reid and could work with him prior to the vote in the Democratic Caucus. In fact, I'm betting that Abramoff directly or indirectly had a hand in Reid getting to where he is now in the Senate!

In any case, its time for the Dems and Reid in particular to wake up and realize that they are all dupes. They were duped 20 years ago and their going to be more than duped now if they don't get a backbone and fight!

So, Senator Reid, when are you going to hold the feet to the fire of the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee? When are you going to actually pull the Democratic and Independent Senators together and tell them that this isn't a single issue but that this is an issue for the Republic as a whole?

Here's my take. Let the filibuster rule lapse. It will encourage people to kick out Republican Senators. Believe me, without that rule, there would be plenty of Republican Senators wondering exactly how they were going to get reelected if they go along with the bullyboys. You, the Democrats, are providing them with cover! Stop doing it! Stop saying you are the only thing preventing the situation from getting any worse for the country in general and your party in particular and start actually stopping the Republican-Bush machine!

Right now, the ethics committees in both houses are stymied and don't do a damned thing! Why is that? Its because of Democrat complicity, not because of anything else. Yeah, the Republicans were more reasonable when they were in the majority. But that was not because they wanted to be reasonable! Its because they had to. Do you have to be reasonable when treason is allowed to flourish? Because, really, an abrogation of responsibility is just that.

You've spent years in the Senate, learning how to debate and get along and how to say things that may help your party. Forget all that bunk! Get up there and say and do things to save our democracy! Stop playing patsy for these small men, who are dragging you down and making you as miniscule intellectually and morally as they are!

There is no such thing as a Centerist when it comes to Constitutional principles! There is only those who believe in what the Constitution says and means and those who think that power is completely different and seperate from the Constitutional compact with the People!

There is no emergency currently that justifies the threats, the intimidation, the eavesdropping, and the heavy handed political backroom dealing that now lays heavy upon the Republic! None!

Anthrax!

Yeah, what ever happened to that investigation? Why was it that nothing ever came of that investigation? Or do something come of that investigation? Did the NSA find something? If not, that would imply that the anthrax came from inside the United States. And, let's look at who it targetted. It targetted Democrats. Well, I'm telling you Senators who live in fear of anthrax to stop fearing the anthrax and start fearing the power that have not been able to find Osama Bin Laden but managed to occupy two countries under your watch. Then stop fearing it, get over the anthrax attack, and get down to finding out why nothing has been done to locate the anthrax terrorist, why nothing has been done to follow up on the Niger forgeries, and why nothing has been done to bring tortures in the United States to justice. And, if you can't find anything about any of that out and you can't bring any of the people to justice who did this because you are stymied, you make it a campaign issue, not a stand behind the President and grin opportunity.

Stop painting yourself with King Bush's brush and start calling his paint for what it is.

As a fan of Steve Clemons, I'm frustrated to say that his post on Harry Reid is getting used by Bush bloggers against us.

Frankly, if we don't learn to fight just as hard and dirty as Republicans, without feeling it's being partisan, we'll never make our case for national and foreign policy leadership, let alone get back in power.

Steve,

I want you to know that I have considered your post carefully, and given it a lot of thought. After due reflection, I believe that my arguments and conclusions in a previous thread are correct.
I must therefore disagree with your position. Your country is afflicted with what I view as an accelerating pathology with ample historical precedent. The clinging to a 'business as usual' social model of negotiation and discussion, under the circumstances, is a part of that pathology.
It's been nice knowing you al.

Den Valdron

I would RichF's post somewhat, perhaps without need: there is no reason to refrain from a filibuster to "preserve the filibuster" from an illegitimate rules change. If you are afraid to use it, you have already lost it, and if you will not use it for this, then what is it good for?

Do the Repugs want to change the rules?

Fine. "Bring it on."

We'll see how they like it when the Democrats (or their ideological successors) are back in control of the Senate. I don't think they'll like it much: they hate having to eat what they dish out to others. We've already seen how the the impeachment standards -- to mention one glaring example -- have changed since the Clinton years.

Maybe the Dems will never be in control again. If that is so, the games already over, isn't it? Small comfort it will be then, to still have the right to a filibuster that you can only use with permission of the Republican majority.

That'll be really useful.

I appreciate Parrot's battle cry: that's the way to go.

Taylor -- Thanks for your post about mine, I think. It's clearly frustrating that Republicans think that they have something to run with here. I think that Senator Reid has a point -- and credit him with it -- and believe that the efforts that Republicans will scramble with at this point will probably be "duck and cover" strategies. Nonetheless, my view is that there are numerous arenas -- particularly in foreign policy, health care, medicare/budget demands -- where bringing Republican moderates into the fold make a lot of sense.

Despite your confidence that I would have seen this coming, I really didn't. I think that these two conversations I had yesterday really did get me thinking about the trade-offs between containment of the Bush administration vs. engagement with parts of it.

In any case, there is more to chew on here. Thanks for the alert.

Den -- I hope you'll be back, but the possibility exists that my blog space is not one that will give you much comfort.

I intend to win the battles I'm engaged in -- and think that you'll see that over time. But I don't intend to hyperventilate about things when I think we still have opportunities to steady and turn the boat.

best to all of those who have posted -- even those who are taking a chunk out of my hide,

Steve Clemons
The Washington Note

Reid's staff has contacted me to emphasize that while TWN's account is accurate, the intent of his statement was to not allow Republicans a "duck and cover" strategy that would allow them to escape responsibility and accountability for the behaviors we have seen unfold in the Abramoff case.

I'm glad to see that Senator Reid is sticking to his guns on this one. I agree with your sentiment that there are still plenty of opportunities to find common ground with moderate Republicans, but because of how deeply these issues would affect their leadership I don't think that this is one of them. For now.

"my blog space is not one that will give you much comfort"

Steve
This is a failing of our political discusssion that we seek intellectual comfort because we want the security of being right.

I was struck by your use of the word "win" in your response to Den. I am guessing it stood out to me because you don't use or use it very infrequently. I see win as a goal when it is a one-time negotiation or fight and the loser never has to be engaged again. In a continuing political dynamic some version of win-win allows each side to move to the next fight without a need to avenge a past loss.

Steve,
I'm really interested to know what you mean by saying that we can "steady and turn the boat".
You talk about winning fights, but the only fight I recall was your fight against Bolton, and I don't see yet that you actually won anything.

What I find missing from your analysis and optimism is some indication of how the choices of Bush factor into any discussion of the possibility of change.
Do you think there is some chance of convincing Bush that he must be a law-abiding President, for example? Do you think that he can be convinced that the war in Iraq is not going as planned, or much more concretely, that the Medicare Drug bill is a life-destroying disaster?

I admire you a lot, and I appreciate your patience, but I'm afraid that I have to side with Den here. What can you do to convince people that you are not the Neville Chamberlain of the center?
At least, can you explain if you think there is some chance of reasoning with Bush, and if you envision change occurring via Bush reassessing his policies?
If so, then I am certain you are deluded. If you hope to effect change otherwise, I for one have gleaned no clue what your means will be.

I echo the view that the time is way past when one
can work with any element of the Bush administration
on a political level. Bush and Cheney should be
impeached. This is far and away the worst administration
in the last 100 years (they even beat out W.G. Harding).
There are not thoughtful parts of the Bush administration.
These people don't follow policy, they are only
interested in power.

So while I strongly disagree with Steve's post,
I certainly don't see this as a reason to stop
reading the blog, Den. If I want red Democratic meat
there's always Daily Kos (which I read daily).
Steve is far from an idiot like Andrew Sullivan.
So while I disagree, I respectfully disagree.
Hell, everyone has a right to be egregiously
wrong now and then. Steve will get wacked by
with the "clue bat" of the reality that there
is no dealing with the upper levels of the
Bush administration. Only fighting them will
do any good.

By the way, I carefully stated my case here. There
remain able people at lower levels in this
administration. And even Bush makes a mistake
and appoints someone able, if only due to the
law of large numbers. For example, the future Federal
Reserve Chairman seems to he a remarkably good
choice.

Ian

While finding common ground and building consensus is always the preferable, it's not always possible.

Sometimes you have to fight, and that means win, lose, or draw. A woman who was tortured just became president of Chile. Michelle Bachelet apparently never gave up, even after they tortured and murdered her father. Now she just accomplished the seemingly impossible. And may be able to right some of those wrongs.

I'm an antiwar organizer and in my 50's. I remember the 60's and the polarization. It's happening again. People who six months ago were apolitical now tell me they oppose the war and Bush. We started organizing antiwar demos before the war started. Back then, public opinion was hugely against us. Now a majority thinks the Iraq war was a mistake. So what was then a radical view has now become mainstream. And that's happening on both sides. The center is vanishing.

The inaction of Congressional Democrats is stupefying. There's so much they could do. Back in the late 60's, Democratic senators used to thunder opposition to the war from the Halls of Congress. Now they're timid, or complicit, or asleep, or something...

Real change will come when enough people force them to act. Not ask them, not reason with them, force them (or replace them.) From women's suffrage to the labor battles of the 30's which gave us the 40 hour work week to civil rights and the Vietnam War, what really forced our leaders to act was people in the streets. That was the impetus. From there, it spread.

Yes, it is getting towards crunch time. Let's all do what we can in our own ways. Now.

Steve,
btw, I was not tongue in cheek when I suggested you give the secret views of Bush supporters, if you can. One of the things I like about your blog is that you believe people can be embarrassed and shamed into acting better. I concur, and I think if the true nonsense that Republicans tell each other got more exposure, some of them might redden more than a little.

Steve, for someone who says you want to work with all sides, you don't seem to be doing the Democrats any favors with this post. I don't think Reed meant for that particular message to be the main thrust--and I doubt he wanted that posted here and on HuffPo.

Of course the media (CNN) isn't interested in any of your post except the part that makes the democrats look bad. I'm not a regular Kos reader but I'm starting to favor his attitude about defining and winning. Yesterday my local paper carried a very favorable article about GOP lobbying reforms. The democrats lost the issue in the first round because the republicans work the system.
You just got caught up in it too.
The story so far:
Democrats don't want to look for compromise. Administration sources are looking for common ground.
Sheesh!

If I may butt in here--Alito is the litmus test that really matters. The powder is dry, its time to use it. If Democratic Senators, at least 41 of them, don't prevent this unabashed ideologue from gaining the high bench for a lifetime then they might as well disband the Democratic Party. Voters, especially Democratic voters, are fed up with thier leaders seeking spine implants or better make-up.

And I don't think the 6-3 vote on Oregon's suicide law is indicative of any future balance on the Court. As President Gore pointed out, Congress has been emasculated with its own knife. Attempting to pack in a radical Hamiltonian to enable further imperial outrages justifies the use of the filibuster in my view.

You can't negotiate with the school yard bully. That is the way Rove and Bush play politics. The only way to get them to play by the rules is repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot win by bullying. This is unfortunate, but necessary with the Bush Administration.

Ivo Daadler has some interesting things to say over at TPM Cafe,

"...the effectiveness of Rice's diplomacy has been limited by the damage inflicted by the blustering unilateralism of Bush's first term. As a result of its earlier disdain for diplomacy, many countries -- including close friends and allies -- no longer trust the United States to do the right thing. That's a profound, and deeply worrying change.

America's power and influence in the previous century was built not just on its military and economic prowess, but especially on the belief of many that it would use its power to the benefit of all rather than of the United States alone. But that view of the United States as a benevolent power is now gone. America's image in the world has been tarnished by launching an unnecessary war of choice, flouting international law, and its appalling abuse of detainees. Polls indicate that large majorities in Europe have an unfavorable opinion of America and, shockingly, that a majority of Europeans now believes the United States poses the greatest threat to international security.

When trust is broken, a commitment to diplomacy can only do so much. When an American secretary of state has to spend an entire week in Europe to argue that the United States does not torture people -- and leave without having convinced anyone that she's speaking the truth -- you know something profound has changed in America's relations with the world. In such circumstances, a willingness to talk, to negotiate, even to compromise is not enough. It will take a new administration, fully committed to restoring trust in an America rededicated to the rule of law, to begin to reverse the damage that has been done."

Alito should be filibustered for his incredibly inconsistency alone. He claims that he has no judicial philosophy which will cause him to vote according to the briefs he wrote 20 years ago, but he has no explanation for the difference---either that, or he never had a philosophy at all, if we are to believe him.
Essentially Alito has said that you are rolling the dice when you vote for him; his past is no predictor of his future votes.
It's either dissembling or the worst kind of vacuity---in either case he is unacceptable.

Steve,
I'm very engaged by your post and the comments here, as you can see. I hope you don't mind me asking something a bit delicate, because I think it's an interesting question. You posted some time ago on your friendship with Jandow, and the surprise you felt when you learned that he was not an honest writer, but a bought one.
If you imagine the heart of your SAO, don't you see much more serious ethical problems? You say this person has good intentions, but do you know if his actions as a Bush official are things he can be proud of?

I understand that all public life involves compromise, but isn't it possible that simply serving Bush has compromised some fine people to the point of moral destruction?
When a person's character is destroyed by repeated application to the purposes of evil, that person's ability to do right, given the opportunity, may not exist anymore, simply out of despair.

I hope this makes sense. I'm trying to grasp at what it must be like to work for a man such as Bush---a vain, ignorant popinjay who refuses to acknowledge any expertise outside of his own moral certitude, and to boot a man with a clear sadistic streak which has informed our torture policy, for example... it's got to be a soul-killer.

greetings marky:

thanks, i think, for the 'rake clem over the coals' approach today. just joking actually. i enjoy your commentary -- and i learn a lot from how you see things, though we aren't always on the same paragraph on the page, so to speak.

i will give some thought to your interesting proposal of sharing how some republicans i know see the bush administration. i'm getting somewhat of a reputation for being a person (or place??) where dissident/more constructive/or mending republican thinkers connect to. i believe that that is a useful and potentially constructive set of connections. but as you can see above, some disagree.

but you have a great idea, and i will follow up on it.

sorry about the missing caps in the post. i'm using my old dell at the moment and have yet again busted a keyboard (my fifth on this damn machine).

more later -- gotta get back to the mac,

steve clemons
thewashingtonnote.com

I'm with Reid all the way. Take the gloves off and knockout as many of these extreme right wing nutjobs that have taken over the GOP. These people have no shame because they are power-mad sociopaths who haven't clue one about what it means to stand for American principles and ideals much less the Constitution which enshrines them into law.

"Secondly, I was notified that CNN is doing some sort of story today based on the blog post above --"

CNN??

CNN just hired Glen Beck. Why would you consider getting this Neville Chamberlainesque POV on CNN anything but embarrassing? Don't you find it interesting that NOW that you express an opinion that muddies the water and paints the criminal NeoCons as people who can be reasoned with that CNN is interested in your opinion?

And you KNOW politics?

Are you going to blow your credibility for some attention?

I say again there is no accommodating these criminals anymore than ceding the Sudatanland appeased the Nazi's.

You either stand for the Constitution and the Republic or you stand with the NeoCons. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.

The 'moderate', reality based, centrist Republicans in the adminsistration and hovering on its fringes in DC are foundation of Bush's governance. Their silence is his ultimate enabler.

Without Powell Bush never would have become president. Other much smaller figures could have spoken out or God forbid quit in protest but no, better to stay comfortable. At this stage of the acendency of The Party to stick your head up is career sucicie and they know it.

It is after all a one party state and the next leader might be a bit more reasonable so just wait. Maybe some some weird circumstance Rush and the Whirlitzer will deliver us another Eisenhour. Yea sure.

The terror attack, surely comming to our shores before 08, preferably before November this year, will be the go ahead for everything the Presidents crowd wants and without these silly niggling protestations. So again don't rock the boat moderate insdiers. The Party hates traitors most of all and in the years to come you don't want your name to be on that list.

Can you please name, or at least provide a hint to who any of these alledged "reasonable" and "sensible" individuals are in the Bush administration?

Please!!!

If these individuals actually do exist, ( and I know of no one in the Bush sanhedran fitting either one of these descriptions) - but if there actually are such people in our government, they are one small key to, and a giant hope for restoring some balance, checks, equilibrium, reason and sense to the Bush governments brutish imperialism and obdurate disdain for the Constitutions, America's laws and core principles, and all those many Americans who do not make $300,000.oo a year, or work for the oil, energy, or private military oligarchs.

From the pedestrian level, we are witness to and are forced to endure a government run amock, a government the breaks the law "repeatedly and incistantly, a goverment that ruthlessly decieves the people, continually betrays the public trust, throws sand in the face of both the judicial and political systems, and a government delirious with it's unprecedented usurpation and dangerous concentration of power, a government that operates above, beyond, outside, and in total disdain for our own laws and principles, and government beyond all hope of reasonable and or sensible discourse, review, recourse, or remedy for the people.

The Bush government intentionally and ruthlessly divided America. We are a nation purposefully torn asunder.

Those on voiceless and powerless Americans on theleft who dare to question, challenge or oppose the governments policies and machinations are slimed, diabolized, and dismissed as anti-American, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, hurting our troops, cowards, and spawn of the devil. Those on theright are either complicit in this scurrilous, patently false and grievously offensive injustice, or so fanatically partisan that they willingly tolerate, excuse, or ignore the Bush governments glaring - GLARINGLY OBVIOUS & WELL DOCUMENTED - festering litany of deceptions, failures, dereliction of duty, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, cronyism, and wanton profiteering in lockstep unison, no matter how much damage is done to America's credibility, prosperity, security, and/or unity.

The only hope for America is the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government's feet to the fire, and removing them.

Unless and until that happens, (and all it would take are real honest thorough investigations, decent leaders on both sides abiding by the rule of law and honoring our core principles, and all Americans demanding accountability from the Bush government) - but until that day, - there will be no change, no compromize, no dignity, no responsible debate or discourse, and no reasonable or sensible effort to right the terrible wrongs of the Bush government.

The same complicit parrots who brazenly slime Al Gore as "insane" for daring to speak the truth, - robopathically cower to, and mindless exalt Dick Cheney when he lies about terrorists in there last throes, known stock piles of WMD, or who drafted our energy policy in secret behind our backs, and without our consent.

Nothing will change under this leadership. Not one thing. Nothing will change under the Bush government.

America either stands up en masse, and demands accountability from our leadership - and soon - or we surrender our childrens future to the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government bent on the imperialist predatory delusions and designs of the Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda.

It would be a great move by both Democrat and Republican centrists - let's say the old political elites - to curtail this White House. However, the Democratic party still hasn't recovered from two election debacles and the old Republican party elites have been shoved aside by neo-conservatives, the Christian movement and the 'crazies from the basement', i.e. the Nixonites. It seems there's hardly anyone on Capitol Hill who can rally centrists from both parties together in defining a different approach to (foreign) politics. Even John McCain saw his anti torture bill being amended by this White House.

Personally, I believe this President and his court are too deep in the trenches to give in, the Republican party has no centrist elites anymore to pressure the White House and the Democratic party is desperately trying to re-deffine itself.

Much like during the Nixon period, it's up to good reporting and the justice department.

Many Americans sense that our government has been bought and paid for by powerful interests with deep pockets. They sense that our government's priorities are being dictated by something other than the public interest.

They are right.

Republican leaders in Washington have deliberately and shamelessly built a money-for-influence machine unlike anything our democracy has ever endured. Many Democrats have spoken out about this Republican culture of corruption over the past months and years. But today our party takes a giant step forward -- with a single voice, we demand sweeping reform.

Right now in Washington our leaders in the House and Senate are unveiling the Honest Leadership & Open Government Act -- a set of specific reforms that will completely change business as usual in Washington. Democrats in the House and Senate are united behind this legislation, which aims to fulfill a specific promise: to return power to the American people.

Change in Washington requires more than the support of Democrats in Congress or Republicans scrambling to save face. Making real change will require an outpouring of support for that change by ordinary Americans. Democrats across the country and in the halls of Congress must speak with a single voice.

Please join the demand for honest leadership on this historic day:

http://www.democrats.org/honesty

It's not just Washington that needs a change.

I am writing to you from Ohio, where this morning I stood with Democratic state legislators demanding the same honesty and accountability in a state where Republican officials have defrauded the public and infected everything from the budget to the voting process with cronyism and corruption.

Our work together building the Democratic Party in all 50 states will ensure that we have a potent, organized political force making the case for clean government everywhere.

The first step is to get everyone you know who is ready to say, "enough is enough" on board. Sign on to the demand for honest leadership and get the message out in your community:

http://www.democrats.org/honesty

This fight will not end today, and this demand will not go away. Every single Democrat in Congress will be pressing for this reform legislation, and everyone from governors to mayors to challengers running against incumbent Republicans will be carrying the banner of change.

Today Democrats across the country are united on the way forward. But as we head into this election year, there is one thing you should remember.

This legislation won't change anything for those elected leaders who have already demonstrated that they will break the law in their quest for money and power. One Republican leader has already pleaded guilty to bribery, another has been indicted for money laundering, and still more are under investigation.

We need a higher standard for all of our elected leaders. But when it comes to Republicans who have already broken the law, we need to clean house.

Let's do it together.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

...If only we had a 2-party system. Well maybe we do have a 2-party system, moderate Republicans and neocon Republicans. I speak as an utterly disenfrancised Democrat. We lost, ok, got it.

I grew up in middle America, where they don't like to be told to vote for someone who will take away their guns and who will secretly give birth control to their 13-year-olds. Speaking as a parent, the birth control item makes sense. Regarding guns, I read an interesting blog that said the purpose of the Second Amendment is for when the First Amendment fails. Not sure if I'm totally with that, but interesting.

Now the battle is within the Republican party, for a realistic policy that takes into account our international treaty obligations, versus those who would have us face the world alone. A cold choice.

Whatever happened to universal consensus about Geneva Conventions? Do we really want to disengage from international treaties on biological and chemical war? Does the lone cowboy worldview make sense in 2006?

The neocon party currently in charge is steering us toward yet ANOTHER war of aggression: Iran.

I read somewhere that one of the first symptoms would be the appearance of numerous speakers we never heard of on talk shows speaking about bad bad bad bad Iran. You know, we could strike them with our vast military might. Do we even HAVE a vast military might, short of nukes? Our army is utterly depleted. Marines and air force not far behind. We could attack Iran, but then what?

I just wonder, maybe this time the nation we are attacking would respond. They could respond by attacking Israel/Jerusalem or other western friendly targets.

Is this the road we want to go down? For the neocons and the rapture folks, sure. I am a Christian, yet I cannot go along with those who would be fine with killing millions, on the OFF CHANCE that it might be the End Of The World and hence rapture/entrance into heaven. What if they are just totally wrong an end up killing millions of people? And they are trying to respond to the Holocaust where millions of people were killed? So....even, what? And then what about those of us who just want to live?

The same dark forces that killed John Koker and Dr. David Kelly ("suicides"........I don't think so) are urging us to enter another war of aggression. Are there enough of us to resist this possible beginning of a true World War III?

It must be tough to be in DC, Steve.

Out here in the boonies, especially here in New Hampshire, politics is readily available at a personal level. I see my State House Reps (I have four) every month. I got on a City board (NH has only 12 cities) just by applying.

I am, however, saddened about some things. I know perfectly well that my view is not being expressed by anyone out there.

It's always like that at the bleeding edge.

Oh, and the newest tidbit on John Bolton? Well, it won't kill me to drive some traffic to my underlinked site, now will it?

Steve,
Thanks for the update; and, an adjustment to the end of my last post.

I'm sure Reid was being as sincere with you. As much as he felt able to be, in any case.

I like Reid a lot, and admire his pugnaciousness. It's long overdue. And his soft-spoken demeanor is particularly BullMoose while he lays down the law.

If there's anyone capable of drawing a tough line and sticking to it, it might be Reid. He's done it in the past, and I'd like to think he's just biding his time, until the moment's ripe.

But sometimes he doesn't go that route. So he's very easy to underestimate, by both Repubs who see a pushover, and by Dems who want more confrontation/action.

And, no, I don't think he was feeding you a chill pill, but I also don't think he'll push for filibustering Alito.

The update quoted Reid in holding Congress accountable for the corruption, etc. -- but does NOT speak to the Alito-filibuster option.

He'd better. The brazen effrontery of BOTH Repubs and the ostensibly objective media, in stating & implying that Dems as well as Repubs took Abramhoff money, is wildly Orwellian and really has to be effectively countered.

When so many 'journalists' are actually actively propelling that outright lie -- without much real objection (save for Howard Dean) -- then the responsible middle has to at least consider a tough, aggressive approach, And consider how so many politicians and journalists can so feel free to openly misrepresent the facts of the case.

Would like to hear more detail on what SAO and 'introspective' Republicans think of Bush, the state of the nation, and wisdom of their own policies. We need to hear what (on earth?) they're thinking, too, if only to get a better sense of what's actually going on and so as to fully appreciate their logic and perspective.

Having sage, cool and pragmatic heads in the mix can't be a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned. Go, TWN! Talking about said SAO being an evil-doer is Bush-speak. Evil is banal, and we fight banal with banal. Also by being smarter and better looking.

I'm sorry, but I just have to disagree with you. Until a large portion of the republicans, not to mention the at least one administration official comes clean and fess's up, admits error, or AT LEAST demonstrates a modicum of shame over their ACTIONS -- NOT their failed public relations -- will most people feel any enthusiasm for building bridges with the republican party.

I don't understand why you can't see that, but I can tell you that's the view from the informed democratic voter's perspective. These republicans have SO MUCH to account for and they are still in attack mode. They effectively declared war on the democrats, and one doesn't offer a peace pipe to the guy currently shooting him in the back.

Take a look at Garret Keizer's piece in the latest Harper's. Aren't we tired yet of games and players? I'm worried you're being played, Steve...

A fascinating post, Steve: and (despite the purple-prose doom-and-gloom some of the commenters go in for here) good food for thought.
However, in all the pixels expended on comments, I noticed that neither you nor the commenters bring up (much) what might be the most important point of all: election strategy. All the talk about "SAOs", "insiders", or Harry Reid's legislative tactics cannot obscure the fundamental problem for ANYONE who might want to shift or change the Bush regime's (and George W. Bush's Presidency is, to a degree proabably unparalled in our history, a "regime" more than just an "administration") stranglehold on power: DEMOCRATS HAVE TO WIN ELECTIONS! This should be an obvious point: despite the Republicans' near-monolithic party-line discipline and insanely sucessful manipulation of the 50%-plus-one principle, those very rules which they changed to their benefit when they took over in 1995 can very easily be leveraged to choke off at least one of the Bush cabal's sources of power: or at the very least, act as a check on the enactment of the egregiously bad legislation the GOP has specialized in for the last five years.
Yet somehow, one never seems to read much in either the blogosphere, or the "MSM" about any sort of serious Democratic strategy for regaining control of the House (the Senate seems to be out of reach for '06). IS there one?

Once Alito is seated NOTHING else matters. Tell me one thing short of a military coup that will stop the NeoCons once the Constitution doesn't stand in their way? The Congress? What law they can't pass or circumvent through intimidation and bribery they can ignore with signing statements or executive order. They can fix or cancel elections. Martial law is just a pen stroke away. WHAT WILL STOP THEM?

What are the Democrats waiting for before they act? The first "freedom camps" to be set up where the government can "protect" dissenting Americans from themselves?

"Huge public relations disasters surrounding... Guantanamo, management of accountability after Abu Ghraib, the rendition of prisoners abroad, torture policy and even the NSA intercepts..."

I know someone has commented on this already but public relations disaster means here that somehow reporters were able to transmit the truth about what was happening in Iraq, Guantanamo and around the world to the American people. The Bush administration has NO ground to stand on with these issues. Also, I think that an honest debate on torture and accountability has begun. What that senior admin official had to say sounds like complete BS to me. How could the story of Abu Ghraib, rendition of prisoners, and Guantanamo been told to Americans without provoking a sense of disbelief and dismay.

As for Jim Lehrer interviewing Reid, I think I'll pass. Jim Lehrer will remain in my mind always as the most clueless TV journalist in the runup to the Iraq War. He should have done a much better job.

Senator Reid shared with us that just that day an unnamed Democratic Senator had come to him with a proposal on "ethics reform" ala Abramoff that could be bi-partisan. Reid told this person that this was the wrong time to be engaged in construtive "reform" proposals with the other side. He said that this was the time to draw a line and to show how "our side" differed dramatically from "their side."

It seems we are faced with arguments of this type on a daily basis. Democrats have grown quite fond of the beguiling strategy of simply waiting passively for others to fail, and fail disastrously, so they can fall luckily into the postdiluvian electoral Promised Land, or promised wasteland – seemingly by not actually doing anything. I suppose the idea is to be the last contemptible pretender left standing. But even taken it its own repulsive terms, this is a strategy for failure.

Frankly, I think the national Democratic Party has degenerated into a pack of cynical and pathologically cowardly weasels. They have been out of power for so long that they seem to have forgotten entirely what leadership is. One doesn’t achieve a position of prominence and control in any endeavor by adopting the attitude “I will lead only after you put me in charge; until then I plan to sit passively, suck my thumb, and let others take the blame for failure.” Nobody has respect for such a person. When the time comes to choose leaders, the followers will look elsewhere – they will even opt for a person who has failed, but failed boldly, over a mere gadfly who has declined to face up to problems with constructive proposals, energy and initiative.

One acquires a position of leadership by seizing it, by wresting it forcefully from rivals. You take charge first; and then people put you in charge. A leader figures out how to seize the initiative when others dither; how to fix what others have bungled; how to accomplish good things from an officially disadvantaged position while the incompetent suits in positions of official power squander their positions; and finally, how to demonstrate to others that they are in fact the ones responsible for the good things that have happened, and that they should therefore be granted by right the official powers that the current officials hold by default.

Jack Murtha did not sit back and wait coolly for others to fail. He stood up. Has it hurt him? Not at all! Millions of people who never heard of him before now know who he is. And even people who disagree with him respect him. And if something close to his proposals are ever followed, he will win the credit as the man who got things moving in the right direction.

If more Democrats stand up right now, they will be rewarded by the public for their initiative. If Democrats dramatically and obviously lead the charge on government reform, they can take the credit for the good things that are accomplished, and shame the Republican foot-draggers and defenders of the corrupt status quo as Johnny-come-latelies. Accomplish something first, and then use the badge of accomplishment as the ticket to victory. Don’t suggest that you will only work to accomplish something after your have been granted victory. That latter line is the idle pipedream and eternal excuse of losers.

Unless we have some faith in our ability to do good, even when the political circumstances are not ideal, and in our ability to subsequently convince the American people that we are the ones responsible for those good things, then we are completely lost as a party and a nation. We can’t just wait until the next election, or the election after that, or the election after that, or the election after that. The country is going down the drain right now. One can’t forever hold one’s finger up to the wind, test the conventional wisdom, accept current political trends as they are, and hope against hope to calculate our way to victory by crafting the least offensive position on the issues as they are currently framed, and by pursuing a risk-averse path of total inaction. Leaders change the trends; they alter the conventional wisdom; they assume control of new circumstances that they themselves have re-ordered through the boldness of their thought and action.

Americans are perhaps not very wise collectively, but they are also not so blitheringly stupid as some politicians and pundits imagine them to be. They pay attention to style. They don’t always understand the issues involved in policy differences, but they intuit the differences in the character of the rivals who articulate those differences. They can smell the difference between real leaders and miserable, time-serving followers and opportunists; between boldness and cowardice.

Democrats need to stop the whining, the simpering, the idle bitching, the sulking and the too-clever-by-half Machiavellian calculating - and just go for it. Bush's incompetence and manifold failures have created a vaccuum of leadership and a palpable hankering for a new direction. It is time for Democrats to grab the brass ring, right now, while it is still hanging out there like a ripe piece of fruit. If we just sit back, bide our time, and wait until November, the Republicans will regroup and seize the initiative that we have declined.

"...your experience with Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum should have taught you lesson one of politics in America:
Corporate America is soundly in control of both parties..."

Yes, corporate America does have a strangle hold on both parties, and here is why most of the Democrats are so eerily silent on the subject of a filibuster:

Why Big Business Likes Alito
http://tinyurl.com/a5ycf

"The President's new Supreme Court nominee has been a staunch proponent of limits on legal liability, employee rights, and federal regulation

It took mere minutes for a partisan divide to open over Samuel Alito. Even as President George W. Bush was introducing the Third Circuit Appeals Court judge as his pick to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, political activists on the Right and Left were girding for battle over Alito's positions on civil rights, affirmative action, and abortion.

But one group is breathing a big sigh of relief: Corporate America. Of the dozen or so names on Bush's rumored short list of high court candidates, Alito ranked near the top for the boardroom set.

In the 800-plus opinions he has penned during his 15 years as a federal judge, Alito consistently has come down on the side of limiting corporate liability, limiting employee rights, and limiting federal regulation. "He would be a liability restrainer," says Stan Anderson, legal-affairs lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce..."

"...As a judge, Alito has written numerous minority opinions making the case for setting a higher bar on claims of racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. He issued a landmark decision upholding the free-speech rights and freedom of association of business trade groups in 1995's Pfizer v. Giles, and he backed commercial-speech rights in Pitt News v. Pappert.

OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREMES. In one case of key interest to business, Alito as a circuit judge claimed that the federal government could not apply the Family & Medical Leave Act to state employees. In Chittister v. Dept. of Community & Economic Development, he upheld a lower court ruling backing the state of Pennsylvania, taking Congress to task for enacting the Family & Medical Leave Act. This 1993 federal law, which requires employers to provide employees with 12 weeks of unpaid leave for various health or family reasons, including the birth of a child, was an unconstitutional abrogation of states' rights, Alito wrote.

Lawmakers who penned the law wanted to rectify what they considered "inadequate job security" for working mothers, who often bear the brunt of child-rearing responsibilities. But Alito disputed that reasoning. "Notably absent is any finding concerning the existence, much less the prevalence, in public employment of personal sick leave practices that amounted to intentional gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause," he wrote in his Chittister opinion.

That was in 2000. Three years later, a 6-3 Supreme Court, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and O'Connor in the majority, took the opposite view in Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, upholding the right of Congress to mandate that states give their workers the same benefits the federal act grants to private-sector employees. The effect was to trump Alito's earlier decision..."

Not too long ago Steve said that Alito's candidacy needs to be killed. I fully agree; however, I do not see this happening. What we have is a government that, although democratic in name, is actually run by big money. This money comes from the corporations that contribute the millions of dollars needed to elect their candidates—candidates, who, in order to get elected and reelected must quietly serve the interests of their "sponsors."

Alito will be confirmed.

Steve. You might want to check out what the readers over at the Huffington blog have to say about your increasingly sacharin and unrealistically optimistic musings.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/an-evening-with-the-bush-_b_14026.html

"He wants to address the problem and to reconnect to real debates."

OR, he should just shut up and go to prison, where he and all his co-workers in this criminal regime belong.

Dear POA: I know that you are pissed off -- but my post was not sacharine, nor unrealistically optimistic. You don't believe that there is much that can be done beyond gearing up the left and somehow ramming that perspective in such a way that it will somehow appeal to the rest of the country. I respect that you see the world that way -- but I don't. It's just not real. The only way that I see progressives winning is by bringing over moderates (in both parties) to this set of objectives. I'm not sentimental about it; in fact, I think that a more ruthless commitment to centrist principles and a devotion to checks-and-balances and real democracy are what I'm shooting for. Platitudes and hyperventilation -- which is so much a part of the reality of the far right, and the far left -- just don't get the problem solved.

So, I really do appreciate the debate -- and I've read the responses to what I wrote, which are in fact quite diverse -- here and at HuffingtonPost.com. But I'll stick with the general views I've written as they are perfectly consistent with what this blog has been about from the beginning.

My phone has been ringing off the hook since the post -- and the calls from the Hill and journalistic circles have been mostly positive, and from roughly equal sides of the political establishment. That's something that creates opportunities that most writers and pundits don't have.

Thanks for the comment, as always, but do realize that while I do read -- often carefully -- what you and others write, I'm not uncomfortable with the position I've carved out on constructive engagement vs. obstruction -- both of which are important strategies.

More later,

Steve Clemons

I couldn't agree more with "Pissed off American"!
Where is Phase II report?
Nov.14 is last year.......where is it? And where the hell are the milquetoast, coward Democrats on this? One well publicized outburst and we are supposed to be placated? Great job Democrats? Bullshit.
Why we had to wait this long for Al Gore to stand up and shout we'll never know, but the content of his speech should be a clarion call for Democrats to wake up. Do your damn job. Filibuster Alito. Herald daily Conyers' efforts for exposure. Conyers is attempting to do what Gore is talking about. Gore is out of power, Conyers is not.
And the off the radar of Phase II is appalling, and that's a massive understatement.
Other than Conyers and Byrd, the Democrats are cowards. And when considering rampant voter fraud and looking at the new breed of Republicans; Graham, Coburn, et al, any progressive in this nation should be actively considering two words: revolution and/or emigration.
And any sympathy for administration officials not sympathetic to the Cheney wing(nut) faction, is wasted energy. Cowards. They have taken the same oath as Democrats to uphold the Constitution of the US. Do your damn job. Blow the whistle.
And do we just allow Able Danger and the corruption of the 9-11 Commission to fade away? No National Security issues there, nope.

Ohmigosh, Steve! It seems obvious to me that the two of the four institutions most suspect at this point are "the Hill" and "journalistic circles." Your ego-boosters are, um, Satan's spawn!

Because of your post, I tuned my sat radio (no TV) to a replay of Lehrer last night and tried my best to find Reid anything but lame... weak... even befuddled and evasive.

Steve: I enjoy your blog immensely but I have to agree with Sen. Reid on this one. I think you are perhaps fatally naïve. There is no question that corruption can be non-denominational, yet it is clear to me that with few exceptions the Republicans currently in office think this is a public relations problem, not a cataclysmic failure of ethics and morality.

They are now going to play the “bipartisan card” and you are exhibit “A.” Just who are you going to sit down with and work something out? Does it not indicate a problem to you that the very Administration folks you think so highly of are unable, or afraid, to be identified? They are ALL currently corrupt and until there is a major house cleaning this is just going to be window dressing.

It is not merely a PR problem to be perceived as arrogant, power hungry and mean spirited when in fact you are arrogant, power hungry and mean spirited. They are going to say a lot, but they are going to do nothing, and I would bet that those same “reasonable voices” you appreciate so much have been sent out expressly to be the new face of the administration. The fact that you grant credence to the idea that they are suffering a "public relations" problem is perhaps the most distrubing part of your post.

If you want real reform you are going to have to start fresh, take a few well meaning individuals from the rationale portions of both parties and start a third party, then maybe you could accomplish something.

Excellent, wmccreedy. And unMask911.

"Reid anything but lame... weak... even befuddled and evasive."

I am sure that Harry Reid is a nice man. However, he has had a transient ischemic attack which is a "warning stroke" or "mini-stroke." Most strokes aren't preceded by TIAs. However, of the people who've had one or more TIAs, more than a third will later have a stroke. In fact, a person who's had one or more TIAs is more likely to have a stroke than someone of the same age and sex who hasn't.

Reid's health alone should convince him that the stressful job of minority leader is not in his best interests. I hope he leads a very long and productive life, but for his sake and the sake of the Democratic party, he needs to retire from this job.

For heaven's sake, give us someone who can FIGHT!

SC

None so blind as he who would not see.

The only coalition that needs building is the coalition of those willing to go to war against those who are dismantling the Republic. That you think otherwise knowing what you know amounts to support for those very traitors.

Your rationale for seeking (the impossible dream of) bipartisan cooperation on cleaning up DC corruption is that there are some 3 more years of this administration ahead.

True, but it overlooks the fact that if the Democrats were to take even one house of Congress, this Administration would not be able to pass a gall stone, let alone significant legislation. Add to that the prospect of real ongoing oversight of the executive branch's shenanigans.

I think we should concentrate on making that change happen rather than pursuing a naive good- government pipe dream from bygone days.

An idea for future radical reform;

Government budgeting is a mess and the problem with the line item veto is that it would place most of the power of the purse in the hands of the president, but a way around this would be to break the bills into their constituent items and have each legislator assign a percentage value to each one. Then re-assemble them in order of preference and have the president draw the line at what is to be funded. Not only would this break up the budgetary log jams which make over spending irresistible, but it would take away a lot of the power this process gives to the legislative leadership and parties and returns it to the level of the individual legislators. While the buck really would stop with the president. Specific proposals would have to appeal to the broad spectrum of legislators, not just a few power brokers. It would require the leadership to lead by inspiration, not just herd them around like so many cattle. In lieu of a veto over-ride, any item garnering over 66 percent is an automatic passsage.

Democracy, exemplified by the legislative, is a bottom up process and the Republic, exemplified by the executive, is a top down entity. This method of prioritizing budgeting would clarify that relationship. It is the congealing of power in the legislative branch which is the source of much current corruption.

Methinks I smell a wanna-be insider based upon your last Reid analysis and middle of the road niceness. Is this a disease in Washington--seems like it--the oh so reasonable Democrats. Aren't you a little bit horrifed at the events of the last years? And, like David Brooks--such insiderness---so reaasonable and unable to see.
Sam

Hey, check it out, Steve's hero Reid has a new strategy!!! Now he's gonna APOLOGIZE these bastards right out of the White House and Congress. GO GET 'em, Harry!!!!

Minority Leader Reid Apologizes to GOP
Jan 19 5:56 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled "Republican Abuse of Power."

"The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets," Reid said in a letter.

"I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it."

continues at.....

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/19/D8F81ICG6.html

"...Is this a disease in Washington--seems like it--the oh so reasonable Democrats."

Appeasers?

Speaking of National Defense and National Security, the media has failed to present the issue fairly as they promote the myth that the Republicans put forth.

I want to tell everyone that the MYTH that Republicans can do better than Democrats on National Defense and National Security EXPLODED
along with the first plane that hit the world trade center on Sept 11, 2001.

Write your representatives and senators that you don't approve of the new prescription drug discount forced through by the Republicans in 2003.

Write them from here.

http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/petition.cgi?pnum=149

I gotta say, this clumsy attack, and near-instant retraction/apology, especially coming so close on the heels of Reid's meeting with Steve and others, doesn't bode well.

Focus, direct wording, sticking to the issue -- all Reid would have had to do is take his cue from Gore and Dean. Instead this laundry list is lumped into one document. No editor, and no coordination.

Now we have Cornyn squawkin about ethics?

Kinda worse than not sayin a thing. And the quote is like a death knell. When have you ever heard a Repub apologize for egregiously dishonest and personal attacks on Repubs. Not really ever.

"In his letter to GOP senators, Reid said: "I myself have been the subject of similar personal attacks from Republican outlets. I understand the unfair picture they can paint and the pain they can cause. I regret the current political climate in which policy disputes escalate too quickly into personal condemnation.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903106.html

Also, these asses in the Democratic leadership have decided to have Kaine do the follow up speech to Bush's SOTU. Have you ever heard of Kaine? Yeah. well neither have 95% of the rest of Americans. Think they are going to tune in to hear some guy speak that they have never even heard of???? It is as though the Democrats WANT to lose. It is becoming highly suspicious that there are some in the Democratic leadership that are pursuing the same interests as the Republicans are.

I have to agree this is a cold blooded power hungry (yet incompetent) group who are running this country. It honestly scares me how badly things have gotten, and the icing on the cake, or should i say the shit under the shoe is that so many ppl just don't get it and still follow bush like he's a cult leader and they are his zombie like followers.

It's ok to lie? it's ok to keep changing the story on OBL and ending up in Iraq? It's ok to run up this huge deficit and it's ok there are (literally) billions of dollars missing and no one even writes about this? it's ok to reveal a cia secret agent out of (obvious) revenge to her husband? it's ok to spy on US citizens and to lie about it?

I am floored absolutely flabbergasted that not only bush is trying to force google to reveal records on ppl who search (porn isn't the issue, it's privacy rights),, but i am floored the supreme court ruled against bush, he went over their head and got a supboena.. I am floored that yahoo, msn and aol gave in so easily to his demands.. how the hell can you people not care? not see the danger in this?

Bless Google for standing up for our civil rights. I always knew aol is a piece of crap company who fully believes in spyware, and now we have msn turning red (as in msnbc turning into another fox network).. but for yahoo, a big company like yahoo to cave into this is appaulling and ppl should be outraged and boycott these companies..

Many people wholeheartedly agree with your position BJ.

I many not have the sensitivity to articuluate these concerns in terms and language that will "appease" the appeasers', or assuage the civil, responsible and dignified politirati, or socalled adults in the "blogsphere", or the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government, - but I have ears and eye's and have seen the debate move closer to my incendiary terms and language or the last fews, not father away.

Al Gore's speach resonates for those of who believe that this moment of tyranny, fascism, and dictatorship, - the period of American history wherein the Bush government breaks the law repeatedly and insistently, - wherein the Bush government operates above, beyond, outside, and in total disdain for the law of the land, - where in the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government repeatedly and insistently throw sand in the face of the judicial and political systes, - wherein the fascist warmongers and profiteers operating in secret cabals without the peoples review, recourse, remedy, or consent, are free to conjure or invent new heretofore unrecognized powers, rules, and laws to conform to their fascist designs and dictates - wherein the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government ruthlessly repeatedly and insistently decieve the people, betray the public trust, and pervert the core principles that formally defined American democracy, - and wherein the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government plunder and pillage the public treasure, repeatedly and insistently engage in profligate cronyism, systemic book cooking and financial malfeasance, and wanton profiteering - this moment of tyrany, fascism, and dictatorship is unprecedented, and most alarming absent the former checks and balances that had always previously returned equilibrium to our system of government im moments of "constitutional crisis".

I am as dismayed and dismissive of all those holding to quaint notions and pretentions of faux civility, responsibility, and dignity in addressing these abuses, as they evidently are of my "radical" "purple-prose doom-and-gloom" commentary.

Why not simply call a pig a pig, a thief a thief, a butcher a butcher, and a fascist a fascist, instead of stretching the boundaries of imagination, language, and logic in a feeble to deny, cloak, shield, or attempt to prettify, or paint lipstick on the pig of the monsterous abuses, failures, and deceptions, and ruthless retardation, re-engineering, and perversion of America's democracy at the tyrannical hands of the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government?

Pretending faux civility, mangled responsibility, and perverted dignity against the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government is like showing up to a tank battle with a knife.

We're going to get slaughtered.

"Why not simply call a pig a pig, a thief a thief, a butcher a butcher, and a fascist a fascist, instead of stretching the boundaries of imagination, language, and logic in a feeble to deny, cloak, shield, or attempt to prettify, or paint lipstick on the pig of the monsterous abuses, failures, and deceptions, and ruthless retardation, re-engineering, and perversion of America's democracy at the tyrannical hands of the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government?"

"Pretending faux civility, mangled responsibility, and perverted dignity against the fascist warmongers and profiteers in the Bush government is like showing up to a tank battle with a knife."

"We're going to get slaughtered."

Posted by Tony Foresta

Well, check this out.......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dems-pick-kaine-for-state_b_14112.html?p=1#comments)

......2 hundred and some odd posts so far on the Huffington blog about her piece describing Kaine's impending rebuttal to Bush's SOTU. And 99.9 % of those comments are lamenting the damned COWARDICE of the Democratic party's leadership. I used to think the Dems were just unorganized, with too many of the leadership pursuing individual agendas. But now, I honestly believe they are being PURPOSELY marginalized FROM WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. Bush has REPEATEDLY provided them with ample excuses and issues to launch an effective opposition, from gay whores doing sleepovers in the West Wing, (for what more do American's love more than a good sex scandal???) to this latest practice of ILLEGALLY spying on American citizens. The WTC center debacle..stolen elections..lying us into war....Enron...Cheney's energy hearings....Katrina...."mission accomplished"....You're doin' a helluva job Brownie"....the list goes on ad infinitum. It is IMPOSSIBLE that political hay could not be made out if these issues. IMPOSSIBLE! Yet there you are, the dems are LOSING battle after battle. Then you have that mewling ass Reid APOLOGIZING, for chrisakes. Directly on the heels of Steve telling us what a "tough guy" he is. Alito is going to be confirmed. We will LOSE in the Nov. midterms, and you can kiss this democracy GOOD-BYE, in no small part because of the COWARDS in the democratic leadership that SOLD US OUT.

Excellent, though disturbing point Pissed off American.

I was suggesting what I hoped could be the policy and platform of the democratic leadership, in tragic contradisdinction to what actually is the policy and platform of the democratic party.