Leadership? From the Democratic leadership?
I'm trying to think about when the last time that particular subset of politicians actually did that. And I mean the Leaders and Whips and Committee Chairs and Imminence Gris of the Democratic Party.
Because they really didn't do anything for Clinton, he pretty much was a one man show and they followed along whin it suited them.
I guess maybe the Boland amendmaent that cut off the Contra's? Tip O'Neill was the last Democratic Leader in Congress who showed leadership qualities, or who at least knew how and when to flex his muscles, but really, what can Gephart or Daschle or Reid or Pelosi or Leahy or whoever done that has shown real live leadership?
Manage the caucus, sure, they've done to varying degrees, but leadership? Individuals have, like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee, but leaders like Durbin and Levin and Rahm?
Posted by Duckman GR at January 26, 2008 10:20 PMIsn't Democratic leadership a oxymoron?
"Chris Dodd explained his decision to stand with the Constitution when he started listening to Americans who were outraged by the assault on our Constitutional Rights."
Discouraging when only two one or three Democrats carry the burden of fighting for our democracy. Although Dodd has made the decision to fight the assault on our Constitutional Rights, after public outrage, I question why public opinion even played a part. Don't we send these people to Washington to do just that? Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. It's like the question of waterboarding being torture or not. Why are we even having this conversation in the first place.
This is a huge issue/story and once again the media is derelict in its duties and not covering this and the ramifications of it.
And polls show that the majority of Americans are against this bill and its proposal...and once again corporate controlled media/gov't (the minority) is attempting to subvert the will of the majority.
The only plus side (and I'm being snarky) is that if this bill eventually passes...the Democratic president will have some powerful tools at its disposal come January 2009..wonder if repukes would be so willing to pass this legislation if this was a Democratic administration requesting it? (this isn't an endorsement)
Posted by emal at January 27, 2008 06:14 AMMr. Bush says without amnesty, the government won’t get cooperation in the future.
Exactly--they'll only get cooperation with a court order. That's the whole point. Why isn't anyone saying that? And why are people even suing the telecoms when they should be suing Bush? Why not go to the source--he's the one that broke the law.
Posted by CG at January 27, 2008 06:22 AMThis is an enormous story being utterly ignored by the MSM, especially cable news.
The goal of the Cheney/Rockestooge bill is to grant immunity to CHENEY, the telecoms are just the nominal parties. Bushco is desperate not to have THEIR actions---what THEY asked the telecoms to do---exposed in federal court. Hence this incredible last ditch stand.
There is an obvious compromise if one were "really" concerned about "ruinous" liability being imposed on the telecoms (which I doubt anyway)--have a bill that makes the US a party to the ongoing suit and that provides that IF the telecoms are found to have broken the law and ordered to pay damages, then the US government will indemnify them (i.e. pay the judgment).
But the crucial thing under this compromise is that the federal lawsuits go forward so the country knows what Bushco did. That is essential. If our party, controlling Congress, does not present Bush with a bill with (at worst) the above compromise, then that has to be it, they can't be suppported any more. At least that will be it for me.
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2008 06:50 AMBTW, if you are ever going to call your senators on anything, this FISA bill is the one to call on---no immunity for Bushco!
This is the line in the sand.
And it's revolting that neither of our Dem prez front-runners are picking this issue up and forcing the "news" teams and public to look at it.
Posted by euzoius at January 27, 2008 06:53 AMOh and I might add...if either Clinton, Obama or Edwards were to really take some headline grabbing actions on this issue it would be a huge plus for them in my eyes...Huge.
Leadership on this issue would go a long way in my book...What are they afraid of that the less than credible Dim Son and his party are going to call them weak on National security (good one)...Really you mean the party that is playing hardball right now and the Preznit that said he'd veto any bill that came to him that didn't have exactly what he demands is willing to delay and risk national security by playing politics if he doesn't get his way. That type of talk might fly with the media chumps and Villagers that are light years behind the prevailing conventional wisdom in this country..but most Americans aren't buying it anymore. Gawd how pathetic.
Posted by emal at January 27, 2008 06:54 AMHey Duck, we agree, Tip was masterful as the Speaker. President Reagan had said as much when he had to deal with Tip. A Titan, the last of the Titans in Congress. The current Democratic leadersheep is a joke. The last group of leaders were a joke. McConnell and Boehner aren't a joke, at least with the current crop they aren't. Heads above the others.
Posted by peter at January 27, 2008 09:42 AMSome people like to come to this site and display their lack of reading comprehension, which is the only thing to note about a coward who can't contribute anything of value to this discussion, any other discussion, the country, or the world.
Yeah Phid, but negative leadership isn't exactly what I'm looking for, and I notice that nobody else can come up with an example, and like I indicated above, I'm not all that sold on Tip either, after all, Screamin Misogynist Chris worked for the Tipper, so that tells you the kind of people spawned from his leadership, eh.
Posted by Duckman GR at January 27, 2008 10:22 AMBTW, if you are ever going to call your senators on anything, this FISA bill is the one to call on---no immunity for Bushco!
I did--didn't do any good. I'll try again to get my democratic senator to vote against immunity.
Oh and I might add...if either Clinton, Obama or Edwards were to really take some headline grabbing actions on this issue it would be a huge plus for them in my eyes...Huge.
The least they could do is show up and be a senator on this issue.
Posted by CG at January 27, 2008 10:52 AMCG:
The problem with not being taken into consideration is that you neglected to attach that six figure check with your correspondence.
You want a seat at the table? You have to out-bribe the telecom industry.
Posted by brisa at January 27, 2008 11:23 AMBush says that without amnesty the government won't cooperate in the future. This is an empty threat. In seven years, when has the cheney/bush regime EVER cooperated with the Democrats? To cheney/bush, cooperation = "do what we tell you."
Posted by jwrjr at January 27, 2008 11:31 AMbrisa, Doh--I'll get my checkbook out!
Posted by CG at January 27, 2008 01:22 PMbrisa, Doh--I'll get my checkbook out!
Send that check to my lobby group and we'll take care of it. You can make it payable to my groups acronym: Citizens Against Senatorial Hegemony.
You want a seat at the table? You have to out-bribe the telecom industry.
That is the problem and precisely why there will be no major change regardless of who takes the helm in 09. There has always been corporate influence in politics, but nothing like the influence we saw beginning with the Ray-gun administration and continuing unfettered to the present.
Posted by phidipides at January 28, 2008 07:43 AM