What's a Democratic Congress going to do?

yes, but not not their own Justices.

Only with a 2/3rds majority, right?

Quite frankly in the current climate the only bill that would get one of those would be a one liner saying:

'The Senate likes Kittens'

And even then I can see problems.

"To pass a bill over the President's objections requires a two-thirds vote in each Chamber."

(I'm saving "Beto" for a future purpose)

And even then I can see problems.

I would like for you to detail those problems for our amusement.

2) Signing some stuff into law in exchange for easing up on the investigating is always an option for bush

3)Some serious investigating

why do we think that this is such a sesmic change?
start getting third (or fourth or fifth) parties up and running, and then we will talk?

good news:
az not hating fags, some propostions being passed (esp the anti emminent domain stuff in oregon and the illegal sodak abortion ban)

arizona passing on the anti-gay prop is pretty much the only good thing that happened here; a bunch of nasty anti-immigrant props passed by a good margin. at least we turned down the one that proposed turning elections into lotteries by giving a million dollars to a random voter.

and the great hope for teh democrats, is a former reagonite who was involved in the contra affair?

and yeah its great the speaker is a woman, but im convinced that she is someone who bungled from the beginning

i am not heartened

Maybe YOU would. 7 out of 10 people on the street couldn't even tell you what it means. Much less how to spell it. ;)

minimum wage
implement 9/11 commisssion recommendations
implement baker commission recommendations
bush immigration plan, extend health care to illegal immigrants
stem cell research
modify/expand no child left behind
renewable energy legislation

Here is what I think they should do. US politics are weighted vs the Democrats and in favour of evil people. Partly in that the Reps seem to steal votes, intimidate voters, sabotage voting machines, etc, whenever they need to. That supposedly happened in 2000; I have also read that in happened in 2004. Also, because it takes insane amounts of money and stupid TV adverts to get into politics in America; and the political Right will always have more of these. Until these problems are solved - a proposition that already looks naive and impossible when I type it - the Democrats will be at a major disadvantage in fighting elections; including 2008. They need landslides of opinion to get moderate swings to them.

So - one of their priorities should be addressing this vast problem, and trying to make America more democratic; making sure votes are all counted and voting is fair; and also making a start on the perhaps impossible task of, as it were, taking the money out of US politics. If they could make some real progress on this in 2 years, then their candidate might have a better chance in 2008.

Jimmie

Looks like we have both house and senate ... just incredible. Wonder what it is going to be like with Darth Vader running a Democratic Senate. It will be nice to see the little guy get a few breaks for a change. Hope in the beginning, Conyers group does not get tooo carried away with hearings so that the party can focus on some solid legislation that has been way over due. Have a nice Thanksgiving and give my best to Gene!

Best Wishes - Vic

in 2000 I was really struck by how difficult this is to enforce, in a country where you have county level officials "looking after" the design of ballot "papers" and the counting of votes for national level elections.

xpost

Maybe he will SUE you for reproducing them!

Short answer to thread question: nothing.

1. Kyoto is horrible legislation. Doesn't help anyone. From a structural standpoint, it's worthless. If you think this will change national behaviors, you're a naïve fetishist. The US is already carbon neutral. India and china? Oh they get a pass.
2. A Nancy Pelosi speakership is going to be so bizarre even democrats won't go for it for long. You will never hear the words (as you did for Tip oneil and others, zum Beispiel), "speaker for 10, 15 years") in reference to the Pelosi-zany.
3. The Dems haven't campaigned FOR anything. Only against. That's not a policy. If they don't develop a reasonable agenda, they'll just pave the way for the next republican president.
4. Iraq is a mess but what's their plan? Oh yeah. There's not one.
5. If there's another terrorist attack, the republicans will be back with a sizeable majority. Voters aren't going to buy a let's just ignore the obvious and blame ourselves approach. Repubs will pick up those votes with hollow posturing.
6. Which is a shame because they are pathetic.

But I admire your looking on the bright side.

qua?

NAHHHHHHHHH

[more likely, not much, although i was heartened by dean's somewhat elliptical comments last night on daily show. what i don't understand is why the party was so neutered during their minority status. instead of standing up for anything, they got browbeaten everywhere, making them look even weaker than they were/are.]

gabbneb most likely correct way up above, assuming they do accomplish stuff

Safire in NY Times today expects infighting between the libs and the RepubLites:

Committee chairmen like Charles Rangel of Ways and Means, John Dingell of Energy and Commerce, Barney Frank of Financial Services and others will crowd the airwaves with hearings grilling contractors and torturing accused torturers.

After a few months of this posturing, a newly emboldened Bush, emulating F.D.R.’s derision of the isolationists “Martin, Barton and Fish,” will be moved to denounce “Rangel, Dingell and Frank.” This will be the signal for new Republican leaders, like Mike Pence of Indiana, to take up the tactic of Harry Truman by denouncing “the do-nothing 110th Congress.” At the same time, as the 2008 primaries loom, the Trumanesque Bush will measure his reduction of troops in Iraq by the ability of the Iraqis to take over their own defense.

That’s when the new Democratic majority will suffer great stress. Senator Hillary Clinton evoked “the vital, dynamic center” in her victory speech, and Representative Rahm Emanuel was the model of non-hubristic responsibility during the delighted Democratic deluge. But it’s hard to imagine Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Kerry-Gore-Edwards campaigners and the whole loser left holding still into the snows of New Hampshire.

There's probably good momentum to look at the AMT (alternative minimum tax.) There will be a lot of talk about "rolling back" some of Bush's tax cuts, but I doubt they will make it through the Senate.

There will also be hearings and investigations regarding Iraq and some of the other scandals that have come from the past six years. You can bet your balls on that one.

Yes, but as far as I know, most of his posts consist of him reviving film threads to post links to his reviews.

I wouldn't count on that, necessarily...

Hillary the Invertebrate obv suffered not an iota from enabling the war (1% Green Party vote), so this referendum stuff goes only so far.

The Dems' history since 9/2001 is that of a prowar party. People voted for "change" without much idea of what that will consist of. In the case of Iraq, it still looks like "benchmarks" instead of "timetables."

should say

why is everyone under the impression that centrist dems who voted for the war in the first place won because they are centrist and not because they were the lesser of two evils?

or maybe not

What good is congressional oversight if no punitive measures are taken? In the last 20 years no investigation of a major scandal (Iran-Contra, the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings to name two) investigated separately or jointly by the House and Senate has every gone beyond anodyne admissions of wrongdoing.

When there's a victory, everyone wants to claim it, even when it was a "throw the bums out" kind of deal.

I generally agree with M.White. I fully expect an attempt, and I fully expect a failure.

This is what happens when only people who can raise millions can seek office. It's why US politics is broken as never before. Did anyone mention campaign finance reform? Does anyone think THAT's more than a pipedream?

it's a great system!

Pinefox OTM on the voting hardware and curbing political $$$ being the bedrock of everything else

Personally, I hope that the Democrats stalk a conservative budget tack and position themselves as reformers of budget busting.

# What's a Democratic Congress going to do? (79 new answers)
# Unrestricted immigration: Classic or Dud? (15 new answers)

Judge Stevens!

He's probably going to retire "very soon"... maybe after 2008, but likely before 2008. Having a Democratic Congress might prevent a Roberts or Alito type of taking his place.

As far as effects that will be cemented, this is a key one.

It's not uncommon for someone in the senate to either flip or die, and if this happens to a Dem, control goes back to the GOP. So this is a pretty crucial issue here. (Again, credit to Ned), maybe there was nothing to be done but the Dems should have spent a lot more resources on securing more senate seats than house seats... then again, I'm not sure how frail some of the other incumbent Republicans were. Was Ensign in Nevada a sure win, for example? I could go on. But what's done done now. For the moment, here we are, etc.

i agree -- bush will just veto any such bill anyway. the whole thing is jerry-rigged to "explode" after he leaves office anyway, so that's when the "fun" on that front will begin.

i think that it's safe to say that estate tax repeal is dead, though. pobrecito for paris hilton's heirs.

I'm sure he'll break his phenomenal one-veto record in the next two years, but he's going to poison the GOP if he vetoes even a marginal number of times, especially if there are more than 4-5 GOP senators who pass things his way.

Then again, he may not give a fuck or have a slightest clue. We've known this, and have seen such just the other day!

And no, that doesn't make any sense, given the record of the last congress, but it doesn't have to.

* People continue to die.

* Iraq Study Group gives everyone here a chance to look bipartisan and 'reasoned.'

* Some vague drawing down of something or other.

* People continue to die. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I really like this idea. Most serious economists who've studied the issue agree that the most efficient way of stimulating alternative fuel research and reducing dependence on CO2-producing fuels would be an energy tax. But for obvious reasons a hefty gasoline tax is a non-starter. On the other hand, people would probably be willing to go along with a windfall tax on the likes of Exxon-Mobil. Indirectly, this would accomplish the goal of making carbon-fuels more expensive, while at the same time being populism-friendly.

- Loosen up some of the draconian travel and visa restrictions that are reducing the ability of foreign professionals to work at US businesses, and harming many key industries.
- Loosen up some of the overly draconian regulations of Sarbanes-Oxley.
- Beef up the SEC budget and light a fire under their complacent asses.

(XP)

I mean who's going to get incensed about Exxon-Mobil having to share its record-breaking profits, especially if the additional revenue were earmarked for healthcare or education?

I don't know. I think it would be a PR disaster for Exxon to take that approach. If they insist on not making nice, there's lots of other things Congress could do to make them squirm, like renegotiating some of those sweet-heart oil lease deals on public lands.

and o.nate I don't think Exxon's gonna worry about PR disasters from sticking it to consumers. the average consumer has zero understanding of how the oil economy works, and all Exxon has to do is blame the feds ("those spendocrats down in Washington..."), the middle east ("those camel-jockey ragheads bleedin us dry"), or any number of boogiemen. Exxon's number one concerns now are a) keep the oil economy going, and b) bilk everyone for all their worth while they still can.

The top Democrats in the House and Senate tax-writing committees said they would not try to repeal the tax cuts enacted in 2001. They also called on President Bush to show what they said would be similar good faith and not resubmit his proposals for Social Security personal savings accounts...

Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who could soon become the head of the Financial Services Committee, said he and other Democrats who have been advising Ms. Pelosi are planning to propose a “grand bargain” with business interests.

If business groups support the Democrats’ efforts to increase the minimum wage, extend student loans and expand affordable housing programs, Mr. Frank said, then the Democrats would support efforts to reduce trade barriers and burdensome regulation.

“We are liberal internationalists,” Mr. Frank said. “Businesses know they have an interest in working with us.”

Bold, translated:

Meet the new buttboys for the GOP, same as...

Barney loves those Bangalore call centers.

This is OTM Exxon pretty much operates as a PR disaster in Europe, they rode out a 20% drop in sales is germany due to a boycott. Even their lame social responsibility adverts, which only started last month (years after shell and BP) are only trumpeting how they sell sulphur free diesel (because it's EU mandated)

Ed, tell this to China as well.

I am and to india.

So balancing the budget is not on the agenda?

Re deficits, if they're not raising taxes on the rich (hah), and Iraq continues to hemorrhage the coffers...

NEW ORLEANS = government-run theme park!

that's not news - they made it clear before the election too. who do you imagine constitutes the veto-proof majority (or the public political constituency) for anything else?

they are cutting Bush's corporate tax breaks.

There are so many problems with the AMT that it needs its own thread.

Interesting that you think such a huge constituency should be ignored.

I meant that it would allow a Rep. candidate to bray about 'tax and spend liberals' but the Dems could look more fiscally conservative (or at least responsible)and also look less pusillanimous.

so it would seem this is gonna become an issue in 2008, i.e. the campaign, and will be on the early agenda of whoever gets elected along with the repeal issue.

for someone who has always shown a compelling interest for moderates, I'm surprised to see you disregard this issue so thoroughly. This is a chance for your crew to stake credible, reasonable claim on an economic issue that is normally square on the other side.

anyway, many of the key provisions of EGTRRA (Bush's 2001 tax cut bill) are slated to "sunset" by 2011 -- that is, unless specifically made permanent or extended between the bill's passage and 2011, they will expire by 2011 (or sooner in some cases). i think that the democrats' game plan is to let the clock run on some EGTRRA provisions (don't have the Code handy so can't tell y'all which [if any] provisions are set to expire b/w now and 2008) and not do much of anything legislatively (since bush will just veto any tax hikes anyway). but at least permanent estate tax repeal is off the table for good.

do you think that this is yet an issue of concern to voters who aren't upper middle class/rich-but-not-very-rich? do you think there would now be enough supportive voters in the red states to counter Bush when he tells outer-ring suburban and rural voters and lower-income urban residents that the Democrats want to raise their taxes for the benefit of their limousine liberal supporters in New York and San Francisco? i can't imagine that you're particularly concerned about the Dems' ability to hold onto power post-Bush and post-tax break.

Hmm.. top Dems want Dean to be ousted as DNC chairman? so says TNR. Daily Kos users' heads to explode in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2..

If the Democrats can credibly change their image on economic/fiscal matters, then I'm interested. As I've noted many times over the past few years, I think there is a large opening for Democrats to become the party of fiscal sanity without resorting to specious arguments of class or reflexive tax increases.

If the Democrats can push the ball down the field on AMT reform, then I'm for it. There's bipartisan support on this issue, and if the Dems sit down with Bush and do some trading off, they can get a deal. Who's the biggest winner if AMT reform passes, even if it's more cosmetic than anything? Democrats, who have then co-opted a key issue leading up to 2008.

that's why i personally think that it's quite possible that the dems will most likely just do nothing at all re the AMT. frankly, the bushco tax cuts are a gigantic minefield.

My suspicion--and this is based on Bush's first couple of years in office when he was anxious to prove himself compounded by the fact that there are a lot of pragmatic "41"s in orbit right now--is that Bush can be rolled to supporting a deal with Dems on the AMT issue. He needs political capital, he is needy for accomplishment. He's going to work with them on immigration just like he did with "Teddy the K" on education, and it's very likely going to come at the expense of the fundie conservatives. In other words, I think he's vulnerable in his own backyard.

And that's why I think that dispite misgivings about making a deal with Bush, Dems can manage this issue well and claim it as their own. I think they can do a window dressing deal on the AMT and make it look like a victory even if it delays pain until 2010 or so. Do I think it will happen? No.

I'm kinda waiting for the blood to flow at RedState in particular. They're already lock-step behind Pence and want to prove themselves to be major players -- like their mirror images at Kos, their regard of themselves does not exactly match their impact.

"I'm going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything," Waxman said Friday, three days after his party's capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. "The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose."

2. Make creating jobs a federal felony.

3. Work/death camps for Christians.

4. Replace "meat" on Food Pyramid" with "stem cells from partial abortion fetuses."

5. Replace 'abstinence only education' with 'show the illegal immigrant a really good time' education.

yes, he is.. Bush will turn against anyone in the interests of saving something of his own legacy, I don't think he cares a bit what the fundie conservatives want.

I have to say I've read + posted on the daily kos since.. well, since when it was just a blog and not a giant cms run community site thing.. There are some smart people there who know what they're talking about (many migrated here, the Next Hurrah), but the comments overall can be a big waste of time & I've been pissed off many times seeing interesting people chased off (like Petey, an Edwards guy from back in 2003) because they don't fit a certain orthodoxy. (I mean, often in political matters I don't know what I'm talking about but at least I know that I don't know what I'm talking about!)

If "top" means Republican Me-Too idiots who think Harold Ford deserves it for leaning to the right as far as he could and still losing, that's what I read.

actually, this was just James Carville, who hopefully no one listens to anymore, and this only became news because some TNR chick reported it, right?

it's all about resources & whether this 50 state strategy of Dean's is effective and/or a good use of resources given the partic time and place (08 should be another year for Dem gains in Congress)

I assume the Americans saw this? - Labour drafts in US election architect for 'our midterms'

Anyway, re Dean, I don't get why the blogosphere loves him, to be frank - he's not even liberal!

Supposed to be a generation-spanning strategy, anathema to the Exit Poll Era as that may be.

Makes your head spin.

The love probably has something to do with this speech, dude.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/demconvention/speeches/obama.html

I don't get that from him at all, but I'm representative of nobody.

Anyway, all the Dems in Congress will do is position themselves for 2008, just as the media already is. The Eternal Election Cycle sure beats governing.

Well, John Edwards's lack of accomplishment and tenure certainly hurt his campaign.

It matters SOME. e.g., this country's policies would probably be to "the left" of where we are now if Poppy Bush had beaten Clinton in '92.

I really need to think about it, but there's some truth to this assertion.

Well, John Edwards's lack of accomplishment and tenure certainly hurt his campaign.

you mean the campaign in which he essentially beat the former head of the Democratic Governors Association, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and a four-star general?

No more bullshit alternate reality fantasies then, please.

uh, he didn't win the actual election that mattered, y'know.

Shakey, are Shasta and Alex getting enough sleep?

Or the one before that.

I still take the wrong direction more slowly over the wrong direction at break-neck speed TYVM.

I'm still team Edwards for 08. a lot depends on if we really get out of Iraq..

yeah, he ran that campaign.

I don't think Edwards is the best candidate, but I don't think it's because of his 'inexperience'.

The problem here is that the Democrats are widely seen, even among those swing/independent voters, as standing for nothing. Bob Casey being pro-life may be reprehensible to some degree - but he stood for something, right?

At what point does pushing away the principled base stop paying dividends? Do you not think there's some feeling, even among those desired swing/independent voters that 'Democrats' stand for nothing? That sticking up for principles, even 'progressive' principles, plays well with undecideds?

Do you really think that Bush/etc. play that well with people on an ideological level - or is there a certain amount of trust to be found in someone who stands up for his beliefs, whatever they might be?

The wins by somewhat socially conservative people like Casey point me that way - it wasn't so much that he was pro-life and pro-gun, but that he had a message and wasn't focus-grouped into irrelevance.

if you say that enough times maybe it will be true. anyway, even taking your point, a small segment of voters in the middle aren't certain what Dems are for not because of their ideological impurity but because Dems aren't very good at programmatically communicating bite-sized pieces in clear and repetitious fashion the way Republicans have in recent years. there's a reason Bush/Cheney/Rove like to make fun of Democratic 'nuance'.

I think it was 99.9% that he wasn't Rick Santorum.

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/11/carvilles_still.html

and the other .1% was because he was the son of a very popular former governor.

or maybe you're just too close to your party to recognize the repeition and sloganeering that occurs on a daily basis. then again, maybe it's not the communication. maybe it's what's being communicated.

It may be what I hate most about them, messagewise.

-Feiffer

AMT Relief Becomes a Priority
For New Democratic Chairmen
By ROB WELLS
November 22, 2006; Page D2
Democrats in charge of congressional tax committees will have to scramble next year to prevent millions of additional taxpayers from being ensnared by the alternative minimum tax.

Relief from the tax, also known as the AMT, is a top priority for incoming House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) and incoming Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.).

Mr. Rangel says he wants to address the AMT, "which holds hostage 23 million people who have a tax burden on them that was never intended."

Congress created the AMT in 1969 in an attempt to make sure that nearly all upper-income taxpayers would pay at least some tax. But because it wasn't indexed for inflation, the tax now hits 3.5 million taxpayers, including many middle-income families in high-tax states such as New York and California.

Taxpayers subject to the AMT effectively lose the ability to claim the child tax credit, state and local tax deductions, and personal exemptions.

Without congressional action, an estimated 23.4 million taxpayers will face the AMT in 2007. The most likely outcome, according to tax lobbyists and congressional aides, is a temporary one-year fix that will keep the number of AMT taxpayers at roughly the current level.

This task will be complicated by fiscal austerity pledges made by incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and key Senate Democrats. They are promising to tighten federal budget rules so that the cost of any tax relief must be offset by corresponding spending cuts or by other tax increases.

If such budget rules were in place, the $30 billion cost of AMT relief for one year would have to be offset by spending cuts or new taxes, such as anti-tax-shelter measures.

When asked how he would pay for this, Mr. Rangel responded: "With great difficulty."

Such budget concerns will frustrate Mr. Baucus's broader goal: full repeal of the AMT, which would cost the government $1.7 trillion over the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington think tank.

The combination of an AMT fix and changed budget rules will likely push other priorities, such as estate-tax overhaul, far down the list. But it's too early to declare the estate-tax issue dead, particularly since key Senate deal makers won promotions.

Mr. Baucus, who will be chairman of the finance panel, has proposed a compromise to boost the estate-tax exemption to $5 million for individuals and $10 million for couples. (It's currently $2 million and $4 million, respectively.) Sen. Trent Lott (R., Miss.), who is on the tax panel, last week was elected to the No. 2 Republican leadership post.

Mr. Lott worked with other tax-panel Democrats on an estate-tax compromise in 2006, an effort that failed amid election-year politics.

The calendar is one factor pushing a compromise. President Bush's 2001 tax bill reduces the estate-tax rate -- now at a maximum 46% -- until 2010, when the tax is repealed for a single year. If that law isn't renewed, the tax returns the following year at pre-2001 levels: at a maximum 55% rate with a $1 million exemption for individuals.

New finance committee members Sens. Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) and Ken Salazar (D., Colo.) favor some form of permanent compromise. Mr. Salazar told reporters last week he and Mr. Baucus "agreed that it's something we need to fix."

...

Dems spit bit on war bill

losers.

where are gabbneb and daria to tell us what an election-savvy move this is?

Its just disgusting that with majority support from the public they still balk at a facedown

er showdown, face-off, whatever

Face/off.

My suspicion about Congress's shitty poll numbers is precisely this issue. The Democrats are going to get negatives from Republicans, but they're also going to get negatives from the voters who put them in office precisely as a protest against Bush's policies. The politically expedient thing to do here would be take a stand - might even shed some of that flip-floppin' cowardly Democrat role that's going to haunt them next November.

exactly - this only reinforces their "can't get things done" image and hands ammo to their opponents (once again). Granted all they can really do in the face of an irreversible veto is threaten to shut down the government entirely, stop all funds, etc., which is not something to be done lightly but which, I think, in the end, would benefit their position and their image.

and yes I know the government shutdown tactic didn't work too well for the Republicans and backfired, but they also didn't have massive public support for their position and an issue as urgent and overriding as this stupid war.

NYT:

The Democratic leaders’ concession infuriated one of their own, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who failed last week in his attempt to win passage of a measure that would have cut off money for the war next spring.

“I cannot support a bill that contains nothing more than toothless benchmarks and that allows the president to continue what may be the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation’s history,” he said. “There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. Congress should have stood strong, acknowledged the will of the American people, and insisted on a bill requiring a real change of course in Iraq.”

my man Russ

Nationaljournal:

"There simply is no direction," said the spokesman for one mid-level Democratic member closely tied to leadership. "Press is an afterthought on our side, and it shows." [...]

"You look at the Republican apparatus and it is like they're playing chess and we're playing checkers," the first-term lawmaker said.

"It is going to take time to figure out, but at the end of the day there has to be stronger leadership and some more-aggressive message defense," said one former senior House Democratic communications professional who now heads press operations for a prominent party-affiliated group. "It is a problem for every Democrat in Congress if they don't realize the Republicans are going to turn Pelosi into radioactive material before the 2008 election and try and use that to win the House back."

they've renamed a bunch of post offices.
the inertia of the bureaucracy means that nothing ever changes.
they're hinting at raising the gas tax which is funny.
2.9 trillion dollar budget and they can't find a nickel for roads.
russ would be taken more seriously if he actually came out with a plan.

the strategery:

What House Democrats are trying to guarantee is this: the Iraq war belongs to Bush and the Republican Party now -- and so it must when the election of 2008 rolls around. That's what they want to guarantee above all else.

...Welcome to the political world of grown-ups who hold office and have institutional responsibility.

The real issue is does the anti-war progressive base know what it is doing? Is it focused on making sure that Democrats win the White House in '08 and keep control of both houses of Congress?

its funny/revolting how these two goals - stopping the war and keeping the Dems in power - are conflated as being the same, when they definitely are not. One (stopping the war immediately) is WAY more important than the other.

http://research.soe.purdue.edu/ackerman33/webquest1/index.gif

why should I care if the Democrats secure power when they're so goddamned useless?

why should i care if you care whether the Democrats hold onto power?

well I'm poor and my vote counts for nothing so essentially there is no reason for any elected official to care what I think.

Cowards to the left of us, cowards to the right of us.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.

you cheering actual-Dem-party-beleivers who harangued everybody to get out 'n' vote 'n' take back Congress didn't actually believe all that stuff you were layin' down, didja? jeez...I mean I voted for 'em just like I'd been told to do, but in no way did I expect anything substantial

I made no such harangues. Kinda laughable to imply that Morbz did either.

you cheering actual-Dem-party-beleivers who harangued everybody to get out 'n' vote 'n' take back Congress didn't actually believe all that stuff you were layin' down, didja? jeez...I mean I voted for 'em just like I'd been told to do, but in no way did I expect anything substantial

did we believe that electing Dems equaled ending the war, raising taxes and enacting single-payer with a sub-60 majority and President George W. Bush? lol.

i suppose things would be better if we still had a GOP congress, tho, with their ownership and all

Enh. I ain't too broken up about this bit b/c there's only so much a bare majority facing an irrational president and minority chock full of people acting in bad faith. They still have subpoena power, and from that things will flow.

Nothing will change much, until the current block of sewage gets removed.

also

in no way did I expect anything substantial

so your point is?

Nothing will change much, until the current block of sewage gets removed.

1,000% OTM.

I didn't expect movement or progress.

I did expect a backbone, given that whole 'elected by virtue of NOT being Republicans and/or George Bush' thing.

Clearly they can't even muster that much strength.

yeah I didn't expect movement or progress, I expected them to basically be obstructionists and shut down the government if necessary, as I alluded to upthread.

it would be nice if they could at least refrain from handing Dubya opportunities to polish his image

my point gabs is that if you expected some big applause-generating backbone stuff from the party once they got a majority, you're extremely naive or heavily amnesiac

maybe you didn't expect shit, in which case I'm not talking to you

gabbneb just expects them to win elections

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/abc-bush-shit.jpg

its a sign

So which Dems voted vs the bill? 20 senators?

clearly there's a place in between shit and applause(?)-generating 'backbone' stuff, and I inhabit that place, but if you want to talk to 'cheering actual-Dem-party-beleivers', I believe I'm Public Enemy No. 1

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

Feinstein voted for this?! bah

Wasn't the minimum wage bill included too? OH I LUV SENATE PROCEDURAL ARCANA

I expected them to basically be obstructionists and shut down the government if necessary

I'm with you on the first point, but you need to ask Newt how well that went.

Schumer ducks it.

Latest party line is "we'll have balls guts in September."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_go_co/schumer_lyme_disease

I am buying that tick a drink.

76% of America wasn't on board with slashing whatever the fuck Newt wanted to slash.

yes, not all shutdowns are alike.

as I alluded to upthread

and yes I know the government shutdown tactic didn't work too well for the Republicans and backfired, but they also didn't have massive public support for their position and an issue as urgent and overriding as this stupid war.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, May 22, 2007 7:52 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Link

the Newt shutdown was also pretty weird insofar as it was largely guided by ideology, and had fuck-all to do with public opinion

But it did play into their narrative, the whole "we hate big government and we're gunna shut it down to prove it". Of course, the president they were doing this against had at least 60% approval, but it may have helped with their own base.

remember, only judge republican outcomes thru a republican lens. Govt shutdown, fucked up katrina response, several billion to campaign contributors and a permanent stake in the mideast oil markets = success!

The GOP publicity machine, a hundred times more skilled than the Dems', would mobilize the Hugh Hewitt/Malkin/Hannity fanbase if a shutdown were to happen NOW. A shutdown would only work if public opinion was still as dismal after September.

seems counterproductive to me for the Dems to make moves based on how the Republican media machine going's to respond - anything they do should be with the understanding that they have to beat that machine with their own, no matter what

but again, many Dems don't want anything in Iraq to improve before Nov '08.

Yes, the number of Dems I'm seeing talk about this as a power play for Nov. is just sickening. A thousand more dead soldiers, who gives a fuck, so long as Hillary might be able to squeak in.

What I can't figure out about the "ball is in his court" line that's also getting a lot of play - no, it's not. You stupid fucks just voted to continue funding it.

Had the Democrats refused to fund Iraq and forced him to veto the bill (at which point you then compromise if you can't stomach a stand-off), then he actually is on the hook completely and unavoidably. Voters aren't stupid, they understand the concept of trying to end the war and failing. They don't understand caving in (as evidenced by Congress's poll numbers.)

A thousand more dead soldiers, who gives a fuck, so long as Hillary might be able to squeak in.

Plz to present the scenario that avoids the thousand more dead soldiers

but again, many Dems don't want anything in Iraq to improve before Nov '08

yeah, you've got us there. imagine the horror of a health care election.

So Democrats don't even need to worry about the morality of egging Iraq onward to increase their chances in 2008 because the war is an inevitability?

They don't even need to pretend they care?

'egging Iraq onward'? Yes, that's right, they don't care. I don't know why they should take seriously the skepticism of anyone who would ask that question.

Plz to present the scenario that avoids the thousand more dead soldiers

Yes, how about the strategy that milo proposed? Forcing Bush to veto the bill puts the onus of responsibility on HIM, although even waiting until this cynical September deadline sickens me.

your Congresspeople are not their to reassure you that they (and by extension you) are good people

They don't care, gabbneb. If they gave a shit, they would at least make a half-assed pass at stopping the war, rather than talking tough, caving and then crowing about how it aids their prospects.

The war is nothing but politics for Democratic politicians - support it when that makes you electable, oppose it when that does, and never, ever, God forbid, actually do anything about it.

It's not even my usual charge of spineless, craven Democrats caving in to pressure (as there is no pressure here, except to end the war) - they just don't have an interest in the effects of the war beyond their own electability.

they're there to represent me and do what I tell them. But they can't even do that much.

anyway Milo's totally right - the party has treated the war as nothing more than a political football from the beginning, at the expense of thousands and thousands of lives and bazillions of wasted of dollars.

way to "govern"

do you think that democrats think that their continued electability has anything to do with the likelihood of ending the war? none of y'all has presented any way for a sub-veto-proof dem majority to end the war with president george bush.

sending w a bill to veto - even if it could happen - moves a pawn. you still haven't told me how the war's gonna end. especially when a sizable portion of those who are against the war are really against losing the war, which is precisely what bush/rove want to pin on the dems.

none of y'all has presented any way for a sub-veto-proof dem majority to end the war with president george bush.

What part of "I didn't expect progress, I expected opposition" don't you understand?

Note that dude already veto'd one of the bills.

you still haven't told me how the war's gonna end

manalishi:whitey::gabbneb:Democrats

they just don't have an interest in the effects of the war beyond their own electability.

Actually a better way of looking at this is that the "effects of the war" is not nearly as important in current Democratic calculations as, like, "effects of ending the war" -- only one of these things involves actual responsibility. (I can actually sympathize with the desire not to be blamed for any of the inevitably unpleasant withdrawal options -- blame the guy who started it, you know? -- but to be honest I'm not convinced their strategy of playing the critics/opposition while avoiding bold action will work out as well as they think: endless bitching and lack of efficacy are lefty stereotypes at this point, which doesn't look good, and really, even if this position were some kind of electoral boon, it just puts the inevitable problem even more squarely in your party's lap.)

What part of "I didn't expect progress, I expected opposition" don't you understand?

I understand that fully, having already characterized it upthread

You still haven't grasped the difference in "make the war end tomorrow" and "try to end the war."

You still haven't grasped that trying to end the war is exactly what they're fucking trying to do.

everyone who's arguing that dems are doing this for their own 'electability' is simultaneously arguing that the anti-war public wants dems to do exactly what they're doing.

So if I think really, really hard about working overtime to erase debt - but don't - I'm "fucking trying" to get out of debt?

everyone who's arguing that dems are doing this for their own 'electability' is simultaneously arguing that the anti-war public wants dems to do exactly what they're doing.

That's not quite right, Gab -- surely you can see how a party might offer vocal opposition to something while still hesitating over any bold trigger-pulling? (Haha though to be honest I think the public is in the same position: more content to just generally want out of Iraq than to actually take any deep breaths and see what transpires if that happens. No matter how much the public wants out, any real action toward it is going to involve bad news and bumming people out, not a victory party.)

You, exactly, milo...

The war is nothing but politics for Democratic politicians - support it when that makes you electable, oppose it when that does, and never, ever, God forbid, actually do anything about it.

as for calling me Manalishi, I've said it before a million times, I don't even have a dog in this really - I think the politics (by which I mean the likelihood of ending the war, apparently it's necessary for me to explain) have the potential to go both ways here. I wouldn't be making zealous defenses of this stuff if y'all weren't constantly 'oh, the Dems are inhuman baby-eaters and know nothing about how to do their jobs; they should listen to me who's never been elected to anything.'

In no way does that translate to what you're claiming, gabbneb. You must have missed where I called backing down and equivocating a miscalculation and referred to them pinning their 2008 hopes on a continued Iraq/Bush debacle.

, I don't even have a dog in this really

haha, sorry, that was supposed to be establishment Democrats.

everyone who's arguing that dems are doing this for their own 'electability' is simultaneously arguing that the anti-war public wants dems to do exactly what they're doing.

this ignores the fact that Democrats are really horrible at identifying what makes them "electable" - while they may be hedging their bets (yet again) for what they believe are electoral advantages down the line, those advantages don't necessarily exist (see Kerry and his rationalization of his war vote during the last Prez election)

it must be 'bullshit' if you say it is.

As always, you defend appeasement Democrats in everything they do.

As always, you attack anyone who isn't raging against power, regardless of the actual result it produces in the real world. you would only count yourself among a party that is always actively in dissent, never in control.

Aha, so our Democratic legislature is actually trying to appeal to Milo, then!

the initial war vote is a good example of the Dems lame-ass political calculations, really - many of them voted for it hoping it would guarantee their seats and/or electoral aspirations but instead those votes are now liabilities.

which I predicted would be the case way back when it started, but hey, what do I know....

Yes, gabbneb, we know. 'The long game.' Just wait until Democrats hold Congress and the White House (and surely squandering anti-Bush/Iraq sentiment will net them both!) and then we'll see REAL progress, honest.

You keep saying it, and yet when the Democrats you dearly love have even a taste of power... they do nothing. They can't even stand up for themselves or for the people who elected them.

whadayamean aren't you oh so impressed by the Clinton "legacy"

i'm not gonna keep responding to everything you keep getting wrong, milo. i'm just gonna say you go ahead and do better. you clearly know what the people want better than the dems do. and you know your way around a gun, so you could be an electable nra guy, rite? that goes for j0hn too. he's seen the country, has some real life experience, knows him some health care. hey john hall did it. if the public is where you say it is, nothing should stand in your way. i'm sure neither of you guys could beat shakey, tho. he's mr finger-on-the-pulse.

you clearly know what the people want better than the dems do.

haha I love this "if you're so smart let's see YOU do better" tack. that's some genius level stuff there gabb. How dare I, an unelected prole, have any kind of insight into the electoral machinations of our betters. So the only people who should criticize elected officials are other elected officials, then, eh?

I guess I'll keep my mouth shut til I'm in the White House, and THEN I'll give all my predecessors what for.

This is kind of a recurring them with you in every political thread, though.

You seem to be really and truly offended at the suggestion that strategists, centrist hacks and professional politicians might be wrong. Might even routinely be wrong. (Or, you know, might not have the best interests of the electorate at heart.)

I think that's why you have such a hard time taking a positive position (as in this thread, where you continually have to say you're on the sidelines) - you're more offended at the idea of criticizing the Democratic machine than what that criticism might be.

gabbneb's like the irate hack musician who bristles at critics by pointing out that they can't play guitar/write a song/sing a note so why don't they just shut up

the Dems' current 'best hope': MOKTADA?

oh hooray Dems can't even pass renewable energy legislation

its funny how much better at being the opposition party congressional reps are - you don't hear any complaints from them about how they have to capitulate to the majority or risk losing their seats.

(by congressional reps I mean congressional Republicans, in case that wasn't clear)

GODDAMMIT

haha I love this "if you're so smart let's see YOU do better" tack. that's some genius level stuff there gabb. How dare I, an unelected prole, have any kind of insight into the electoral machinations of our betters. So the only people who should criticize elected officials are other elected officials, then, eh?

I don't believe I invited you to run for anything

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_06/011525.php

So classic.

Or, as I like to call it, "gettin' stuff done."

Worst Congress ever.

How the Democrats Blew It in Only Eight Months by Alex Cockburn

Led by Democrats since the start of this year, the US Congress now has a “confidence” rating of 14 per cent, the lowest since Gallup started asking the question in 1973 and five points lower than the Republicans scored last year....

A war people hate, Gitmo, Bush’s police -state executive orders of July 17 -- the Democrats have signed the White House dance card on all of them, and guess what, their poll numbers are gong down. Bush’s, on the other hand, are going up by five points in Gullup from early July. People are beginning to think the surge is working, courtesy of the New York Times. So, are we better or worse off since the Democrats won back Congress?

Horseshit. Having a slim majority and sharing a senate with a collection people of complete & total bad faith that Mitch Mcconnell's stated goal was not to allow them to pass anything or claim any legislative victory. They were never going to be able to do much in the senate anyway, beyond investigation, but they should have made that clearer in the beginning.

Yes, they are horseshit. That sheep like you will accept them signing off on the expansion of uncondtitutional wiretapping shows why that party is beyond hope.

Yup, you got it exactly. Your cranky summations are completely accurate and so obviously beyond reproach.

They're fucking gangsters, the whole damn bunch. They'd have to literally switch party label before you'd be disappointed in them.

(save Feingold, as A.C. writes)

Is earmarking the result of a slim majority, too?

GONG DOWN

I'd like AC better if he renamed his column Cockpunch

Not only are we appalling, but we can't read shit.

OOPS WE FUCKED THE CONSTITUTION

I really thought that news like could no longer depress me.

It's all in your expectations, Al.

S.O.S.

argh

Cheney doin some serious evil supervillain hunchback thing in the back there

For the children

I don't even need to read that to know how disgusting it is

60 votes, kids, 60 votes

The new bill would cover families with income up to $82,000 a year, threatening to crowd out the private health industry.

oh say it isn't so

"60 votes," balls.

Dems could do far more to end Iraq war

There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and through planned vacations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could let filibusters run from now till Christmas rather than yield to pro-war Republicans.

Such tactics might or might not be politically sensible, but in their absence, anti-war lawmakers can hardly say they have done everything possible to challenge the war and bring attention to their cause.

Lawmakers over the past generation have threatened and sometimes carried out such extreme parliamentary maneuvers over less consequential matters than dying soldiers.

They don't want to end the war.

I love watching these guys get stuff done.

what, you expect politicians to value other people's lives over staying in office?

Call me crazy, I think they could do both.

I could live in hope but I'm getting to old for that shit.

The dems are a joke, at this point, to quote chuck d, neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant.

I get morbiuser and morbiuser by the day

are there other countries where democracy still works?

Costa Rica!

I would totally move to New Zealand if I could get a job there.

Sweden?

Oh, look, let's not look soft on terror and let Bush spy on Americans

I get morbiuser and morbiuser by the day

Morbusier - modernist curmudgeon

“Many members continue to fear that if they don’t support whatever the president asks for, they’ll be perceived as soft on terrorism,”

These are today's Dems: FEAR ITSELF

I wonder if I lived way out west if I could fool myself into thinking there wasn't a near-feudal rigid caste system in place fucking it all down the commode

this lede provides the biggest lolz of the year:

Of the three most recognizable Barneys in America, one is a singing purple dinosaur, another is a prehistoric cartoon character and the third is a gay congressman from Massachusetts.

Dennis Perrin on the latest and most pathetic Dem backtrack:

Who says that Madam Speaker is afraid to tackle the tough issues? Oh, sure, there's that Iraq thing, and a criminal administration, and a possible attack on Iran, and a host of other problems. But by God, Speaker Pelosi knows where she stands when it comes to century-old mass graves on the other side of the world -- at least when she thinks there are enough votes to make this stand stick. But if the votes aren't there, well, one can push only so much morality in a day. I mean, they crucified Christ and shot JFK, right? So there are limits.

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2007/10/moment-please.html

Dems fold on domestic spying. Don't they go to Congress School to learn parliamentary procedure like this shit?

An adroit Republican parliamentary maneuver ultimately sank the bill. GOP leaders offered a motion that would have sent it back to the House intelligence and Judiciary committees with a requirement that they add language specifying that nothing in the measure would apply to surveilling the communications of bin Laden, al-Qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations.

Approval of the motion would have restarted the legislative process, effectively killing the measure by delay. Democratic leaders scrambled to persuade their members to oppose it, but with Republicans accusing Democrats of being weak on terrorism, a "no" vote proved too hard to sell, and so the bill was pulled from the floor

meanwhile the republicans will continue to accuse them of being weak on terrorism no matter what they do. way to fold, fellas, enjoy your prison bitchhood.

Congress at 11% approval rating. Bush at 29%.

Getting stuff done, yessirreeeeeee.

electing "big tent" right-wing Democrats in Confederacyland sure was worth it

What are they gonna do? Rubber-stamp Mike "I Don't Know from Torture" Mukasey, right?

Nader:

After the two days of hearings, no Democrat has yet announced a vote against Mukasey, even after he evaded questions on torture and argued for the inherent power of the President to act contrary to the laws of the land if he unilaterally believes he has the inherent constitutional authority to do so....

After two recent lead editorials demonstrating its specific exasperation over the Democrats' kowtowing to the White House, the New York Times added a third on October 20, 2007 titled "With Democrats Like These." The editorial recounted the ways Democrats, especially in the Senate, have caved on critical constitutional and statutory safeguards regarding the Bush-Cheney policies and practices of spying on Americans without judicial approval and accountability.

Accusing the Democrats of "the politics of fear," the Times concluded "It was bad enough having a one-party government when the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues."

(The NY Times ed sounding like Ralph shows how obviously up the ass the Dems are.)

oh, link:

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader10232007.html

Corporate welfare is going to top $100B this year, which exceeds the record setting $92B the Republicans held with distinction. Not to mention that there are 13,000 earmarks in this year's appropriations bills.

Getting stuff done, indeed. No wonder these clowns poll lower than Bush.

Un.fucking.believable.

fixed:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004594.php

You want an antiwar voice AND a non-corrupt pol in the same body? Stop living in fantasyland.

(my new daria impression)

Whores.

This whole "getting things done" thing is getting awesomer and awesomer.

America just wants some sugar, Don.

?? Murtha's always had those problems. i thought the lefty blogs were absolutely nuts for pushing him to be majority leader b/c he's really conservative and is basically there to funnel $$ to his district. i suppose his notorious hawkishness & support of military/industrial interests for many years made him a strategically useful antiwar voice because it's like "look, even a guy this hawkish who's practically a republican and loves the defense industry is like WTF get out of iraq"

part of the sugar votes are about keeping jobs in their districts, for some.. how many factory type jobs are left in baltimore? not a lot. others pretty inexcusable in my book. i don't know what you do sometimes if it's on one hand, not subsidizing so that all the american producers go out of business b/c import is cheaper & we lose more jobs, or subsidizing when it's unsustainable for the long term.. I don't know a lot about this stuff though, i'd be happy if sugar were expensive as hell and maybe we wouldn't eat so much of it in this country

because i stupidly persist in posting at dailykos..
there was a lot of talk over there about murtha last fall b/c pelosi did try to win support for him as majority leader over steny hoyer (i guess they don't get along) and, fresh from the 06 elections lots of people were saying "pelosi should be able to do whatever she wants" but a minority (including myself) were arguing like hell that it'd be insane, because he's def. just a crony putting millions into worthless projects and there was some real shady ethical stuff he was involved in back in the 80's too (i forget what exactly).

god, i hope they kill the mukasey nomination. i guess schumer and difi had a point in that bush is unlikely to nominate anyone less rightwing and will prob put someone really awful in there during a recess, but after the guy's answer on waterboarding, no way they should support him. (i expect to be disappointed in this of course)

Pretty inexcusable, which is hardly a strong-enough word. John Dean has a suggestion:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057806.php

"We ought to be reasonable about this," said one Senator at a hearing in 2004. "I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. . . . It is easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used, but when you are in the foxhole it is a very different deal. And I respect, I think we all respect the fact that the President is in the foxhole every day." He added that all of this should be public in order to have "legitimacy."

That Senator? New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, who recommended Judge Mukasey for Attorney General in the first place.

i really need to stop caring about this anymore. the democrats are complete failures, afraid to even try to stop this mukasey. better the dissembling, weasely, not-quite-lying devil you know than the theoretical "worse" devil you don't, right? because god knows this guy - who doesn't know from torture and seems to espouse the same lunatic theories about executive power as every other possible appointee would - he's the best yet. and even if he's the same as all of the others, well, at least he's polite.

please, anyone, point someone out who bush could concievably appoint during the recess who would be worse. make me feel better about how incredibly spineless the democrats are, like there's some justification for their actions other than their desire to leave early and drink scotch.

Ted Olsen?

http://www.ares-server.com/AresImages/RET01346/AltonBrowncrop800.jpg

in answer to the thread question, "make me even more resolute that democracy in america is a cruel and terrible joke on both democracy and america"

how many times in american history has a political party - any party - ever acted for the good of the country instead of working to shore up its own power?

Once in a great while there's a convergence of selfish interests and public good (Wilson's first year, FDR 1932-34).

A Democratic Congress is going to make me want to wish I could slit my wrists with a broken Dos Equis bottle.

McCain gettin behind US torture policy is just sickeningly ironic/depressing/disgusting... like shit, didn't he learn anything from being tortured, lolz

That move by Kucinich to impeach Cheney is an alltime classic.

This Congress is proving to be much, much more awesomer than I could have imagined.

109 House Dems "elate" Bush (NYT):

Defying appeals from labor leaders, environmentalists and foes of free-trade, nearly half the Democrats in the House joined today with the Bush administration’s backers to support a trade liberalization agreement with Peru that the White House hopes will lead to the approval of future trade deals.

The vote came this morning and followed several hours of debate that exposed a deep fissure among Democrats. On one side were veterans from declining industrial areas of the Northeast and Midwest and younger critics of globalization.

On the other was the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other leaders arguing that trade brings benefits to many Americans and that the deal was worthy of Democratic support because it requires Peru to protect labor rights and the environment.

Voting for the trade agreement were 109 Democrats and 176 Republicans. Voting against it were 116 Democrats and 16 Republicans. (Eight members from each party did not vote.)

The Senate is expected to take up the agreement soon and is likely to approve it.

The Bush administration was elated by the outcome in the House.

More on Peru FTA and the prez candidates:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=249824

gross

the larger problem there is that striking one-off trade deals is kind of backward in this day and age -- bigger multilateral and regional trade frameworks would be a much better thing in theory, a) they historically have been totally unfair in the details and b) our current government doesn't have the respect or competence to put them together.

pull the string on the barbie, "diplomacy is hard"

God bless the Democrats

“They’ve produced absolutely nothing that I can see that’s of benefit or consistent with the promises that they made when they went out and ran for election,” Cheney said.

Even a stopped clock, etc.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/13/strength/index.html

TEAM SHITBIRD

harry reid is really turning out to be exactly the big piece of worthless crap we should've always known he was

betweem grover norquist's directive to the republicans that (paraphrasing) "no good bills pass this congress" and the democrats natural instinct to curl up in the fetal position and piss themselves whenever they encounter any resistance whatsoever... well, all it's really going to take is one or two "GOOD NEWS FOR GEORGE W. BUSH" stories and we'll wind up with a republican majority in the senate again in 2008. an actual majority PLUS lieberman.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/12/19/dodd_urged_to_challenge_reid_as_senate_majority_leader.html

I liked him the first time around

While it's nice that FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms has been placed on hold for the moment, I wouldn't hold your breath for some kind of systemic cleansing. For Harry Reid and his cronies, it takes a hot issue off the front burner for the holidays, allowing them to focus on other ways to skull fuck the public. For Dodd, well, the guy has nothing to lose. Barring some McGovernite miracle, Dodd is not going to snag the Dem nomination. This allows him to be a semi-Kucinich -- not the complete model, obviously, as that would be crazy. But enough of a Kucinich that the libloggers will drool all over themselves with fantasies of re-taking power, for if there's one thing that libloggers love to do, it's wallow in political fantasy.

You can't really blame them. What do veal calves dream about as they await the abattoir blades? Hopefully, something pleasant and soothing, like the destruction of the slaughterhouse and a mass conversion to vegetarianism. In the veal crate, all you have are your dreams.

I toured the major lib sites yesterday, anonymously conversing with various Dems all atwitter over Dodd's heroic stance. Any minor mention of the actual system and how it realistically functions made many of them angry and upset. They railed about "defeatism" and seemed to honestly believe that Dodd's action is the first step to national salvation. Several, blog tenders included, praised Dodd's "patriotism." Man, you know you're fucked when the so-called political "opposition" plays the patriot card. They appear to think that patriotism is wholly compatible with real social change. It's a bit like asking the slaughterhouse worker for a kiss just before he puts the hammer gun to your temple. Hey, every positive gesture counts.

Meantime, in the chambers overlooking the farm, the Democratic-controlled Senate has approved another $70 billion for imperial war, with the Democratic-controlled House expected to follow today. The blades keep spinning. The walls remain coated with blood. Feed on that, veal calves.

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2007/12/view-from-crate.html

wow, what a moron

yeah, he's great. I can't wait for his book on the Dems, Savage Mules, next year.

The report card

that'll be a best seller among the farm animals, I'm sure

I was reeeeeally looking forward to getting a party hat from Rahm Emanuel, maybe with "Mission Accomplished" on it.

why i heart krugman

maybe ralph nader WAS right ...

RIP Tom Lantos

This is the pile of shitbags HRC and Obama must deal with?

Oh right – HRC voted for it too.

Sat it out. In this case, same difference.

News from AP & Reuters »
Astronaut John Glenn Endorses Clinton

it's sad when the Keating Five can't stick together, and lol "astronaut"

sorry sorta the wrong thread as the AP doesn't remember JG was in the Senate

astronaut is a much more honorable vocation than elected representative at this point, I doubt there'd be many people who'd prefer to be known by the latter title

ive run out of energy to call write or email sen salazar again about what a disgrace he is to the legal profession his party the senate colorado his country... what you got?

clearly my requests, then exhortations, then scoldings have been ineffective anyway.

yeah i emailed amy klobuchar a couple times about this

List of Dems who voted to protect the telecoms?

Democrats voting for the bill:
Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Robert Casey (D-PA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Jim Webb (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

All Republican senators voted for the bill, except for Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) who did not vote.

Neither Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) nor Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) voted on the bill, though Obama did vote earlier in the day to support removing telecom immunity.

way to cave, guys. further proof we're slipping backwards through our previous progress as a country, i think that bump you felt was the Church Committee un-happening.

lolz @ Republican walkout. Dems being taught a lesson on how to be a proper opposition party

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

^ my dad (deputy-ish director level position in state agency heavily involved with AG office) always said he was a shitty little wormy weasel with no real convictions when he was Attorney General.

fuck this guy

I was stopped by an AP headline this morning that read, "Anti-war Democrats ponder next step."

Hmm. Must be about Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel anticipating more shit storms on the American horizon -- not that they can do much more than hunker down and weather the falling body parts as best they can... Instead, the names listed are Harry Reid, who voted for war, Nancy Pelosi, utterly worthless, and Russ Feingold, who at least has made a few attempts to highlight statist corruption and war-lust, though when nudged, Feingold will hump the flag to show that his "opposition" comes from a patriotic place...

The AP piece portrays the Dems as naturally antiwar, which naturally they aren't, and quotes the standard mouthpieces and apologists like MoveOn, devoted primarily to electing Democrats, regardless of actual social effectiveness. The current strategy, proposing moving troops around here and there, taking some out, redeploying others, is the typical Beltway shell game, a lot of action that signifies essentially nothing. The Democrats are not going to withdraw from Iraq, nor from Afghanistan; and should Saint Obama become President Saint, there is no way in hell the U.S. leaves. The last thing a newly-minted imperial manager does is undermine, much less destroy, the imperial project. Streamline it? Sure. Re-brand it for domestic consumption? Of course. Trash it? Go back to your meth pipe.

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/02/soft-sounds-for-bedlam.html

Democrats voting for the bill:
Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Robert Casey (D-PA), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Ken Salazar (D-CO), Jim Webb (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

All Republican senators voted for the bill, except for Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) who did not vote.

Neither Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York) nor Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) voted on the bill, though Obama did vote earlier in the day to support removing telecom immunity.

-- GOTT PUNCH II HAWKWINDZ, Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:24 AM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Link

^^^^^the stupidest thing about this shit is the dailykos MAKE SURE THESE PEOPLE ARENT REELECTED reaction. just a couple years ago you douchebags were making the case for electing mcaskill and webb based on their outside shots of winning - and they won, now you want to throw them to the wolves? nice work dorks

+ McCaskill is the only woman in senate endorsing the dailykos candidate for pres!!

going for the morbs vote here

Meanwhile if Obama's elected he's gotta hope he doesn't have friends like these.

"The Senate Caves" is exactly where they should meet, subterraneanwise.

Posted Jun 12, 2008 10:00 AM

uh

good article though, thanks alfred

It's appearing in next week's RS, foax.

UGH.

SOP!

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/06/submission.html

Any conscious person over the age of 25 who is surprised by major Dem support for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is either deluded, desperate, or so whacked out on yagé that the mere formation of cogent thought is a minor miracle.... But one must remain optimistic, even as the shit piles rise. What ya gonna do, vote Green?

Touring the lib sites for cheap laughs yielded some pleasant discoveries, namely, a growing number of liberals who have had it with the system. Like Neo in "The Matrix," many are opening their eyes for the first time, seeing the Real World for what it actually is....

If you are left of center, you belong to the Democrats. End of story. One beloved blogger made some nasty noises about those daring to dump the mules, tapping out a little screed that would gladden any Stalinist. No matter how much blood the Dems drag this blogger through, loyalty will be maintained and insisted upon. This is seen by many as a courageous stand. Like I said, we have a long way to go.

The main problem for liberals like this is that they cannot see a world without Democrats.... The very idea of escape horrifies them, much less the demolition of the entire edifice. So there they remain, passive, trusting, not completely content with the arrangement, but too frightened to make any significant break. Besides, if they moo sincerely enough, perhaps their keepers will alter the institutional structure that keeps them in place. It hasn't worked yet, but tomorrow's always another day.

you tell 'em, morbs

bend over nicely.

or maybe you'd like to defend your beloved party of asswipes? Justify this, cretin.

Let's vote for Ralph Nader! That worked out so well the first time.

baaaaaaaaa, baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Oh you rebel you.

Hardly, you "pragmatic" you.

Seriously disgusting vote and piece of legislation. Not a day anyone should feel good about voting Democrat, but it also doesn't make the alternatives seem any more attractive either.

The alternatives, plural? You're admitting more than one?

?

dnftt

do not feed the One Party with Two Right Wings

you folks are gonna vote for them no matter what they do for the rest of your lives, aren't you? tsk tsk, so conservative.

Again if the alternatives were credible, I'd be more willing to cede that you actually have a point. Until you provide a good one though, I'll stick with the lesser of the two evils thankyouverymuch.

hey morbs,

my senator is one of the most liberal in the senate. without moving, how do you recommend i go about getting some missouri dem who is representing an area that is like 49% repub to start voting with his cojones? By voting for larouche? by not voting obama? i dont get it

DNFTT

Seriously though please link us to some fantastic Dennis Perrin piece which enlightens us on the next steps we should take relinquish control of our country from these two completely entrenched parties. We all wait with bated breath.

I'm not sure what I'll do yet, but my options are, in descending order: (a) write in a candidate (b) vote for Obama (c) not voting.

Brilliant.

why does everyone always assume that having an actual "party" is the problem? in the end whatever party holds power will have to represent the will of the majority, thats kind of how democracy works. when a party has elements you disagree with alongside ones you agree with, why isn't it best to work within it to move it further towards your ideal? how does not voting or voting for a third party actually fix things better than moving the democratic party leftward?

You think?

(xpost)

Nope.

lack of support is the only reason why third parties can afford to have these appealingly "pure" positions instead of being a mess of compromises and special interests like a real political party. look at the labour party, this starry eyed idealist democratic socialist party made up of trade unionists - once they got a majority shit got real "pragmatic" fast

Ssssh you are destroying the illusion, Ethan.

I know all about purity vs pragmatism: I'm just having a laugh making fun of Democrats.

Hey, what good are these kinds of laws anyway if the people running the country are hellbent on breaking them?

Why are Republicans so unaware or indifferent to the Constitution? Is that what it means to be Republican now? (*aside from that handy part about the right to bear arms, that is)

I wasn't happy about the recent "bi-partisan agreement" regarding funding for Iraq, either. Utterly cowardly.

In all seriousness now: that's all very well, Ethan, but the situation isn't germane here. In a year when every poll indicates that the Dems will not just keep but expand their Congressional majorities, why the fuck are they afraid of looking Soft on Terrorism? They had nothing to lose!

Unless, of course, Steny Hoyer, Rockefeller, and the rest really do think the Chief Executive SHOULD have those powers. And if that's the case, let's have the discussion.

i'm not disputing how shitty the dems in congress have largely been, i'm questioning that the best solution to fixing this is dr morbius style adolescent cynicism & michael badnarik votes

"cynicism"

None of your "post-adolescent" shit will move the democratic party leftward, EVER. When you vote reluctantly for them, I hear it counts exactly the same as the vote of a Blue Dog free-market bomb-Iran Democrat.

I'm with dude on balloon juice who said to call up the switchboard and tell your rep's office you will definitely be voting for anybody else but them come the next primary

Not having to worry about this shit, however, is kind of a nice thing about living in DC. Eleaner Holmes Norton has no job; therefore she can only do a perfect one

None of your "post-adolescent" shit will move the democratic party leftward, EVER

Neither will losing a bunch of fucking elections to the Republicans. In fact, as we've seen, it will move them rightward.

So all the voting shit is useless under the present game. I'm glad we finally agree.

Uh, no. I'll take "marginally better incrementalism" over "living under GOP rule" or "pitchforks-and-torches revolution," thanks.

So Morbs, I'm sorry what's your alternative here? Other than pretending to be oh so superior do you have a brilliant solution to the dilemma of American electoral politics? Or is it just to bitch and moan?

When will this MBI occur? 1201 hrs on 1/20/09?

Alex, have I ever said I had answers? Other than, oh, 5 million of us marching on the DNC next week?

iow, if this country has slipped to starboard (& i agree it has) & mutiny is not a realistic option, the best way to start straightening the course is to do what we can to get the most capable captain available in charge

killin u w/ metaphor

voting is useless because it might drive home the fact that you're in a minority

as are you. The majority has smelled the game and sits it out.

When will this MBI occur? 1201 hrs on 1/20/09?

I'm sorry, the correct answer is "any time some GOP turd does not occupy the White House." If you really don't see a difference, EVEN IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE FAR FROM PERFECT WHICH IS STIPULATED, I pity you.

Alex, have I ever said I had answers? Other than, oh, 5 million of us marching on the DNC next week?

Well, it stopped the Iraq War, so I'm sure it will . . . wait, nevermind.

the fallacy to that argument is that you are arguing it in the first place - ie if its just 'a game' with no significant consequences, why give a shit at all

The majority has smelled the game and sits it out.

i am sure this is a comforting belief

the majority actually did vote in the past couple elections, or no?

i get that pols play to the middle & that excludes millions upon millions of people - i dont get that their arent nevertheless significant differences that will effect everyone, incl those who 'sit it out'

the majority of the Democratic party voted against the bill. The response shouldn't be to not vote Democratic, the response should be to vote for more liberal Dems in the primaries and increase that majority both within the democratic party itself, and the Congress as a whole.

obama supports the compromise :-/

I don't think that suing the telcos really made very much sense anyway. If the feds came to them and said, "We have the authority to do these wiretaps", were they really going to say no? The people who should be brought into court are the people in the government who initiated the program, not the telephone companies who had little choice but to cooperate.

In other words, I basically agree with this blog post:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/inteldump/2008/06/the_immunity_deal.html

(sorry, it's not Perrin)

"obama supports the compromise :-/"

Sorta. He's going to try to strip the telecom immunity part.

Although as I read more about that it sounds like bullshit. . . so not his finest hour.

It's Bullshit Season, people, peaking with the fall foliage.

I'm not getting the whole picture here on this.
FISA is reinstated as the one-stop-shop for intelligence surveillance on US persons, and there's more declassification after the fact - I'm fine with this, I know FISA is not a rubber stamp squad. The immunity from lawsuits is absolute trash, he's against that, good. I just don't feel like reading the actual bill and the press coverage is kind of confusing.

o.nate, I think the real problem with immunity is that there will be no discovery from the lawsuits. They'll just be dismissed out of hand, meaning that we will never have a meaningful investigation into this surveillance. Clearly, Congress have chosen not to investigate and the lawsuits were perhaps our best chance.

^^^ OTM

man anybody whose position on this vote is anything other than "fuck this" needs to hand in their lefty credentials, this shit is bedrock

Tombot, read this.

I don't think that suing the telcos really made very much sense anyway. If the feds came to them and said, "We have the authority to do these wiretaps", were they really going to say no?

Yes! For crissakes, these companies have gigantic legal departments whose jobs it is to be informed as to the current state of the law, and they knew damned well that what they were going to do was illegal. (And these wiretaps, at least some of them, apparently started BEFORE 9/11, so none of this "panic of the aftermath" crap plz thanks.) The government cannot order you to break the law. Period. And people deserve to find out via discovery just who exactly was targeted by these wiretaps and why.

For the record, one company, Qwest, did refuse to comply. And, well . . .

and they were retaliated against, losing a $2 billion contract

i think it's apparent that the companies acted with the expectation that they would be immunized from liability, an expectation that has been met.

man anybody whose position on this vote is anything other than "fuck this" needs to hand in their lefty credentials, this shit is bedrock

I don't think that fundamentalism about civil liberties is necessarily a "bedrock" "lefty" position. It might be a litmus-test issue for a libertarian, but not necessarily for a progressive. If you believe that government should be a tool to help solve people's problems, why would you philosophically oppose giving government the tools it needs to protect its people?

government needs to listen in on all phone calls between its citizens at all times without warrants to protect its people.

I don't think anyone's saying that.

let's talk about what the bill actually does, shall we?

o.nate, I think the real problem with immunity is that there will be no discovery from the lawsuits. They'll just be dismissed out of hand, meaning that we will never have a meaningful investigation into this surveillance. Clearly, Congress have chosen not to investigate and the lawsuits were perhaps our best chance.

I think there's a better way to do this discovery - ie., by investigating the people in the administration who initiated this program. I don't think that it sets a good precedent to go after telcos who acted in good faith to cooperate with the government on a matter that was presented to them as crucial for national security with presidential authorization in a time of crisis.

The telcos' immunity is the least of it to me. Giant whorehouses coddled by guvmint, big whoop.

I completely agree that we should be investigating the administration, but like I said, Congress doesn't have the balls for it at the moment. The telecom lawsuits were started by EFF and others for invading privacy, but also with the investigative function in mind. It would be beneficial to see the paper trail on this and to know how the surveillance was being handled even by the telecoms.

I don't think that it sets a good precedent to go after telcos who acted in good faith to cooperate with the government on a matter that was presented to them as crucial for national security with presidential authorization in a time of crisis.

Doing things you know damn well are illegal because you either are being leaned on by the White House or simply because you want to appear patriotic is the precise opposite of "good faith." The CEOs and GCs of these telcos are not naifs. They know what is and is not illegal in their business, and they know the President does not have the power to compel them to break the law.

I'm not sure it was so obvious that what they were being asked to do was illegal. As I understand it, the FISA law is quite complex, and there have always been a number of loopholes in it anyway.

If it's not so obvious, then it would be great if we had some method -- say, a lawsuit against the companies involved -- that could proceed forward and shed some light on the subject. I mean, I'm sure the GC and the CEO might have exchanged a memo on the topic before just putting the wiretaps in place.

why would you philosophically oppose giving government the tools it needs to protect its people

I don't have a problem with a wiretapping program under the law with non-toothless court oversight (which is what FISA was supposed to be before Bush started ignoring it)

this bill lets the goverment wiretap you for a week no warrant, then if the warrant is denied keep wiretapping you during the appeal, then if the appeal is denied keep and use all the evidence they got against you in the meantime

plus an "exigent circumstances" exception that is basically the excuse Bush used ("we don't have time to go to court, because, terrorists") except now it's written into law

The "exigent circumstances" part only applies to the 7-day window - it doesn't let you ignore the process altogether (which is what Bush did).

"the process" just doesn't seem to have much meaning if the govt can keep wiretapping after a warrant is denied. how long would an appeal take?

The "exigent circumstances" part only applies to the 7-day window

but yes you're right about this part. still trying to figure all this shit out.

let me just toss this out there to people who know more about this, was there really anything wrong with the old FISA other than Bush deciding he didn't have to abide by it?

From what I can see, not really, but then again, the adminstration never went public with its objections. The old court wasn't exactly a rubber stamp, but it didn't reject many requests for wiretaps, of which there weren't many before 2001 anyway.

According to the proponents of the reform, there were some anachronisms in the old FISA that don't apply to the new technological world we live in. For instance, FISA wasn't supposed to regulate surveillance of communication between two parties both of whom are outside the country - but since that traffic is now sometimes routed through US networks, it fell under the purview of FISA. One way in which the new compromise bill seems to be a clear improvement from a privacy perspective is that it now places any wiretapping of US citizens under FISA oversight, even for citizens residing outside the country.

so does anyone know how much stock Nancy and Mr. Pelosi own in AT&T?

I should hope neither Nancy nor Mr. Pelosi know. Blind trust and all that jazz.

they're pretty impoverished without their AT&T holdings

the Roll Call vote

after being completely useless, Pelosi finally does something good:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/01/MNSH122TA3.DTL&tsp=1

This really is an opportunity. Gas prices are far more contingent on refinery output than on oil availability in the short term and in the long term we should not only be concentrating on other fuel sources than oil but the cost to extract from the West Coast compared to the environmental and aesthetic degradation isn't worth it.

so is offshore drilling wrong in most circumstances? Is there "safe" offshore drilling?

MWhite OTM

drilling more oil is just fucking stupid. shit I wish gasoline was $10 a gallon, then we might see some market pressure brought to bear on the right areas/technologies that we really need

No one will tolerate $10 a gallon gas under any circumstances.

that's the point

I was serious about my question. I know little about it. What about ANWR – how big is the area in which the Bush administration wants to drill?

Also, I know he's not the most, shall we say, reliable authority, but Krauthammer offered this today:

The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling. Today, directional drilling -- essentially drilling down, then sideways -- allows access to oil that in 1970 would have required a surface footprint more than three times as large. Additionally, the United States has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet.

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?

The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

oil companies don't even drill in all the areas that they're allowed to drill offshore NOW. There is no reason to give them more real estate. The public is really not being given the full information on this, which is what leads to these ridiculous polls where 60% of californians are in favor of offshore drilling, thinking that it is somehow going to make things cheaper or better for them.

oil companies don't even drill in all the areas that they're allowed to drill offshore NOW.

and the reason they don't is so they can keep supply artificially low (scarcity = higher prices = higher profits) and thereby prolong their existing business model as long as possible without having to go through any painful restructuring/reinvestment of capital in new technologies

which is why I say fuck these companies and fuck the oil industry and don't drill anymore anywhere we need to get away from this disastrous model of an energy economy

What about ANWR – how big is the area in which the Bush administration wants to drill?

oh is that the relevant question? mccain opposes ANWR drilling.

does he still?

it's probably because he's afraid drilling that deep will uncover evidence that he lived among the dinosaurs.

Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?
Does Pelosi imagine that with so much of America declared off-limits, the planet is less injured as drilling shifts to Kazakhstan and Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea? That Russia will be more environmentally scrupulous than we in drilling in its Arctic?

The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.

As usual, Chas, I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you really think that there will be NO, 0%, negative effect to offshore drilling in California? Also, are you seriously trying to imply that if we drilled there, the Kazakhs, Venezuelans, Russians, and Guineans would see the invisble hand of the marketpalce's handwriting on the wall and forbear from drilling as much as they are now? It's a spurious bit of sophistry at best but fcuk you for arguing to debase my state's beauty for the sake of your ideological myopia.

urgh I hate that "but other people are worse than us therefore we better bbe bad first" logical nihilism bullshit

I understand his argument but the reality is that drilling off the West Caost isn't going to depress prices sufficiently to convince all these other places (indubitably swarthy barbarian savages, to a man) to not drill and if it's not American oil companies, it'll be British or French or Chinese or Russian companies who step in, I mean c'mon Chuck.

indubitably swarthy barbarian savages, to a man

lolz you always know how to turn a phrase

He's kind of right, though, about the overall impact of the drilling. Why should Venezuela and Africa and all those other places we get oil from suffer instead of us?

the US needs to lead by example.

Mr Que, his point would be valid if the fact of our drilling or not had any impact on theirs but I think that's frankly ludicrous.

no M, America must win the race to the bottom of shitty, polluted countries lacking a forward-thinking energy policy

let's show 'em how its done!

I think the larger point is that since the US uses so much of the world's resources, a) we help contribute to fucked up shit like the explotation of other countries so we can have precious oil and therefore b) we should be leading the pack in finding new ways to make our cars go, etc. Just because you can't see the refineries and pipelines in your lovely state of California doesn't mean they aren't there. He makes a good point, I think. (I personally I loathe the guy.)

can't see the refineries and pipelines in your lovely state of California doesn't mean they aren't there

doesn't mean they aren't there in other countries, fucking shit up.

seriously, seriously think about how fucked up this is

Consider: 25 years ago, nearly 60 percent of U.S. petroleum was produced domestically. Today it's 25 percent. From its peak in 1970, U.S. production has declined a staggering 47 percent. The world consumes 86 million barrels a day, the United States, roughly 20 million.

the United States has one of the most extensive and least corrupt regulatory systems on the planet.

the legislation of which krauthammer et al were in full-throated support of at the time no doubt

can't see the refineries and pipelines in your lovely state of California doesn't mean they aren't there

doesn't mean they aren't there in other countries, fucking shit up.

totally aware of that - the goal should be reducing demand for oil in the first place, and developing technologies that can replace the oil economy

not, you know, just drilling for more oil. the less oil we use the better.

that's what i was saying

a) we help contribute to fucked up shit like the explotation of other countries so we can have precious oil and therefore b) we should be leading the pack in finding new ways to make our cars go, etc.

Krauthammer is the Child-Catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and I claim my $2

if we drill more in alaska or along the beaches of california from la jolla to leo carillo it will not stop the dirty nigerians and kazakhs from doing whatever they are going to do. we have zero leverage over what they do, america can't do anything about energy supply anymore, only demand.

yeah Que we agree but I don't think Krauthammer does, which is why I was confused that you thought he had a good point (since his main point is "we must drill more or those dirty savages will beat us to it")

http://api.ning.com/files/RHxJm3w9LyPsFPC5alRrkB6Mq2RRcjFsxUnJJuUNfsYTqu1gtLpIvYEe0xr6SbXjzvdasc8cVP2hujKBBZGko4MqYLnG7u64/230pxRobert_Helpmann_child_catcher_.jpg

DRILL! DRILL I SAY!

if we drill more in alaska or along the beaches of california from la jolla to leo carillo it will not stop the dirty nigerians and kazakhs from doing whatever they are going to do. we have zero leverage over what they do

Who do you think owns/leases the rights to the pipelines, dumbass?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/chevron-says-nigerian-oil-pipeline/story.aspx?guid=%7BACF470CE-54D7-43A9-B4DB-234FFAEBD108%7D&dist=msr_1

did you really have to call me a dumbass.

sorry

Chevron /= We

the amount of oil under american land is pretty small, adding to that output in some fractional way will not alter the rest of the world's output. the fact that the drilling is done by the same firms worldwide only supports the point. chevron has clean pipes here, and dirty ones elsewhere? first of all, yeah right, second of all, that's a reason to have more chevron pipes here? it will not change anything somewhere else for krauthammer to suggest that it's american environmentalism that's constraining domestic output to some measurable degree in global terms is a joke

Meanwhile House Republicans revel in theatre

lolz I like how Kucinich stuck aroudn

Pelosi, coward without limits:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-indicates-openness-to-offshore-drilling-vote-2008-08-11.html

ugh

I saw this one coming. She already told reps a couple of weeks ago that they could oppose her publicly if needed.

this isnt really 'ugh' - the 'compromise' is that in exchange for limited offshore drilling, you close a massive corporate tax loophole on the oil companies

mccain is opposed to this bill btw

+ it takes "offshore drilling!!!" off the table as a rallying cry for conservatives pretending to have an energy plan

yeah I guess that's good but the fact is off-shore oil drilling is just a sop to the oil companies anyway and its bad business cuz it virtually ensures problems/ecological cleanup disasters down the line. so instead of a tax loophole (which absolutely should be closed, I agree) they get a guarantee to extend their currently completely inefficient and unsustainable business plan with offshore oil drilling leases. great idea guys.

I mean the point is we should be getting OFF OIL, not ensuring that oil companies can continue feeding our addiction.

This is difficult, Shakey: we talked about this on another thread a few weeks ago. You and I aren't schooled in the verities of petroleum securities, and neither is the average American. Yes, he, you, and I know that immediate relief won't come if offshore drilling's allowed, but the market is such that any talk of drilling, coupled with less demand, drops the price of a barrel of oil.

We can say, "See? This is our fault!" and not get anything in response other than a "Well, fuck you. I still need to drive my kids to school and buy groceries."

*sigh* yeah I guess

my understanding is that u.s. oil companies aren't even drilling in all the places they have access to NOW - that opening up these areas for drilling is essentially calling the republicans' bluff, esp. if the bill includes (as this one does) something like 80 billion in money from closing the tax loophole to go to developing other methods of energy consumption for vehicles ... the idea is let them have their drilling but make a serious and real move towards moving off of oil altogether

the republicans can call 'victory' on this and it will be like the soviets in world war ii, talking about 'victory' in every town every time the front line w/ germany moved further and further east

but the whole reason the oil companies want those offshore leases is so that they have insurance that the current state of affairs remains viable for as long as possible, i.e., if they can go on drilling and selling oil like they have been, they have less of an incentive to get off their asses and shift to renewable resources.

x-post

how empty those assurances are relies on the effectiveness of the govt to do something real with that 80 billion $ i suppose

the trade off is that instead of just pocketing that $80 billion, they have to use it to do something they should ALREADY be doing anyway as part of a responsible and long-range business plan: investing in renewables/reconfiguring their infrastructure.

x-post

and of course the real question is what will those companies do with that $80 billion? Particularly now that they have assurances that they have places they can keep drilling for the next few decades? Do you think they will make an earnest effort to completely restructure their companies, or do you think they will use it to pay lip service to the law (like with the electric car) and just throw the money at a bunch of bullshit (like, say, ethanol?)

I mean at the end of the day it makes sense that that $80 billion has been unfairly paid out and should be taken away from them. On the other hand, the REAL goal is to completely revamp American infrastructure and habits, the $80 billion is just a side-issue. The key thing is how to force the oil companies to develop and implement new business models, and you don't do that by validating their current, totally disastrous business models.

so cowardly of Pelosi to let Obama be President

sez the rotisserie cowardice player

like you even care about offshore drilling?

and of course the real question is what will those companies do with that $80 billion?

they enrich shareholders. become one.

my understanding is that u.s. oil companies aren't even drilling in all the places they have access to NOW

This WaPo editorial says that's a misconception based partly on leases that are in development, just aren't actually pumping oil yet.

they enrich shareholders. become one.

I don't think you're following along here - if they lose the $80 billion tax break that money does not go to shareholders.

That's the sanest pro-drilling editorial I've read in some time.

xp: OH, sorry, I missed the tax-break conditional.

from that WaPo: The strongest argument against drilling is that it could distract the country from a pursuit of alternative sources of energy. There's no question that the administration has been lax on that front.

this is my point exactly

Bob Herbert today sez that offshore drilling will have no impact on gas prices

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/opinion/12herbert.html

Bob Herbert in saying what every other vaguely liberal columnist has been saying for weeks shocka

Bob Herbert still has a job?

this goes along w/ obama's 'if its that big a deal, whatever, ill wear the flag pin, you can drill in places where people want drilling, but im still doing what i want to with the 80 billion dollars we're taking back'

the state-based offshore drilling compromise is fairly meaningless as a matter of policy