Dangerous Lame Duck Republicans

Unfortunately we’ll not have the opportunity to vote for Sen. Feingold for president, since he’s decided to drop out of the 2008 nomination race. Fortunately, however, the senator remains in congress, where he can and will contribute as Dems reclaim control of the House and Senate following the 2006 mid-term elections. And the good senator is not wasting any time in reminding us, the public, what’s at stake during the next three months of a Republican controlled lame duck session in Congress. Senator Feingold writes:

In January, we will be looking at a new Congress, and with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, we will be looking at a new national policy agenda. I know that I am looking forward to moving the progressive agenda forward in the next Congress. But Democrats can’t just kick back and take it easy for the next few weeks.

It would be a huge mistake to overlook the potential for damage in the lame duck session. A lame duck session doesn’t sound like anything to worry about, but this lame duck may be a lot more dangerous than people think. We can expect Republicans to try to jam through as much of their agenda as they can while they have the chance.

Democrats have to stick together and show Republicans - and the country - that we have what it takes to stop them.

[...]

There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram through, but here’s the worst of the worst - a bill to legalize the President’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant.

Other measures on the White House wish list that are likely to surface during the lame duck session include a number of unfunded tax cuts and questionable trade measures.

[...]

Republicans would love to extend a bunch of tax breaks during the lame duck - without paying for them, of course.

[...]

There will be a lot of pressure on the current Democratic congressional leadership to give in to the Republican agenda. And Democratic enablers are well placed to help Republicans advance their agenda, while many other Democrats will just want to go home for the holidays. But too much is at stake for us to let that happen.

[...]

After the gains we made on November 7, it would be easy to just relax and bask in the victory - but it would also be a big mistake. The lame duck is the Republicans’ last chance to pass bills on the White House’s wish list, and we shouldn’t let them get away with it. It is the Democrats’ turn to lead Congress, and we can start strong by rejecting the Republicans’ last ditch efforts in the lame duck session.

Of course, the Senator is right.

It’s too bad that we won’t have the opportunity to support this man in 2008 for US president.

Democrats: Motivating the Base

There’s some talk around the liberal, Democratic leaning blogsphere about what it is that the Democratic party can do to energize and motivate the base, given the apparent grassroots passivity that some observe. The apparent grassroots passivity seems counter intuitive, given how poll after poll shows that Democrats are preferred over republicans to take control of Congress after the November elections; and, yet, Democratic voters do not appear to have turned out in large numbers in the recent CA-50 special election for. Understandably, one wonders, What can the Democratic party do to motivate the grassroots and the general public?

Here are my suggestions:

1. For better or worse, all movements need a leader… a central voice that crystallizes the aspirations and motivations of the countless of faceless, and voiceless masses. Elected Dems have not provided that single voice/leader that crystallizes our hopes and frustrations. The 2006 elections, even though they are “just” a midterm election, should be approached by the Democratic party as if the elections were a presidential election — even going so far as to hold a national convention to present a New Democratic Deal for America (think of it as a New Deal 2.0) to the country.

Dems must capitalize on the “perfect political storm” that exists at the moment. But to do so, the Democratic party must designate one person to be the voice of the party, and then the party must make sure not to undermine that voice by keeping saboteurs from running to FauxNews and/or the Hannity radio program. For my money, I’d love to see either Dean and/or Feingold as the voice of the party that crystallizes my aspirations and motivations. Unfortunately, the inner circle of the Democratic party establishment would never allow Dean nor Feingold to be the voice and face of the party; nonetheless, although I will not get my ideal Democratic representative to speak for me, Dems should consider designating one person to be the voice and face of the party because it’ll facilitate communication with the public. (Please note that, even though I’ve suggest the designation of a single voice, I understand that this is unworkable; accordingly, the next best thing is to designate a handful of representatives (2-3) to be the voices of the party — that is, select 2-3 voices that can speak to different audiences (clearly, centrist/corporatist Dems would think it intolerable if they don’t have a seat at the table)).

2. Though some elected Dems have moved closer towards a draw down/pull back position on Iraq, more Democratic representatives must come out in favor of a pull back from Iraq; moreover, elected Dems need to speak with one voice on this issue. We, the American public, are disillusioned with Bush’s Iraq invasion and are actively looking for alternatives to simply “staying the course” and other such lame slogans as “A Plan for Victory.” It’s clear that elected Dems are split on this issue on policy grounds, and not merely on the politics of the situation — that is, some elected Dems do fear that a precipitous pull back down of troops from Iraq would create even worse repercussions over the long term; however, the Democrat hawks are not presenting an alternative to the current course, which simply unacceptable, because the public craves something different, period. I, along with the vast majority of the Democratic grassroots, and an ever increasing number of the John Q public support immediate pull back from Iraq. The bottom line is that Americans want to be presented with an alternative plan on Iraq, because we know that simply staying the course is, in fact, a plan for failure; unfortunately, Democrats have not coordinated the formulation of an alternative plan, even though they have at their disposal an imminently credibly, digestible and workable Democratic response to the quagmire in Iraq. That plan, of course, is the Murtha Plan — which: Every. Single. Democrat. Should. Support. It’s good politics and good policy.

3. Follow the Ross Perot model. Perot spent millions of dollars on long-form infomercials during his ‘92 bid for the presidency; an act that, to my mind, was the biggest single factor to propel his insurgent candidacy in that election. Dems need to do the same thing. Create half-hour or hour-long infomercials wherein the designated voice(s) of the party intimately walk the American public through a narrative presenting, in stark contrast, what the Democratic Party stands for and, too, how the New Democratic Deal for America will touch and improve our lives. The key of these long-form infomercials is that Dems would control the message and presentation, with no moderator to interrupt with some pretension at objectivity. Moreover, the long-form infomercial would allow for an adult conversation, on a myriad of issues, with the American public.

Feingold: The President Does Not Have a Legal Leg To Stand On

Senator Feingold makes standing on principle and demanding accountability seem so effortless — why can’t more Dems follow his lead? Here’s Senator Feingold on the Conservative Republican Approved Propaganda (CRAP) channel, otherwise known as FauxNews:

WALLACE: "Senator, in a hearing this week, you said that the president’s wiretap program is, and I quote, "one of the greatest attempts to dismantle our system of government in history." And you called John Dean as a witness, who said that this is worse than Watergate. Senator, do you really believe there is any comparison?"

FEINGOLD: "Actually, I do think this is worse. Not in terms of personal misconduct. Our greatest priority in this country is fighting the terrorist elements that attacked us on 9/11. But when the president breaks the law and doesn’t admit that he’s broken the law, and then advances theories about being able to override the law on torture, and having a preemptive doctrine of war, what he’s trying to do is change the nature of our government."

WALLACE: "But wait, wait, wait. That’s not — but Senator, I mean the fact is, President Bush briefed the congressional leaders, both House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, also the leaders of the Intelligence Committee, Republican and Democrat, both House and Senate, more than a dozen times before and during this NSA wiretap program. Isn’t that a big difference?"

FEINGOLD: "Chris, Chris, where I come from here in Wisconsin, if you break the law and you go tell people you’re breaking the law, that doesn’t make it OK. If you’re breaking the law, you’re breaking the law. In this case, the president does not have a legal leg to stand on."

WALLACE: "Let me explore that Watergate comparison a little bit more. Has President Bush created an enemies list? Has he used the federal government to punish his political opponents? Has he authorized break-ins of his political enemies?"

FEINGOLD: "Well, again, Chris, this is not a criticism of the president as some sort of criminal law, day-to-day problem, like President Nixon had. This is really a much bigger deal. As George Will has said, this was the very reason for the revolution that we had in this country, is that we did not want a monarchical president…

So this is actually, even though in terms of the president’s personal conduct not as serious, much more dangerous to our system of government, to our republic, and frankly, Chris, it weakens us in the fight against terrorism, to have a president who’s thumbing his nose at the laws of this country."

Check out the video over at Crooks & Liars. Democrats, pay attention, this is how it’s done! Great job Senator Feingold.

Update: You can see the full interview here, courtesy of Veredictum.

Senate Debates Censuring Bush

We are living in interesting times. Very Interesting times. History will judge us by our conduct and the causes we align with during such a tumultuous and challenging period. And, while many of our politicians will barely register as a blip in the pages of history, some of them will be long written of and made to account by future generations; that is, if such politicians are lucky enough — or crooked enough, as it were — to evade the judgment of their contemporaries.

Today the US Senate held a hearing on a motion to censure President Bush for his illegal domestic wiretapping program. The censure motion was introduced by Senator Feingold, after much consideration and after concluding that he and his colleagues would be neglecting their duties as legislators, if they simply allowed this President — or any President — to ignore the law because he found it inconvenient to abide by it. Even Bush concedes that he authorized the domestic wiretapping program multiple times, in direct violation of FISA.

It’s clear that, given Bush’s admission to breaking the law, Congress cannot simply ignore such blatant disregard for our system of checks and balances. However, Senator Feingold has managed to get this far only through skillful maneuvering and by stopping short of calling for Bush’s impeachment (which he clearly deserves); because, even at this point, Senate Republicans are vowing to “crush the measure if it reaches the floor.”

That Senator Feingold has managed to get his censure motion this far is a great testament to his political skill, courage and conviction — all of which were in clear display during his openings remarks at the start of the hearing:

(Video credit goes to David Edwards, of Veredictum.com.)

John Dean, Nixon’s counsel during the Watergate break-in scandal, attended today’s hearings:

At 67, Dean remains immediately identifiable as the young White House counsel who warned Nixon that the Watergate coverup was becoming "a cancer" on the presidency, and who eventually testified against his former boss at riveting televised hearings. He served time in a minimum-security facility for obstructing justice.

[...]

Dean said he has "more expertise than anyone might wish" on how "presidents can get themselves on the wrong side of the law." He told Hatch that there is "lots of evidence" that Bush violated the FISA law. "I don’t think you have any," Hatch retorted.

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) rejected the call for censure but said the surveillance program should come under the FISA court’s auspices. He noted that Feingold’s censure resolution did not accuse Bush of "bad faith," prompting Feingold to respond:

"If you want the words ‘bad faith’ in there, let’s put them right in, because that’s exactly what we have here. . . . The lawbreaking is shocking in itself, but the defiant way that the president has persisted in defending his actions with specious legal arguments and misleading statements is part of what led me to conclude that censure is a necessary step."

[...]

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) did not stick around for questions and answers but dismissed Dean as someone who is trying to sell books and "is a convicted felon."

Dean may have the last word, however. "The book I am going to be publishing soon that mentions the senator from Texas will not be out until this summer," Dean told the committee. Later, someone asked about the book’s title. "Conservatives Without Conscience," Dean said with a smile.

Interesting times, indeed.

Howard Dean: The Voice of The Democratic Party

Here’s precisely the reason why many of us in the grassroots supported and continue to support Howard Dean:

I, for one, appreciate his bluntness, forcefulness and unapologetic advocacy of Democratic values. Of course, now that Howard Dean is the chair of the DNC, that’s his role and mission, to advocate for the Democratic party. However, he was a strong advocate for Democratic principles and for progressive values long before he was was the chair of the DNC. In fact, one the things that attracted me to Dean was when he claimed, as Paul Wellstone had done once before, that he stood for the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

Our country, not to mention the Democratic party, needs more voices like Howard Dean and like Senator Feingold.