Why didn't the party more aggressively take on the PATRIOT Act?

[fujiyama]

OK, the one senator that voted against PATRIOT Act, won his reelection handily by 10%. The republicans tried everything they could, but Fiengold trumped the punk the GOP ran. His seat wasn't considered safe early on...and in '01, he knew he would face reelection just 3 years later. Meanwhile Kerry won the state by 1%.

So why the hell didn't the party take it on? I swear I don't understand why the Dems could not have simply told the people that the PA has not made the nation safer and that the way to defeat terror is NOT by giving up our freedoms. I know why they voted for it originally (everyone was freaking out over terra, weeks after 9/11), but it was a mistake. The party should have addressed why they put a sunset provision in it.

If we coupled that with a softer stance on gun control (make it a more local issue) the Dems would have a better chance in the South, Midwest, and Southwest as well. It may be one way to start making better inroads with libertarian types. After all, we saw some interesting alliances when it came to opposing it - Bob Barr for example.

[Mutley]

1. I agree...

Gun control is not a friendly issue for democrats and should be taken very slowly. And as far as the PA goes I am very frustrated that more dems didn't take that on...

[rucky]

2. because "The Party" voted for it. n/t

[JI7]

3. Feingold is incumbant and from Wisconsin

he also voted with Republicans on some gun control bills.

[fujiyama]

6. Exactly

Gun control is a dead issue. It didn't help Kerry appearing with Schumer and Fienstein to vote for the AWB, which was dead anyways.

His seat was not considered safe earlier on, but the reason he's so popular there is because people admire his courage.

[no name no slogan]

12. Which is also why Republicans voted for Wellstone

It sure wasn't his stands on the issues-- it was because of his COURAGE.

Most voters are more concerned about a politicians' character than how they vote. Even if the public disagrees with them on an issue, the public will give the pol the benefit of the doubt if they stands up for their beliefs.

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? :shrug:

[sendero]

4. Why haven't Dem pols ..

..... fought agressively against anything?

Everyone has their theory, I'll spare you mine :)

[UpsideDownFlag]

5. Because the DLC thought it was the coolest thing since sliced bread. nt

[Cheswick2.0]

7. because they were running for office

and the DLC stategy was that we had to look strong on Security.

[ThorsHammer]

8. Timing

IIRC, it was rushed through before anyone had a chance to really sit down and study it. At that point, most people (other than Feingold) were afraid of doing anything that could be seen as unpatriotic. IMHO, it wouldn't come close to 99-1 passage if people had more time to look at it before voting. I'm not sure on this part, but doesn't it or at least some portions of it expire soon? Hopefully we can see a better approach to the problem this time around.

[laheina]

9. Right on.

A common repug tactic has been to limit access, debate, or any sort of input into their sneakie legislation.

[charlie]

11. It was passed sight unseen

Ron Paul had to fight tooth and nail just to get a printed copy. I doubt even a week's study and deliberation would've changed any votes, so terrified were Democrats of getting caught on the wrong side of the terrorism hysteria.

[Cobalt Violet]

10. Too much triangulation.

I'm sick of it.

[KnowerOfLogic]

13. It was a sign of roll-overs to come. What a pathetic bunch.

But you know that come 2006 dems will (try to) re-elect them.

[GreenArrow]

14. simply said, they believed in it.

.