Is everyone clear on what the stakes are here?

[TayTay]

This is what Sen. Kerry pledged to do back in Jan of 2007:

I don't want the next President to find that he or she has inherited a nation still divided and a policy destined to end as Vietnam did, in a bitter or sad legacy. I intend to devote all my efforts and energies over the next 2 years, not to the race for the Presidency for myself but for doing whatever I can to ensure that the next President can take the oath with a reasonable prospect of success for him or her--for the United States. And I intend to speak the truth as I find it without regard for political correctness or partisan advantage, to advise my colleagues and my fellow citizens to the best of my ability and judgment, and to support every action the Senate may reasonably and constitutionally take to guide and direct the ship of state.

This mission, this responsibility, is something all of us must accept, and as someone who made the mistake of voting for the resolution that gave the President the authority to go to war, I feel the weight of a personal responsibility to act, to devote time and energy to the national dialog in an effort to limit this war and bring our participation to a conclusion.

John Kerry, Jan. 24, 2007, Senate speech announcing he would not run for President again.

The Bush Administration has recklessly sought to evade the law and evade any kind of scrutiny and oversight from the Congress. This is a fundamental threat to American Democracy. This kind of abuse MUST end. Congress MUST reclaim it's authority and it's oversight abilities.

John Podesta, at a http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3550&wit_id=7418">hearing on the Rule of Law that Sen. Feingold held last Sept, summed up the stakes here:

The obsessive secrecy of the Bush administration has damaged not only the security it was ostensibly meant to protect but also the rule of law that enables our society to maintain its internal stability and cohesion.

The rule of law can thrive only in an open society in which the laws are known and understood; government actions are taken, insofar as possible, in full view of the public and subject to scrutiny and debate; and government officials are held accountable for the arbitrary or unscrupulous exercise of power. The rule of law requires that Congress, the courts, the public and the press have access to the information they need to serve as effective checks on the executive branch. Without such information, there can be no checks and balances. Unless the people know what their government is doing, there can be no rule of law.

We are in crisis. The new President MUST agree to abide by the law and not pretend that he is beyond it or not subject to it. This is critical.

This is what Sen. Feingold said in the opening to that hearing on restoring the Rule of Law:

Tomorrow, September 17, is the 221st anniversary of the day in 1787 when 39 members of the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in Philadelphia. It is a sad fact as we approach that anniversary that for the past seven and a half years, and especially since 9/11, the Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and the rule of law with a disrespect never before seen in the history of this country. By now, the public can be excused for being almost numb to new revelations of government wrongdoing and overreaching. The catalogue is breathtaking, even when immensely complicated and far reaching programs and events are reduced to simple catch phrases: torture, Guantanamo, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, warrantless wiretapping, data mining, destruction of emails, U.S. Attorney firings, stonewalling of congressional oversight, abuse of the state secrets doctrine and executive privilege, secret abrogation of executive orders, signing statements. This is a shameful legacy that will haunt our country for years to come.

The Bush Administration has prevented Congress from performing oversight on the Executive Branch. This cannot continue. We have to have hearings on what has gone wrong. We need people of integrity who are dedicated to getting the truth out.

I know that these are not the flashiest jobs. But restoring the integrity and limits of the American government may just be the greatest service that can be rendered to the country right now, bar none. We are in danger of losing our democracy. Know anyone who cares about stuff like that?

[TayTay]

1. January is going to bring a flood of whistleblowers on the Bush Admin

There are things we know that the Bush Administration have done that are a shameful exercise in abuse of power. However, it is likely that there are far more things to be revealed once the new Administration takes office and former Bush staffers start to speak out on what really happened these past 8 years.

There are already whispers that the magnitude of abuse that happened is going to shock people and a demand for investigations and hearings is going to grow. An http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/23/new_churchcomm/">article from Salon last summer talked about this:

The proposal for a Church Committee-style investigation emerged from talks between civil liberties advocates and aides to Democratic leaders in Congress, according to sources involved. (Pelosi's and Conyers' offices both declined to comment.) Looking forward to 2009, when both Congress and the White House may well be controlled by Democrats, the idea is to have Congress appoint an investigative body to discover the full extent of what the Bush White House did in the war on terror to undermine the Constitution and U.S. and international laws. The goal would be to implement government reforms aimed at preventing future abuses -- and perhaps to bring accountability for wrongdoing by Bush officials.

"If we know this much about torture, rendition, secret prisons and warrantless wiretapping despite the administration's attempts to stonewall, then imagine what we don't know," says a senior Democratic congressional aide who is familiar with the proposal and has been involved in several high-profile congressional investigations.

"You have to go back to the McCarthy era to find this level of abuse," says Barry Steinhardt, the director of the Program on Technology and Liberty for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Because the Bush administration has been so opaque, we don't know what laws have been violated."

The parameters for an investigation were outlined in a seven-page memo, written after the former member of the Church Committee met for discussions with the ACLU, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Common Cause and other watchdog groups. Key issues to investigate, those involved say, would include the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance activities; the Central Intelligence Agency's use of extraordinary rendition and torture against terrorist suspects; and the U.S. government's extensive use of military assets -- including satellites, Pentagon intelligence agencies and U2 surveillance planes -- for a vast spying apparatus that could be used against the American people.

Oh, by the way, there was a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July of 2007 that probed some of this. http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2007/hrg070726a.html">The hearing was about "Extraordinary Rendition, Extraterritorial Detention, And Treatment Of Detainees: Restoring Our Moral Credibility And Strengthening Our Diplomatic Standing." All of this is under the jurisdiction of the SFRC.

Think about that for a minute. And, ahm, who might be the next chair of SFRC and set the agenda for this committee, dictate what hearings happen and what gets investigated?

[Mass]

2. If it is allowed to happen. What bothers me more in all these rumors is that

we seem to go back to a Clinton III. Why would the same people who did not want things to be done during the last 16 years want them to happen.

Hillary can get whatever cabinet position she wants (even if I do believe that some would be better than others), but right now, the way the transition is going, I feel screwed by all these Clinton people leading the show the same way they did during the last 12 years. I has nothing to do with where Kerry ends up. It has to do with a much more general feeling.

[TayTay]

3. The country and the Dem Party has moved on from those years

The interest and energy in this past election was anti-Bush and against the policies of this Administration.

There are more agencies and infrastructure and people devoted to amending what has gone wrong. These are powerful groups in their own right and they can make life hell for new Administration unless their concerns are addressed, front and center.

[Mass]

4. Sorry, from all I see around, I do not see that. But we already have had this discussion.

Sorry, but I am very disabused by the way this transition is going. The same mess that has been through the Democratic Party during the last 16 years. And frankly, the last 4 years in the US Senate did not give me a lot of hope either.

[TayTay]

5. We are ten days into a transition and you are giving up?

Ah, excuse me but when did it become okay to give up because it got too hard?

I can understand disappointment. However, disappointment is a constant in politics. Sometimes things happen and people don't get what they want.

Excuse me, but boo-boo-friggety-hoo. I think there are a few hundred newly dead in Arlington National Cemetery who would change places with any disappointed office seekers in a heartbeat.

Is that all it was about for you? I get what I want or I take my ball and go home?

[Mass]

6. Because I do not give in your total optimism does not mean that I

give up. What it means, though, is that I will fight harder for it to happen. This said, what I hear does not make me optimistic of what Obama will do. I never believed in the need not to hide disappointment when a Democrat disappoints me. And it has little to do with positions.

[karynnj]

7. At this point, I do worry that you could be right - but it may not end up that way

I was disappointed with the way that the Clinton wing of the party led in that last 4 years. While I am unimpressed with the Republicans filibustering everything, the Democrats erred on the other side - not taking a stand when key principles were at stake. The two clearest examples were Alito and Iraq. Alito was a rare victory we could have had in a bleak time - had the leadership stood on core values and made the case on the balance of powers issues where he was clearly out of the mainstream. We HAD enough NO votes if everyone also voted No on cloture. This was, in fact, exactly the case when the gang of 14 was suppose to swing to our benefit.

Iraq was mixed. The party's decision that it was POLITICALLY better for Democrats not to have a plan when we knew Bush's plan was wrong was close to amoral and the ferocity which with they vilified Kerry (who they clearly blamed over Feingold) was sickening. They did though move in 2007 to a better position - because it was politically safe. That might sum of the problem with that wing they are cowards, who are unlikely to ever take an unpopular stand - even if they know it is right. The problem is that they end up standing for nothing. Kerry has been the strongest person there speaking for the need to take a stand - and in reality just by his record he was a change candidate running in a "too scared for change" year.

We still need to see what Obama will really do as President. The fact is that he has the political capital and people REALLY REALLY want change. Under the surface of his huge win, Obama has a big problem to deal with. To pass the really big important legislation he wants he needs to have an overwhelming percent of people buying into the legislation. Just as kerry did not have the full hearted supported of that wing in 2004, Obama faces the risk that they will drag their feet if they don't feel rewards enough. (I have NEVER seen anything like this before - hey, Kerry was closer to Bush than HRC to Obama in terms of winning. But the media never once even remotely suggested that Bush make overtures to the Democrats (much less to Kerry) What I hope is that Obama will do important things in different ways. He did pass ethics legislation. We won't know until the future how much real change we will get from Obama - but I think it's too early to be pessimistic.

[beachmom]

8. I want Chairman Kerry to investigate the hell out of the war criminals, that's for sure.

But I have to say, I do not like the way this SoS intrigue has been rolled out. I find this disrespect of Sen. Kerry ridiculous. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Is that too much to ask? I never was into him being SoS. Now I am even less enthusiastic about it. All I can remember is how disgraced and screwed over Secretary of State Powell was.

On the merits, I am with you, Tay. But at the moment, I am highly annoyed with the Obama transition team and the Clintinista peanut gallery. Unprofessional is how I would term it. I liked the leakless Obama campaign better. I guess once they let in the Clinton crowd, however, it was going to change. And, yes, Rahm Emmanuel, I am talking to you.

[beachmom]

9. I just read on GDP that Dodd will go back to the SFRC and chair it in 2 years.

Is that really so?

[ray of light]

10. I hope not. I'm disappointed in his LIEberman stance. n/t

(PS. This is to test if the new star works)

[Firespirit]

11. That doesn't surprise me if true

I've suspected for awhile that some of the usual suspects would come in and roll and undermine JK in anything he wanted to do. It looks like it's happening with SoS and they won't be content with that of course; they'd have to roll him on the Senate as well, just as WEL predicted in the other thread. Counting on the chairmanship of the SFRC has always seemed to me like counting one's chickens. After what this worthless Congress and worthless Party did -- or rather, didn't do -- with Katrina victims, I am not surprised by much of anything. Where the hell was their/our hope, our investigation, our recovery? It was just a campaign slogan, a weapon to attack Bush with in 2006.

I've had a gut feeling for awhile that Kerry would not, in fact, chair the SFRC at all. One good backstab deserves another. And here JK thought Dodd was a friend. Just goes to show you cannot trust anyone in Washington.

Mark it, the party will lose the new voters that registered in excitement this year, and will not gain them back. Demand people's time, money, effort, promise "change," and then turn around and hire all Clintonites... well, as our dear leader said, "fool me twice and we won't get fooled again."

[karynnj]

14. Dodd appears to be waiving it this Congress - Kerry WILL chair it

That Dodd may not permanently waive it seems more conjecture - but I think it likely Kerry will hold on to it. Unfortunately, he may very well be the senior member on HELP by then and he would take it. It also goes a bit far to say that Dodd claiming a committee that he has the right to claim is backstabbing. Even then - Kerry could chair commerce - as Inohye is going to be chair of Appropriations. This would let him lead on transportation - which Beachmom had some posts on what Kerry is doing there.

Like Beachmom, I am not impressed with the leaks, though many seem mostly media speculation. Obama has yet to be President - It's way to early to say how he would govern - what is clear is that he was a better choice than HRC and Edwards - and by the end of 2007, they were the only possible choices.

[whometense]

17. From what I've been reading,

a transition post does NOT equal a post in the administration.

It makes eminent sense to me that Obama try to avoid potential rookie errors during the transition by appointing people who know how things work in the White House and in DC to the transition team. I don't see how we can make a direct correlation between transition appointees and the team Obama chooses for his administration. I personally choose to relax and see what he does. I do believe that a man who ran as smart a campaign as he ran will work hard to get the best possible team around him, and I choose to wait and see what he does. If for no other reason than that I find backseat driving an exhausting and fruitless exercise. I'm quite certain Obama will make mistakes, but at least he will try to think things through as thoroughly as he can.

On a purely, ridiculously speculative note I can't help but think appointing HRC SOS would be a brilliant tactical move, as little as the idea of her in that position excites me. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer...

[MBS]

19. . . . and most importantly,

she would serve at - ahem -- President Obama's discretion. :evilgrin:

[Firespirit]

21. I think his priorities are misplaced if that's what he wants

I am sorry, I do not believe one word that any politician says anymore, and that includes the person whose name is at the top of this board. The Democrats ran in 2006 on a variety of problems, including the war and the corruption of the 109th Congress, but also on the incompetence displayed by the government in MY HOME which resulted in the confirmed deaths of over 1,800 and likely 2,500, as 700+ are still unaccounted for. The incompetence in the immediate aftermath is well-known, but the "recovery" is nothing but one big "screw you" to the little people, and I cannot help but assume it is happening with Congress's sanction. But you don't even hear about any of it anymore, and Reid and Obama's forgiving attitude toward Lieberman -- the reason why no investigation happened and no prosecutions were made in this matter -- tells me that it was foolish beyond words to even expect anything. Democrats are apparently no different from Republicans. The Republicans ran on the disaster of 9/11; the Democrats ran on the disaster of Katrina, but neither party actually did anything to address the disaster sites themselves and the ongoing difficulties thereof, or make appropriate efforts to prevent similar disasters. Indeed, when it looked like NOLA was going to get wiped out for good this year, all our party could do was chortle that it would happen during the other guys' convention. So they LIED about caring about us in 2006. I don't know why this transition stuff bothers me so much, but I guess it is the destruction of the very last bit of hope that something might be done to help my region and save the small homeowners and business owners from the predators that are taking over the damaged areas. I am honestly angrier over Obama's willingness to make nice with Lieberman than I am with his transition picks, but the fact that they are mostly Clintonites is adding insult to injury, and the choice of her for that one post would be the last straw. It would just prove that he cares more about being on good terms with everyone than about doing what is right and just. The "team of rivals" talk only reinforces that suspicion.

Don't worry, anyone, I'm checking out very soon and won't rain on the happy party anymore. I can't take much more of the sanctimonious rosy optimism. "Look to the future, look forward, the sun is rising, hope and change" -- maybe it can be found in some places, but I don't see any of it, and there are certain things in the near past that should not be forgotten and some people that should not be forgiven. But it looks as if they will be.

[beachmom]

22. I think you should stick around. I have become increasingly pissed off

as the weekend has transpired. Frankly, we need your insights on the gulf coast. Again, remember the "manageable level of corruption" Obama spoke of. There is still going to be corruption, but the question is can we make things better. FDR was a son of a bitch who allowed Japanese Americans to be interned and turned away a ship full of Jews who faced certain death in Nazi Europe. He screwed up as much as he did good dealing with the Great Depression. Yet .... FDR did a lot of good things, and is remembered as one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had. Pragmatism and realism sucks big time. Watching the sausage get cooked is nauseating. And yet, I still say we stick around and see what happens. Nothing is perfectly evil and nothing is perfectly good. Let's see what we can salvage. And no, I am not optimistic; I am am realistic.

[whometense]

23. You have ample reason to be pissed off.

And ample reason to distrust politicians.

My only question is, what does checking out get you? I myself am not filled with rosy optimism - far from it. I do think Obama is smart and will make some progress in rectifying the massive s**tpile of Bush administration f**k-ups, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to change overnight.

I'm grateful there's an excited new throng of voters this time around, because my personal enthusiasm is not what it was in 2004. I hope Obama will be able to accomplish enough to keep them excited and involved.

With your rage over the condition of the forgotten I hope you will hang around to be a thorn in the side of everyone with the power to do something about it.

[Mass]

12. Is that sourced? I could not find the source. Somehow, I would be surprised if this happened.

Anyway, he will be in the SFRC next year. I had read that Dodd wanted the head of HHS, after Kennedy and that it was what interested him in reality.

[TayTay]

13. No one knows that.

It is a whole Congress away from now. We don't know who the players will be for sure in this Congress, never mind the 112th. Who knows how that will go.

This is what WILL happen. The Republicans will probably gain some seats. The party out of power usually does. (2002 was an exception, probably because of 9/11 and the impending war in Iraq.) The Republican Party, btw, will regroup and will be a major player, if not in 2012, then in the years after that. This is the inevitable swing of politics in the US. The Repubs have caused considerable damage to this country. But they and the base philosophy they represent, when not kidnapped by social wedges, are as American as the Dems philosophy. The country goes back and forth between them because both represent parts of the American soul.

Do you know what kills me? Ted Kennedy has been fighting since 1965 for real reform and advancement for health care coverage in this country. That is 43 years. 43 friggin years of never giving up, forming alliances, doing the politics and backroom negotiations necessary to keep this issue going. 43 friggin years. I very much doubt he turned around one day and said, this is too hard, I'm going to give up because people are being mean to me. Ted Kennedy, in the midst of the twilight of his life and facing brain cancer for chrissakes, has embarked in hope to DC because this time, goddamn it, this time it is probably going to happen. Ted Kennedy is a hero of mine. Very few people in America have been mocked or discounted as much as Uncle Teddy. Yet, he's still there, still fighting. Maybe there is something worth fighting for, even if it takes 43 friggin years to bring it to fruition.

I am sorry that people are being mean to the other Senator from MA right now. That is uncalled for and undeserved. But it is part of the life he has chosen for himself. (Or am I mistaken that he could quit now and have one of the cushiest existences on the planet?) Politics is a mean business. It is about winning and losing and power. At it's best, it can make an unbelievable impact on the lives of billions of people. At it's pettiest, it can destroy people. Correction, it can destroy weak people. Thank God my State doesn't produce any of those.

[karynnj]

15. Kennedy is absolutely amazing - and likely a role model for

many Senators. It is really good to read this and it puts things in perspective.

In addition, the people attacking Kerry now are the ones that attacked him since 2004 - and many before that. The fact is that they end up looking silly - because he keeps on doing the right thing and being better than they are. Compared to 2005, this is nothing. It does show that they will not concede the party leadership easily, but it was naive to think of that changing overnight. If Kerry were willing to stop fighting for what he believes in, they would likely attack him less - but he wouldn't be Kerry.

[MBS]

16. great post, Tay.

I continue to be grossed out by anyone even trying to take over health care from Teddy. Good God. Very, very far from "country first", or even "party first", or even "Senate first" and certainly the very antithesis of classy behavior (not to mention that Teddy is way way more effective than the alternative). Grotesque.

[whometense]

18. We just watched this movie last night

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454776/">Amazing Grace, about how "The idealist William Wilberforce maneuvers his way through Parliament in 19th century England, endeavoring to end the British transatlantic slave trade."

It made me think of Ted Kennedy over and over. Though truth forces me to admit that Wiberforce led a life more *cough* ascetic than Teddy ever did. :D

[YvonneCa]

20. Great post. Especially this...

...part:

"But restoring the integrity and limits of the American government may just be the greatest service that can be rendered to the country right now, bar none. We are in danger of losing our democracy."

This is what got me here...to DUJK...and why I stay. I think the people here understand the stakes. We may get distracted from time to time (like during presidential primaries :7 ) but we always return to what is important.

We can't keep our country a strong democracy if we ignore the basic principles on which it was founded. We lose ALL credibility at home and abroad when we do that. I pray daily that Barack Obama will be a President who gets that...and restores our country to the democratic vision of our founders. It matters for me and my children...and to my three (and counting :) ) grandchildren.

I have always said that current circumstances require ALL of our Democratic Party leaders to join in this effort. That's the only way it will succeed. Knowing that Senator Kerry DOES care about 'stuff like that', I thought we needed him as President...VP...SOS...and on down the line. But, knowing how little I know about how government really works, I put my trust in our leaders to arrange this new Democratic administration into a successful government. So far, they haven't let me down...we won in 2006 and we won the presidency.

That's a pretty decent beginning. :) It makes me excited...and hopeful... for what comes next. And I'm confident that John Kerry will be in the mix, doing what he does best...patriotically serving and leading this country.