NYT editorial, FEAR OF FEAR ITSELF: Instead of caving, Democrats should address voters as adults

[DeepModem Mom]

The Fear of Fear Itself
Published: August 7, 2007

....the problem with Congress last week was that Democrats were afraid to explain to Americans why the White House bill was so bad and so unnecessary — despite what the White House was claiming. There are good answers, if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults. To start, they should explain that — even if it were a good idea, and it’s not — the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication. And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?

While serving little purpose, the new law has real dangers. It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States. Instead of explaining all this to American voters — the minimal benefits and the enormous risks — the Democrats have allowed Mr. Bush and his fear-mongering to dominate all discussions on terrorism and national security.

Mr. Bush claims that he has kept America safe since 9/11. But that claim ignores the country’s very real and present vulnerabilities. Six years after the 9/11 attacks the administration has still failed to secure American ports, railroads and airports from terrorist attack, and has put the profits of the chemical and nuclear-power industries ahead of safeguarding their plants.

Mr. Bush also worries Democratic strategists by talking about “staying on the offensive” against terrorism, but it was his decision to invade Iraq that diverted resources from the real offensive, the one against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. Bush’s incessant fear-mongering — and the Democrats’ refusal to challenge him — has had one notable success. The only issue on which Americans say that they trust Republicans more than Democrats is terrorism. At least those Americans are afraid of terrorists. The Democrats who voted for this bill, and others like it over the last few years, show only fear of Republicans.

The Democratic majority has made strides on other issues like children’s health insurance against White House opposition. As important as these measures are, they do not excuse the Democrats from remedying the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. That is their most important duty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/opinion/07tue1.html?hp

[bryant69]

1. I agree -

it's not like this issue wasn't predictable; hell the White House more or less said what they wre going to do. So why didn't congressional leaders including Pelosi and Reid get in front of this one before it became a last minute vote?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DeepModem Mom]

2. The editorial assesses Congressional leadership on this --

"The House handled this mess somewhat better than the Senate, moving to the floor a far more sensible bill. Mr. McConnell certified that the House bill would address the problem raised by the court. That is, until the White House made clear that it wanted to use the court’s ruling to grab a lot more power. Mr. McConnell then reversed his position and demanded that Congress pass the far more expansive bill.

In the Senate, the team of Harry Reid, the majority leader, gave up fast, agreeing to a deal that doomed any good bill. The senators then hurriedly approved the White House bill, dumped it on the House and skulked off on vacation."

[pinto]

3. Good framing of the issues and overview of the background FISA situation that brought this up

from the same editorial

There was plenty of bad behavior. Republicans marched in mindless lockstep with the president. There was double-dealing by the White House. The director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, crossed the line from being a steward of this nation’s security to acting as a White House political operative.

But mostly, the spectacle left us wondering what the Democrats — especially their feckless Senate leaders — plan to do with their majority in Congress if they are too scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution and restrain an out-of-control president.

The votes in the House and Senate were supposed to fix a genuine glitch in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain a warrant before eavesdropping on electronic communications that involve someone in the United States. The court charged with enforcing that law said the government must also seek a warrant if the people are outside the country, but their communications are routed through data exchanges here — a technological problem that did not exist in 1978.

Instead of just fixing that glitch, the White House and its allies on Capitol Hill railroaded Congress into voting a vast expansion of the president’s powers. They gave the director of national intelligence and the attorney general authority to intercept — without warrant, court supervision or accountability — any telephone call or e-mail message that moves in, out of or through the United States as long as there is a “reasonable belief” that one party is not in the United States. The new law all but eviscerates the 1978 law. The only small saving grace is that the new statute expires in six months.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Thanks for this addition, pinto! nt

[pinto]

5. It crossed my mind that the WH's all or nothing bait 'n switch had less to do with

any real intelligence capabilities than a knee jerk reaction to Congress' investigation of his side kick Gonzo.

As the editorial noted, the billions of bits of data possibly involved in any internet sweep are not an effective intelligence gathering tool - and the time involved in obtaining a warrant would pose little hindrance given the time it would take to sift through a bunch of blind data.

Politics is purely personal to this WH and there is no more personal tie than between Bush and his long time legal cover Gonzales. I could see the double dealing, last minute fear card, employed here successfully , as a pay back for getting too close to his cabal.

Just a side thought.

[creeksneakers2]

10. That makes a lot of sense

Just as Democrats were closing in on Gonzales for illegal spying, the Bush cabal suddenly needs a change in the law.

[endarkenment]

6. NYT pretends that it is some malfunction in the party.

Knowing full well that in fact The War Party, of which they are an eager participant playing a key role in misleading people, has in fact seized control of both nominal political parties and is acting out a macabre charade of 'opposition' by the Democratic half of the duopoly in order to confuse and mollify the Democratic base while continuing the War Party agenda unchallenged by trivial details like representative democracy.

Fuck the New York Times and their two faced duplicituous mendacious propaganda.

[cybildisobedience]

7. exactly....

If the media provided a level playing field, instead of trumpeting Bush's lies and threats, maybe there would be a chance for a well-informed public. Instead, the NYT blares Judith Miller's propaganda in the run-up to a senseless war, then wonders why the American public is ill-informed and incapable of comprehending a nuanced debate.
The NYT should stop wagging its finger and start taking a good hard look at their own failings.

All that being said, the Dems were cowardly for caving.

[gratuitous]

8. Belted that one right out of the park

How in the world could a very unpopular president make any case for his own effectiveness to the American people without the willful, consistent connivance of our media bulldogs? All it would take is some honest reporting from the Fourth Estate to turn this crooked administration out by Labor Day. But when dimbulbs at the Times can't distinguish truth from fiction, when idiots at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution feel compelled to print falsehoods so that people won't wonder if they're avoiding printing those falsehoods,* and news programs all over the country present issues as if there was no such thing as objective truth, it's no wonder our system is suffering like it is.

Voters had ONE CHANCE to make a difference, last November. We blasted this administration and its enablers for just about all we were worth, turning out Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate. The media know-it-alls were whomperjawed. But in nine months since then, they've all gotten their cheerleading costumes back from the dry cleaners, and they're shaking their pom-poms for the Bush administration as hard as ever. The Times' disingenuousness in overlooking their own complicity in this is atrocious.

*Think I'm kidding? Check this column out by their public editor:

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tuck/stories/2007/08/03/inside_0804.html

[Hidden Stillness]

9. I Actually do not Understand Anyone in the Corporate/"Public Sphere" Anymore

This really has been a very strange, very disturbing past several days, (even apart from the whole haunting tragedy of the Minneapolis Interstate bridge collapse, and the logical end-result of "no new taxes"), starting with the very odd display on C-SPAN a few nights ago, of Republicans throwing this whole screaming protest with chants of (stealing from Democrats) "Shame, Shame, Shame!" in the U.S. House of Representatives, claiming that the vote-time had been cut short (on an Agriculture budget bill, I think it was; can't even remember after all this), after it had been kept open for the--I thought, illegally--long time of some two-and-a-half hours plus; and then when Republicans put on this whole "We are so oppressed" act (running to the media as an organized group--AGAIN), Democrats APOLOGIZED, even though the "time problem," whatever they claim it even was, did not affect the final vote anyway. Then, quickly, as if planned during all the distraction, there was a FISA update bill that would correct a problem, and then, suddenly, with no explanation or public debate, it was switched--the good House version replaced by an outrageous Senate version--for no reason!

There have been many threads on DU over the past few days, questioning why this was done, attacking Dems for YET ANOTHER perplexing, needless cave, and putting quotes from some Democratic leaders that make you question which group they are with at all. For the first time, really, I have been feeling a total separation from the Congressional leadership that I had not felt before--I have always been one who supported Democrats whenever they were attacked by "outsiders," and redirected criticism to Republicans or the corporate world where it belonged. Now, just lately, I feel this very haunted, unpleasant sensation, like the big dramatic moment during a book, where the character looks up and realizes, "I don't know you people at all...Who are you?" When Harry Reid voted for the credit-card-industry-written Bankruptcy Bill, even after the horrific facts came out about it, even after it was shown that it did not deal with corporate bankruptcies for fraud purposes, even after it was shown that most people go bankrupt because of medical bills, unemployment or other loss of income, mortgages or student loans, and Reid still voted for it, I thought something was really wrong, then as with everything else, it faded away.

Now, I find I don't understand what these people are doing at all anymore, or why, and the only explanation that gets it, is at the Democratic candidates' debate a couple of days ago, where Hillary Clinton was asked if she was going to keep taking donations from Washington D.C. corporate lobbyists, and she said, "Yeah--I am!" all belligerent, then claimed it was from "nurses, and social workers." When the audience started booing and turning against that routine, she then just came out with it: "...And from corporations," ("whether you like it or not," or something like that), claiming that they were doing some "great public service" with the "providing" jobs routine. The only explanation of some of the odd behavior of the "D"LC/Republican tandem in Congress, is that all "government" to them now, is a series of corporate relationships, and all legislation now is deregulation, tax shifts, technical legal reworkings that now give advantage to one corporation or rich family, and we are not connected to it at all anymore. Of course, at the end of all this, they are thinking of their own future corporate lobbyist jobs...

The people can't get answers or new laws protecting anything that relates to us, but disgraced former "club members," from Newt Gingrich to Pat Buchanan, from Trent Lott to (wait for it) Don Imus, bide their time, wait for a little forgetfulness, and, like a revolving door that opens only for THEM, they come back, fresh and "new," and just pick up their careers and paychecks like nothing happened. They are "connected," as the corporate rich people say; it is their club and we are not invited. Now, that has extended to government itself, and where now the rules of commercial conduct have overshadowed and taken over from everything else. No "schools and infrastructure," only "relationships with lobbyists," "what's good for investors and stockholders," and endless "spin and framing." It is now reaching the most disturbing and incomprehensible extremes. This is the only way I can make sense of this latest behavior, where Democrats--needlessly!--gave the Cheney/Bush Administration such sweeping, unchecked power to spy and invade our "privacy"; they are all part of a corporate group, and they are all actually friendly to each other despite occassional "public performances" to the contrary. Only WE are the enemy; the barely-heard nuisance. If this doesn't tell you to get the corporations out of the entire process, from Government to media--I don't know what will. They are not even real anymore.

[Phredicles]

11. I've long felt that the Democratic leadership truly believes the American people

are fucking morons, and they act out of fear of this assumed idiocy. We saw this with the assumption people would regard impeaching the Dear Leader for his massive crimes as exactly equivalent to impeaching Clinton for not telling the truth about a BJ. And we see it with this FISA vote, that they felt they had to sell out our civil liberties or else people would belive the "soft on terror" line.

I think that if the Democratic party would show some confidence in the electorate, they'd be pleasantly surprised.