"Spineless Democrats Deserve to Lose"

Jack Balkin, who is assuredly not a spineless Democrat, assails his party for moral cowardice on the terror bill:

I am puzzled by and ashamed of the Democrats' moral cowardice on this bill. The latest version of the bill blesses detainee abuse and looks the other way on forms of detainee torture; it immunizes terrible acts; it abridges the writ of habeas corpus-- in the last, most egregious draft, it strips the writ for alleged enemy combatants whether proved to be so or not, whether citizens or not, and whether found in the U.S. or overseas.

This bill is simply outrageous. I doubt whether many Democratic Senators or staffs have read the bill or understand what is in it. Instead, they seem to be scrambling over themselves to vote for it out of a fear that the American public will think them weak and soft on terror.

This is the same dynamic that led such calculating "leaders" as John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton to vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002.  At a different level, it is the same dynamic that prompted John Kerry to dress up like a hunter and blaze away at some hapless waterfowl during the 2004 election. 

Look, Democrats are afraid to be who they are, or at least, who the base wants them to be.  Republicans, one might argue, had a similar problem in the 80's when candidates like Bush 41 tried with mixed success to convince the Republican base of their commitment to tax cuts and a pro-life agenda.  However, my impression is that on the big issues Republicans have managed to reconcile the base and the party, so that what you see is roughly what you get.

At the local level, politicians such as Nancy Pelosi don't have this problem.  But a national Democrat has to run as opposed to gun control, supportive of the death penalty, and opposed to gay marriage, just to rattle three issues off the top of my head (and I welcome suggestions here, especially those within the realm of physical possibility).

In fact, one of my favorite moments in the 2000 election was watching Al Gore try to straddle a death penalty question during on of the televised debates.  As I recall, his position amounted to, I support the death penalty as long as no one gets hurt.  (I double-checked that once, and Big Al was not nearly that nonsensical in the transcript, but who ya gonna believe, my jaundiced memory or your lying eyes?)

Let's go back to the other Jack B for a bit more:

The reason why the Democrats have not been doing very well on these issues, however, is that the public does not believe that they stand for anything other than echoing what the Republicans have been doing with a bit less conviction. If the Republicans are now the Party of Torture, the Democrats are now the Party of "Torture? Yeah, I guess so." Not exactly the moral high ground from which to seek office.

Come 2008, they will be against "torture", known as coercive interrogation in these parts.  And on the Evil Rep side, we will greet them with "They were for torture before they were against it".

Send in the clowns.

DE-ENERGIZING THE BASE, CONT: Atrios on Balkin:

It is the very definition of weakness to cowardly enshrine tyranny in statute. It the very definition of cowardice to be unable to stand up for what is so obviously right.

Louise Slaughter is a patriot..  Do we have any more in Congress?

Glenn Greenwald:

Even if Democrats support the torture bill in substantial numbers (which I think is likely), I still believe, for reasons I've set forth here, that the outcome of the election is important. But it is increasingly difficult to argue too strenuously with those, such as Balkin, for whom a pro-torture-and-detention position is an electoral deal-killer.

MORE ON CLOWNS:  Mickey has an intriguing point for pundits and punters - the Dems ought to have a better chance of snagging the Senate than the House.

Since in both the Iowa market and at Tradesports the Rep prospect of keeping the House is at about 58%, versus an 81% chance of keeping the Senate, punters will want to Buy the House and sell the Senate, figuring either the 58% has to rise or the 81% has to fall.

Or, their is a more direct trade at Iowa, which offers 4 contracts that as a group reflect the four possible outcomes - Reps win House and Senate, Reps win Senate/lose House, Reps lose Senate/win House, Reps lose House and Senate.

Right now, Reps win House and Senate is at 59%; win Senate/lose House - 25%; lose Senate, win House - 5%; lose both, 12%.  (OK, that adds to 101% - sue me, or Iowa.)

If Mickey is right, the contract currently at 5% is a steal.

That said, the current NY Times election guide shows the Reps with 47 safe seats and 3 leaning Rep, with 4 more as toss-ups.  The Dems have 39 safe seats and 7 leaners.

So to pick up the Senate, the Dems need to hold all their safes and leaners, win all four toss-ups, and pick up a Rep leaner.  Not easy.

Mickey was looking at the Slate scoreboard, which, after re-scaling to match the Times categories, breaks the races down as follows:

Safe Dem - 44; Leaning Dem - 3; Toss-up - 4; Leaning Rep - 8; Safe Rep - 40

Based on this, the Dems need to hold their leaners and collect 4 toss-ups.  That is a bit easier than the Times view.

For comparison, the Times breaks the House down as follows:

Safe Dems - 190; Leaning Dem - 17; toss-up - 15; leaning Rep - 22; Safe Rep - 191.

To collect the 218 needed to win the House the Dems need their safes and leaners as well as 11 of 15 toss-ups.  By these Times charts, that ought to be easier than their Senate challenge of collecting 4 toss-ups and a Rep leaner.

Comments

[Sue]

I guess I'll believe your jaundiced memory. ::grin::

Access to the weblog you have requested has been suspended.

[Daniel DiRito]

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of the Grand Opening of "Tortureland"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[Gary Maxwell]

Well I agree with Jack Balkin. Democrats by and large are spineless. And they all deserve to lose. So the coeefficent of correlation between him and me is damn near 1.00. Funny that we mean something entirely different by the remarks.

[JohnH]

TM, I would add a little to your analysis of how hard it will be for the Dems to win the Senate.

When you say the Dems must win all their leaners and all four toss-ups, that sounds difficult. But that implicitly assumes that Reps win all of their leaners. A better way to say it is that the Dems have to win all of their leaners and four of the group of toss-ups and Rep leaners. That expands the opportunity set a little.

It also works the other way, obviously.

Say, I've been wondering: is this a humor site or a serious national security education site?

Does it matter?

[cathyf]

Tell me that I'm not imagining things... Did Jack Balkin really say that suspending habeas corpus is the same as torture? So -- how many Americans out there do you think there are who know what habeas corpus is? How many do you think can spell habeas corpus?

[cathyf]

Say, I've been wondering: is this a humor site or a serious national security education site?

Yes.

[Rick Ballard]

is this a humor site or a serious national security education site?

How 'bout a serious national security education site for people with a sense of humor? The quality of the NIE release suggests that a sense of humor is a real plus when considering the competence of our intelligence analysts.

[Neo]

The Democratic solution to "coercive interrogation" will be to compartmentalize it, or a bit simpler, make sure that US citizens apprehended in the US are not classified "enemy combatants."
This way it only applies to foreigners, or any fool to get him/herself caught in a US CIA/military operation outside the country.
This too amounts a bit like the Al Gore's position, except it makes sure no voters get caught.

[Lew Clark]

I think this is another example of the New New Democratic plan to win in November. They know that the electorate is disenchanted with the Republicans, but they also know, that every time they open their mouths they show themselves as a worse alternative. So they are going to non-run, non-politic. They are banking on people's short memories. They're hoping a voter will go into the polling booth and say, "hmmm, this Republican guy, I've heard bad things about him. This other guy, I never heard of him. Democratic Party, I didn't know they were still around. I'll just give them a try for a change."

[maryrose]

The only other memory that makes me laugh as hard as Al Gore's death penalty moment{amidst the sighs} was Kerry on whether he supports abortion rights. It was in the second debate. His answer was as weasely as they come only topped by mentioning Cheney's daughter-a new low for a politician.

[Tom Maguire]

Say, I've been wondering: is this a humor site or a serious national security education site?

This very morning I asked myself a similar question - is this the declassifed NIE or a Jay Leno monologue?

As to your question - this site is as serious as the current political situation will allow.

[sad]

This very morning I asked myself a similar question - is this the declassifed NIE or a Jay Leno monologue?

Don't sell yourself short TM, you are far funnier than Jay Leno.

[Forbes]

I don't know if I can unwind exactly what Jack Balkin is wound up about, but a cursory reading says that he wants to give US Constitutional rights to non-Americans on foreign soil.

This strikes me as a non-starter for a large majority of Americans.

That there may be some question as to the specific nature of the terrorist, anti-US, anti-coalition, or enemy combatant activities of such foreigner so caught--only a lawyer could wallow in such details.

These legalistic questions seem to be raised by people in denial that the US is at war with Islamic terrorists and Islamofascists that wish to impose a global Caliphate--or that such a war may only be conducted on the basis of a law enforcement model (if only so as to handcuff our efforts).

Discussions of this sort can be advanced when examining isolated circumstances, but not when in denial of the overarching issue.

As a political issue, such a discussion is a non-starter, and the Democrats have responded accordingly--Balkin's disagreement notwithstanding.

[noah]

I don't get out much...in terms of hanging out at "progressive" sites. I did go over to Balkinisation (sp). I was really struck by the predominant belief system over there. They all seem to believe (I mean really believe) that we are a few short steps from a fascist police state unless the Republicans are stopped. Bizarre.

[Jane]

That is the common progressive "theme" in places I've watched over the years too, Noah. There is a wholesale reliance in only knowing half the story. It is the only way that theme can work. And you are right, well educated people (as well as those less well educated) believe it as if it is the most fundamentalist religion you can envision.

And I've also seen there is no way to penetrate the belief system. Facts don't help, because all sources of facts which fall out of that world view, are suspect. It is a truly amazing state of affairs. I've stopped any sort of dialogue with those folks because there is never a starting place.

[noah]

In fairness, there is no way to penetrate my belief system either...at least in regards to fundamental American values. I am a constitutionlist! There will not be a fascist police state on my watch. But I'm not interested in the "fantasy state" either...where hordes of tax-payer funded lawyers turn detainee trials into endless nitpicking over the rights of people that would cut my head off in a heartbeat.

[richard mcenroe]

"There is a wholesale reliance in only knowing half the story. It is the only way that theme can work."

Look at Clinton yelling "Read Richard Clarke!: or the selective NIE excerpts. Both ploys predicated on the expectation that most people are too uninformed to catch them out or too lazy to actually check...

[noah]

Been thinking about torture and the concept that some people are "pro-torture". When Michael Dukakis was asked the odious question about whether he would feel differently about capital punishment if his wife were raped and murdered (excuse me if after the fog of over two decades I mischaracterize the question). Dukakis damaged himself severely by answering the question as if it were merely a matter of public policy...he came across as inhuman.

Dukakis was right to say what he said, since he apparently believes sincerely that capital punishment should be abolished. It is a defensible position if only because large swaths of human communities have reached the same conclusion.

But we need to face up to the fact that on the micro-scale, human beings would uniformly kill a man who raped and killed his wife.

The torture debate is similar. I loathe the idea of torture. But it's a question of ends and means. Would I torture KSM for future plots against us? Hell yes. Whatever works is fine with me. These guys want to kill you, me, all that I hold dear. Fuck them.

[noah]

The debate reminds me of Josph Heller's novel "Catch-22"...the "hero" Yossarian thought that the Nazis wanted to kill him. No...they wanted to kill and defeat the forces arrayed against them, it wasn't personal..."just business". This war is different, the islamofascists have openly declared their desire to kill any American they can get their hands on. It is especially gratifying to me that Zarqawi is dead since my awakening to the reality of global jihad was the killing of Nick Berg by the same animal.

[Neo]

Let face facts, this whole debate has us arguing what "is" is, while our enemies readying their next idea for efficient ways to kill more of us.

Unfortunely, torture like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Watching MSNBC's Countdown is torture. If you disagree, I've made my point.

On other points, I can see making sure that US citizens apprehended in the US are not classified "enemy combatants." But I have a real problem with habeas corpus for anyone who starts as a battlefield detainee. I keep reading this like some folks believe you can "lawyer" war to death, or turn it into a "jobs" program.

Still some other lawyers appear to be trying to write themselves out of the war by claiming "facilitator" status. They aren't the only ones trying this, but, like those 2900 or so souls that died on 9/11, you don't get that choice.

They want to kill you

[Syl]

I don't know if I can unwind exactly what Jack Balkin is wound up about, but a cursory reading says that he wants to give US Constitutional rights to non-Americans on foreign soil.

Yeah.

Isn't that like shoving our values down their throats?

Then why do folks like him object to the democracy project?

[Syl]

At least our democracy project allows people in foreign countries to decide their OWN constitution.

[Syl]

Look at Clinton yelling "Read Richard Clarke!: or the selective NIE excerpts. Both ploys predicated on the expectation that most people are too uninformed to catch them out or too lazy to actually check...

Amen.

That's how Chomsky works, too. I saw him on BookTV a couple years ago and he mentioned a certain study which 'showed that..' blah blah. So I looked that study up on the 'net. And of course it showed the opposite of what he claimed.

[clarice]

OT: Here's Churchill's speech on Hitler's attack on Russia.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:CABmLScbqcwJ:www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/churchill062241.html+formalities+of+perfidy&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1>Oratory

When will we ever hear such luscious oratory again?

[topsecretk9]

Late...but did anyone see Novak's swipe at Corn?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17258#2

He takes him to task for being a self serving reporter (do you get the feeling Iskoff signed on only for the royalties...like the story is dead so I'll give you all my newsweek background and say nothing? Isikoff has NOT been promoting, and the book is dead - so what up?

Anyhow Novak said this (which I know TM highlighted) --

At least the book rejects the canard reported by the Washington Post that the White House had been peddling the Valerie Plame story all over town (to at least six journalists) before it got to me. It also reveals the anonymous source of that bogus Post story – falsely described as a "senior administration official" -- as Adam Levine, an obscure mid-level communications aide who soon left the White House.---

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17258#2

(I didn't notice anything new except for him disputing that he gave up his sources in a huff, FITZ came to him with them (poor EW)

ANYways, I am sure has been pointed out BUT makes more sense and in context when we know the scandal hoax promoter was

Adam Levine

Adam Levine is a media personality, well-known as a White House deputy press secretary in President George W. Bush's administration from 2001 to December 2003.

He has been questioned in connection with the Plame affair. Levine was one of the first people to testify for the CIA leak grand jury investigation. A former senior producer for NBC News, at one time Levine was senior producer in charge of "Hardball with Chris Matthew's." Earlier in his career Levine was a top aide to former U. S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat from New York.

YEP. The impartial Chris Matthw squat was a "SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL" to the WAPO who by caveats perpetuated the hoax....

it has reached sick than sick but the left

It's pandemic,,,,,Plame ;;wink::

[Daddy]

Clarice,
Thanks for the Churchill. Absolutely brilliant.

[Other Tom]

"Bloodthirsty guttersnipe" is one of my favorites. It has always been remarkable to me that Churchill was using comparable language to describe Hitler long before any war had broken out, denouncing him and his "greengrocer generals" in the most scathing terms. I also relish the speech in which he vowed to "track this Nazi beast to his lair and rid the earth of his shadow." They don't make 'em like that anymore.