Who Is Winning?

Patrick Ruffini at Townhall reassures righties that we don't need out own Yearly Kos convention.

Let me add my own twist - while Dems were busy playing up to the Kos Kidz in Chicago, back in Washington the House Dems were collapsing before the imagined wrath of George Bush on the new legislation modifying FISA (described by Orin Kerr).

Was Nancy Pelosi really that concerned that Bush would rally the full force of the 29% who still approve of the job he is doing?  Maybe!

But I'll bet she was worried that Rush Limbaugh and the right wing talk machine would have chewed on Democrats about this issue all through the August recess - immigration is over, so what were they going to rant about?

Shouldn't she also have been worried about being chewed on by the "netroots" if she cravenly gave in to Bush?  Evidently, she was more worried about Rush - go figure.

MORE:  The WaPo editors thump Pelosi:

THE DEMOCRATIC-led Congress, more concerned with protecting its political backside than with safeguarding the privacy of American citizens, left town early yesterday after caving in to administration demands that it allow warrantless surveillance of the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens, with scant judicial supervision and no reporting to Congress about how many communications are being intercepted. To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all.

But Bush commended Congress, so it is all good on Planet Pelosi.

James Risen of the Times (who broke the original story) tells us that this bill is a broader expansion of power than advertised:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 — President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Comments

[richard mcenroe]

The Democrats in Congress stood up to Bush like the pile on a used doormat. Passed the mil budget, passed FISA, no pullout, no impeachment, no censure...

Maybe we should be encouraging the party to look to Kos...

[Cecil Turner]

Maybe we should be encouraging the party to look to Kos...

As someone pointed out recently, we (and the RNC) ought to be sending 'em money.

[RichatUF]

from the article...

As the candidates debated their proposals to change course in Iraq, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico weighed in crisply, saying: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq. Get out! Get out!” He added, “I’m ready to leave some equipment behind. We have to get our troops out.”

Yikes! Didn't Sun-Tzu say something about retreat and equipment...

[RichatUF]

I think H&R would have gotten a kick out of the last captua...

rum4us

[Syl]

I read a comment thread at KOS about this and the only thing I can say about their reactions is that they're bloody cowards! They get so angry--throw the bums out--Democrats are just as bad as Rethuglicans. But they won't actually DO anything about it. They never do. Anger at the Democrats is something they swallow over and over and over again.

And the Dems in Congress have their number so take their money, throw them a bone once in a while, and otherwise ignore them.

Over and over and over again the nutroots EXPECT a certain outcome but they never get what they want. fume fume then on to the next battle. This is unnatural and some of them are eventually just going to flame out.

Over and over and over---isn't that a defintion of insanity?

Or perhaps they're just masochists.

Sweet.

[Sara]

Let me add my own twist - while Dems were busy playing up to the Kos Kidz in Chicago, back in Washington the House Dems were collapsing before the imagined wrath of George Bush on the new legislation modifying FISA (described by Orin Kerr).

Was Nancy Pelosi really that concerned that Bush would rally the full force of the 29% who still approve of the job he is doing? Maybe!

Imagined wrath of George Bush? Did you see his mini-press conference with McConnell and Cheney standing behind him? That was not imagined wrath, that was George Bush at his finest -- boiling mad and spoiling for a fight he had no doubt about winning. Besides, with Congress now at 3% approval, Pelosi/Reid are in deep doodoo and I think they both know that the lefty loony nutroots aren't going to be the ones coming along with the pooper scooper.

[Orion]

Over and over and over again the nutroots EXPECT a certain outcome but they never get what they want. fume fume then on to the next battle. This is unnatural and some of them are eventually just going to flame out.

Over and over and over---isn't that a defintion of insanity?

You have to realize: it's often not the same ones ranting as before. Moonbats tend to falre up and burn out quickly but as we say on USENET, "It's ALWAYS September, somewhere!" - ie., there's always a new crop of bright-eyed, dewy-behind-the-ears liberal kiddies popping up, having "discovered" the Internet and realized that They Can Make A Difference. They rant and rave for awhile, get bored, and go back to snorting glue or whatever. Only a tiny handful stick around and those are usually the hired shills working behind the scenes for ANSWER and the like to keep the troops whipped up into a bloody froth.

[Tom]

This is some really shrewd analysis. You should think about doing this professionally. You know, lose the typos etc.

Orion seems to be the typical reactionary idiot roghtist with his completely wrong interpretation of Kos convention attendees. They are older as opposed to younger and out of school for a long time. Nutroots? Childish.

More than likely, Pelosi and Emanuel and Reid and Schumer all realized that they have the majority, a strong projection of big gains in 08 and there is really little reason to fight these soon to be historic fights. Bush, Cheney and Rove are two months from being finished, post labor day its all 08 all the time, the Dems are clearing the deck and getting ready to turn every one gay through socialized medicine. Start saving now for fabulous shoes.

The biggest mistake idiots in the right wing blog world made was thinking that 9/11 hysteria and their single mechanism grouptthink could last for any real length of time. This blog is one of the few with any easy open comments section, PowerHewittInsatland is a closed system and that is the antithesis of what works on the internet.

[clarice]

Dear Tom, What is Kos' record? Zero for infinity as far as I recall.

[richard mcenroe]

Dear Tom... I was at DKOS yesterday. The consensus online was that Republicans were starting bogus threads to make kossies "look bad" and create an illusion of dissent in the ranks...

In short, no different from all the other times I've been there.

[Tom]

Well, not really sure where I am defending Kos, or really commenting on them at all, I was talking about how childish and content free this post is. Kos is a small part of the pie which you magnify out of boredom and the increasing irrelevance of your side of the sphere.

Also Orion appears to be a weirdo who really has no idea regarding the composition of the conference attendees (or blogs in general) of which I was not one.

Also the meat of my post was that Pelosi and Co. may not have capitulated out of weakness but rather strategy. Rather than wrestle with the complicated nefarious executive privilege tar babies they are getting ready for the jettison of the worst president ever and moving on towards increasing their majority and capturing the executive and moving other pieces of legislation. Hard to swallow, but when the increase their gains and get the WH they can go back and get rid of all the bottom of the class jesus freaks and their bizarro rules.

[TMac]

"jesus freaks and their bizarro rules." So Tom, not wishing to disturb the status quo ante, contributes his childish and empty content.

[Tom]

My posts unlike your post Tmac was mostly content, with a bit of commentary. Feel free to comment on the point of my post if you want, if not do what you did as it is probably what you do do so well.

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

Bush at his "finest"? Hardly.

Frankly I can't wait until he's gone from the White House.

...

"More than likely, Pelosi and Emanuel and Reid and Schumer all realized that they have the majority, a strong projection of big gains in 08"

Sorry? With a 3% approval rating?

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

@ Tom

"This is some really shrewd analysis. You should think about doing this professionally. You know, lose the typos etc.

Orion seems to be the typical reactionary idiot roghtist with his completely wrong interpretation of Kos convention attendees."

The general principle is that as long as you can properly decipher the written comments you should try not to deride people for bad spelling or bad grammar. What we're writing are personal comments, not published articles.

On the other hand I'm vastly amused by someone who does deride others for bad spelling, who then goes on to write "roghtist".

[Tom]

memo, I'm not presenting myself as a pundit, I'm a commenter on the thread, big difference regarding presentation. Also I wasn't commenting on the comments barring the horrible misrepresentation provided by Orion. I was talking about the poster's post, but feel free to ignore that. I'm not proofreading or spell checking in this little box.

AS everyone else has so far you bring up something unrelated, kind of typical on these rightwing whinefests.

Anyone who pays attention knows that congressional approval as a body is usually quite low in stark contrast to the opinion of a person's own representative. Also, those polls were taken at the crossroads of GOP bas unhappiness re:immigration and Dem base unhappiness re:Iraq funding so it would probably be best to look at other polls for projecting seat gains. So far those look shockingly positive for the things I think are important and very very bad for things I am assuming you think are important.

Also the fashion of late for right-wingers to dismiss Bush is a hilarious inversion of loving the sin but hating the sinner.

Anyone who wants to feel free to comment on the point of my original post which was that possibly sinister the backing out of stopping warrentless wire tapping had more to do with deflating a no-win situation and clearing the decks for a more post-Petraeus/08 legislative session.

[kim]

Little doubt they're clearing the decks; they are a mess. It might be different if we weren't winning in Iraq, and if Bush were spying on Americans.
=================================

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

@ Tom

1. "memo, I'm not presenting myself as a pundit, I'm a commenter on the thread, big difference regarding presentation"

If you're going to criticize a post on a blog for bad spelling or grammar then at a minimum you should be holding yourself to the same standard. Otherwise it looks very idiotic.

2. "Also I wasn't commenting on the comments barring the horrible misrepresentation provided by Orion."

Couldn't possibly care less.

3. "I was talking about the poster's post, but feel free to ignore that. I'm not proofreading or spell checking in this little box."

I don't need your permission to ignore you.

4. "AS everyone else has so far you bring up something unrelated, kind of typical on these rightwing whinefests."

I write what I want. I don't need your approval for anything and quite frankly your entire existence is not only irrelevant to me but also inconsequential.

5. "Anyone who pays attention knows that congressional approval as a body is usually quite low in stark contrast to the opinion of a person's own representative."

As an observation it's utterly irrelevant and quite untrue. My representatives are Democrats so my opinion of them is even lower than my opinion of Congress in general.

6. "Also, those polls were taken at the crossroads of GOP bas unhappiness re:immigration and Dem base unhappiness re:Iraq funding so it would probably be best to look at other polls for projecting seat gains."

Sorry but are you suggesting that people unhappy with the performance of this Congress would change their opinions based on who is polling?

That's quite amusing really.

7. "So far those look shockingly positive for the things I think are important and very very bad for things I am assuming you think are important."

I would normally respond with something sarcastic but I figure your own words provides all the response necessary.

8. "Also the fashion of late for right-wingers to dismiss Bush is a hilarious inversion of loving the sin but hating the sinner."

You should consider never writing such a sentence ever again. It's extremely clumsy.

9. "Anyone who wants to feel free to comment on the point of my original post which was that possibly sinister the backing out of stopping warrentless wire tapping had more to do with deflating a no-win situation and clearing the decks for a more post-Petraeus/08 legislative session."

Utterly beyond worthless.

The simple fact is that the Democrats in Congress are terrified of being *held accountable and responsible* for anything that has even the merest potential for a backlash. This is why Democrats do everything possible to get Republicans to vote alongside them. It's also why the Democrats refused to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill without Republicans participating. Because had the Democrats done so entirely on their own hook the backlash would've targeted Democrats only.

So the whole "post-Petraeus" legislative nonsense is precisely that. Utter nonsense. The only things that will get passed are those that Democrats are certain that they can either shift part of the blame onto the Republicans or for which no backlash is likely.

As for the capitulation on the NSA wiretapping the solution is extremely simple. The world is filled with terrorists who would like nothing better than to kill Americans. If the Democrats had in fact recorded votes to prevent the NSA from wiretapping effectively then the Democrats would have also taken the personal and party responsibility for any subsequent terrorist attack on America.

Considering the current lack of confidence by Americans on Democrats with regard to national security, any such result would entail a politically near lethal backlash against the Democratic party.

It's simple: Pelosi et al are political cowards unwilling to risk anything.

[TheRadicalModerate]

I think there's a more benign--and hopeful--explanation for the Dems acceding to the FISA changes. It's all well and good to demagogue to your base but even your garden-variety congressman gets pretty serious when a cogent national security case is made. This seems to be a simple case of everybody behaving as responsibly as they could while trying to walk the line with the squeakier wheels of their constituency.

This is also the reason why I'm not incredibly worried about any forced withdrawl from Iraq. It's such an obvious nightmare to pull the plug that I'm pretty sure that cooler heads will prevail.

[richard mcenroe]

I can just see the first formation held under CIC Richardson: "In Cadence! DUNKIRK!

[richard mcenroe]

I can just see the first formation held under CIC Richardson: "In Cadence! DUNKIRK!

[Tom]

Memo, my point regarding congressional polling had to do with overall polling not your opinion of yours specifically-are you really this dumb?

"Considering the current lack of confidence by Americans on Democrats with regard to national security"
For having such a deep knowledge of polls you seem to be pretty ignorant of what they have been saying lately. Dems are tied ahead or only slightly behind the GOP in all of these categories with large leads in all other policy issues both foreign and domestic.

This little jewel:
"As for the capitulation on the NSA wiretapping the solution is extremely simple. The world is filled with terrorists who would like nothing better than to kill Americans."
sums you up pretty well. Did you just realize this? The world has been filled with people who have wanted to kill Americans since there were Americans. The power of this type of chicken little sloganeering is nearly at an end and I think Pelosi's cutting her loses.

Try to stay focused.

[memomachine]

Hmmm.

@ The RadicalModerate

Frankly I think another reason why the Democrats have been far less activist in their control of Congress has been the conservative Democrats. Their presence has acted as a anchor preventing the Democrats from going too far to the left, particularly in the House.

Which I think reinforces the idea that it's wrong to support non-conservative Republicans to the detriment of conservative Democrats.

And one that I hope will show even more promise in the future.

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

@ Tom

1. "Memo, my point regarding congressional polling had to do with overall polling not your opinion of yours specifically-are you really this dumb?"

And I quote:
"Anyone who pays attention knows that congressional approval as a body is usually quite low in stark contrast to the opinion of a person's own representative."

Your statement did not preclude my opinion. If you intended otherwise then perhaps, you asshat, you should have included that.

2. "For having such a deep knowledge of polls you seem to be pretty ignorant of what they have been saying lately."

I have never professed to any "deep knowledge of polls". I offered my opinion. If I were planning on professing to any such knowledge then you would have able to easily discern it since I would have, you know, actually included poll numbers.

3. "Dems are tied ahead or only slightly behind the GOP in all of these categories with large leads in all other policy issues both foreign and domestic."

And what specific polls are these? There are a multitude of these polls and quite frankly most of them aren't worthy of wiping my ass with.

Many of them have questionable wording. Quite a few others have very questionable percentages of Democrats participating. Even others engage in some fairly strange antics in weighting in order to get outcomes that are favorable to Democrats.

Then election time comes around and the polls turn out to have actual congruence with reality.

4. "sums you up pretty well. Did you just realize this?"

No. But if you had been paying attention you'd have already known this.

5. "The world has been filled with people who have wanted to kill Americans since there were Americans."

Congratulations! Sir, I applaud you.

6. "The power of this type of chicken little sloganeering is nearly at an end and I think Pelosi's cutting her loses."

Well if that means that you think Pelosi is going to start acting contrary to the security interests of the American people, then you'd better hope you're wrong.

Regardless of how you liberal types wish it were, the American people have very strong opinions on national security. The immigration 'reform' failed in large part because of concerns over national security.

Treating such a subject with less deference than it requires is a one-way trip to a new career out of politics.

7. "Try to stay focused."

Sorry but responding to you requires less attention that watching a new episode of "Teletubbies".

And a lot less anticipation.

[memomachine]

Hmmm.

Sorry but:
"Then election time comes around and the polls turn out to have actual congruence with reality."

should read:
"Then election time comes around and the polls turn out to have no actual congruence with reality."

[MikeS]

Orion seems to be the typical reactionary idiot roghtist with his completely wrong interpretation...

I enjoyed Orion's post. When he used the term "liberal kiddies", I don't think he was referring to their actual age. I thought he was using life in general as a metaphor for experience on the internet and blog participation. Which works well since Kos followers are sometimes called "Kos Kids."

Nevertheless, Orion's post obviously went several feet over angry-Tom's head.

[Cecil Turner]

I enjoyed Orion's post. When he used the term "liberal kiddies", I don't think he was referring to their actual age.

I also suspect many of the short timers over there are in fact quite young. The YKos delegation reps are more likely to represent what Orion called the "tiny handful [that] stick around." It'd be interesting to see some demographics . . . not that you could trust anything that lot turned out.

[JM Hanes]

Tom:

"Anyone who wants to feel free to comment on the point of my original post which was that possibly sinister the backing out of stopping warrentless wire tapping had more to do with deflating a no-win situation and clearing the decks for a more post-Petraeus/08 legislative session."

I'd say memomachine is just positing the flip side of that point:

"The simple fact is that the Democrats in Congress are terrified of being *held accountable and responsible* for anything that has even the merest potential for a backlash."

Such a backlash would be very messy indeed, since, as our host points out, the "post-Petraeus/08 legistaltive session" will consist almost entirely of electioneering. As I recall, Democrats were in exactly the same kind of political hurry to clear the decks before the '02 elections, when they passed the AUMF. Plus ça change! Kerry kept the new decks tidy in '04 by promising post-election plans for everything and revealing nothing, only to be swept under the carpet himself. When Democrats finally took back Congress in '06 they laid claim to an indisputable mandate for bringing the troops home and promptly started passing non-binding resolutions. Just how clear do the decks have to get before they'll put their money where their mouths are?

All they've really done is replant the goal posts at the '08 line this time around, and Democrats in Congress appear far more interested in mounting show trials of lame duck political appointees than legislating in the interim. Ironically, they could conceivably manage to wrest control of the Justice Department from the Executive Branch right about the time a Democratic President takes office -- not to mention setting a remarkable array of precedents when it comes to issuing subpoenas in the name of oversight that any future opposition Congress will, no doubt, wield with enthusiasm. I doubt there's a Republican in Congress who wouldn't love to check out intra-party Democratic emails -- with the possible exception of Chuck Hagel who's probably already on the distribution list.

[Jane]

JMH,

The questions is whether we will have the cajones to do it.

[Jim Rockford]

Either the WaPo article or the Kos Kiddies biting Nancy in the ass had an effect, Nancy Pelosi issued a press release calling on Conyers and Reyes to overturn and gut the legislation after the Senate passed it.

So: Nancy was OK with the legislation, her overlords chewed her out, she's now calling on it to be gutted.

Let's review:

1. Azzam the American aka Adam Gadahn releases a new AQ video promising death and destruction to America. Inside America.

2. The NIE comes out several weeks ago and estimates that AQ has rebuilt to pre-9/11 levels and intends to attack the US with a mass casualty attack equaling or bettering 9/11. The NIE states that AQ has the operational capacity to do so.

3. The FISA court judge throws out the whole program: NSA can't listen in on ANYONE even foreign spies or known terrorists calling from foreign countries to foreign countries where the call is routed through the US. Result: NO SURVEILLANCE AT ALL. We are "dark" to AQ plots due to a FISA judge (likely a Clinton or Carter appointee too).

4. The DNI PERSONALLY beseeches Congress to give him legislation to fix the problem or he can't stop an attack.

Well, just for laughs let's imagine Nancy can get the legislation overturned, and wham! there's a massive terror attack as predicted (another story has CIA predicting it this Summer). Perhaps MORE than 3,000 dead.

What do you imagine Talk Radio, GWB, Fox News, Republicans will do? Imagine the 08 ads running:

"Rep Democrat voted AGAINST listening in to AQ terrorists. Now xx,xxxx people are dead because Rep Democrat cared more about the ACLU and Daily Kos than protecting America. Vote for Candidate Republican, he'll protect America from AQ!"

They Write themselves.

The bottom line for Dems is that they satisfy the WaPo and Kos and get blamed for any successful attack on America by AQ (the American Public has made it clear they want no repeats, it's why Kerry lost when he said it was Law Enforcement). The vote for the Admin to get what it needs and they get no credit for turning against their insane base.

It's not made any better by the moaning over KSM's treatment at Gitmo. Senators and Congressmen pay good money for his treatment, and most Americans would want him to get the treatment of his victims: doused with flaming jet fuel and tossed from the 88th floor.

[memomachine]

Hmmmm.

Ultimately the problem Democrats have is that their most basic positions are contrary to what the American people want.

The only reason why they got elected was because the Republicans proved themselves so feckless that the Democrats actually looked like an alternative.

*shrug* but this is new or news to anybody here.