Going Down Fighting

Some times political incumbents lose. Admittedly it doesnt happen often. When it does happen though you generally get a good picture ahead of time. The best evidence is Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. She is, in all likelihood, going to lose. What then is she supposed to do on big votes like health care insurance reform? Her actions represent a general failing on behalf of losing politicians to do the right thing.

Lincoln is especially important in the mad house that is the senate. It now takes 60 votes for anything to move forward due to GOP threatened filibuster. If she was solidly committed to not supporting any GOP filibuster then maybe the GOP wouldnt threaten them as often. Thats a different topic though. The main point is that instead of doing whats right and letting the chips fall where they may Lincoln is running scared. From TPM,

As a rule, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) may not be as ideological as Nelson is. But she's got a problem on her hands right now that Nelson doesn't. She's an unpopular senator in a conservative state and she's up for re-election next year. Unlike Nelson (or Joe Lieberman, who we'll get to momentarily) securing Lincoln's procedural vote is a nuts-and-bolts political problem. How do you get her into a position where she (and the Democratic party) feels her seat isn't particularly imperiled by votes for health care reform. Last week, she met with both Reid and President Obama. Those conversations will surely continue.

The problem is that her seat is in major trouble no matter what she does. Her seat is not in trouble because of health care reform it is in trouble because Arkansas is a very conservative state full of Republicans and right leaning indy's. Her seat is also in trouble because the voters most likely to vote for her are not particularly impressed. PPP tells all,

Among all Democrats her approval is a relatively weak 62%. But among conservative Democrats it's just 45%. While liberal unrest about her actions in Washington has perhaps received more attention her approval with them is 24 points higher, at 69%. Matched against the Republicans Lincoln averages just a 57-25 advantage with the conservative wing of her party, a standing she'll probably need to improve on before next November.

Although the dissatisfaction of liberals within her party may not be as a big of a numerical concern for Lincoln as the conservatives, there are some issues there as well. Her approval rating among voters who think that Obama is doing a good job is just 63% with 21% disapproving and 16% unsure. That failure to win over many of Obama's proponents is an indication that the President's unpopularity in the state can't be held completely responsible for Lincoln's difficulties. She does nevertheless win nearly 80% in the head to heads with the Republicans because she's clearly a more acceptable choice for those voters than the alternative but then the concern in an off year election becomes whether those folks even show up if they're not enthusiastic about casting a vote for Lincoln.

If Lincoln has perhaps seemed indecisive at times you can see why when she has it coming at her from both ends of her party.

You know what does poll well? The Public Option. in that poll we find that

73% of all voters think that private health insurance companies care more about profit than about the health of the patients that they cover. Among Democrats and Independents, that number skyrockets to 86% and 72% respectively.

You know what that sounds like? A winning issue. It sounds like something Senator Lincoln would like to use again and again as she champions health care reform. Yet she has stayed on the fence and concerned that her vote may cost her her job. Yet, isnt reforming health care the right thing to do. Is this something that might actually be worth doing if your going to lose? Yglesis adds,

But perhaps the most convincing thing you could say would be the argument from legacy. A lot of members of congress spent 1993 and ‘94 spiking the Clinton legislative agenda and then went down to defeat in November 1994 anyway. Wouldn’t it make more sense to turn the 111th Congress into a substantive success, hope you can persuade the voters that these are good ideas, and if you fail at least manage to have gone down fighting accomplishing something important?

Its the Deeds derangement syndrome. running away from substantive and good policy out of mistaken belief that people want nothing, i.e. conservatives policy, done. This isnt the case. The polling makes clear that voters find Lincoln ineffective. The point of holding public office is to put in to practice good policy. if your not going to do that what does it matter whether your in the seat or not? If you think your going to lose go down fighting and not dithering.

Read more...

The stimulus negotiation

i think it went like this,

The usual democrat and republican negotiations proceed like this,

Democrat: We want to work together to pass a bipartisan bill that helps the country.

Republican: Great we would love that too.

Democrat: Here is our bill. it focuses on proven methods of increasing economic productivity and we even through in tax cuts cause we know you love those.

Republican: What? This bill is an insult! I thought you wanted to be bipartisan! How could you include things like funding for "science" and "education"? Plus there are not nearly enough tax breaks for business.

Democrat: Ok well, we will take out that objectionable funding to make you happy and we will increase the tax cuts. So now you are going to support this bill right?

Reoublican: This bill is offensive to conservative principles. I could never in good conscience vote for such a spending bill especially when it lacks a repeal of X tax. Plus some of the money could go to minorities. But i might support it if you took out the spending and replaced it with tax cuts.

Democrat: Oh well then lets increase those tax cuts for you. How bout that?

Republican: We will have to think about it.

Of course the Republican does not vote for the bill and the media accuses the democrat of being insufficiently bipartisan. The end result is compromise that earned the Dems nothing except a greater chance of failure.

Read more...

The Waiting Game

The conventions are done. This means that the media needs a new event to hype. The press requires something to help build up the horse race and boost viwership. It is simply the way they operate. Wait for this, wait for that. They are going to work on keeping the polls tight in any way they can. Unfortunately for them, this is going to be a period without any defining moments where the candidates are pitted against one another. Yes, you have polls but absent any events the polls will end up settling about a median. We are now, in the waiting game.

The waiting game should be familiar to any person who has been following politics. We are always waiting for something else. Take the primaries for example, We had to wait for Iowa. Then New Hampshire, etc. Each one was billed as the defining moment of the election -- until the next one. We had to wait for super tuesday then Texas and Ohio and then the big wait before Pennsylvania. The grass was always greener just around the bend.

We have had to wait every six months to hear that it takes six more months before we can judge the progress in Iraq of the Economy. We even have a term for that, The Friedman Unit. Everything is built around hype and expectations so that the payoff is never as exciting as the lead in. Political junkies are kind of like drug addicts in that the fix they get is never enough and they always crave a new one.

Maybe instead of the waiting game it should be the Procrastination game. We put off things we know are important, like looking at McCain's record. It will get done once he wins the nomination, they said. Then it was, once the Dems have a nominee. Then it was wait until the convention because thats when campaigns really start. So we waited on the scrutiny of McCain's record. Still waiting.

We are also waiting to see the high powered Obama offense on sustained attack. We see flashes of brilliancy. Brief pulses of urgency. Obama will give us a taste of his ability to hit McCain hard and take the initiative but then he seems to back off. At first we thought he was waiting till he had the nomination. Then we thought, he is waiting for the convention. Now we think he is waiting for the debates.

Surely at the debates Obama is going to just rip into McCain. Put him back on his heels. Surely the debates will showcase Biden's readiness and Palin's incompetence. Ask your self though, has the waiting worked out to well on that other stuff? One of the things i thought Obama was going to do was take it to McCain and conservatism in general. I have been waiting for him to do it in a unequivocal and strong way. It was the hallmark of the Kerry campaign that they waited too long to deal with the scurrilous lies spread about them. Kerry waited 4 years to long before giving a speech that really tore into McCain and conservative ideas.

Waiting on the debates is a terrible idea. It just builds up the expectations game. The media is already telling people to wait for the debates. If you start telling people to wait for the debates, and Obama tells people to wait for the debates, the hype and expectations will get out of control. Palin and McCain will just have to avoid drooling on camera to win.

What can you do to end this terrible waiting game? Volunteer. The only people not waiting are the volunteers. It is the volunteers who hit the streets and the phones for the campaign. Those are the proactive people, tired of playing the waiting game. If your tired of listening to the media tell you to wait, if your tired of waiting for Obama, if your tired of waiting for something to happen, take the initiative. Volunteer. Otherwise, your just going to have to wait.

Read more...

The Future of the Republican Party pt 1.

I am a democrat but i am also a political junky. I find it intriguing to think about a way to guide the GOP to victory that is not based on the politics of division. I tend to think it would be fairly easy given how cowardly the Dems run typical campaigns. The key is that lying is not punished. This allows you to try and co-opt any Democratic positions you might want and try to explain why they are actually GOP positions. Also, when i engage in this idle speculation i try to imagine ways to realign the electorate. Is there a way to grab a significant chunk of the population away from the other side without losing your voters, or at least not so many as would not be covered by additions?

It is with this in mind that i turn to the piece in the NYT entitled, The vanishing Republican Voter by David Frum. Frum does work for the conservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute but that does not mean he could not have some interesting insights into the GOP mindset and the possible future of the Republican Party. There are two basic premises to his thinking.

1. As a general rule, the more unequal a place is, the more Democratic; the more equal, the more Republican.
2.There is a widening equality gap.

These two things lead to the conclusion that the GOP is in some serious trouble in the future. He lays out the case that the GOP needs to be much more concerned about inequity, not from a moral perspective, but from a political one. They just wont have voters unless they make a fundamental change in how they approach elections. His suggestion seems to be that they do something about the inequity, just enough so that people feel they can vote with their social values and not the pocketbook.

Resentment of “elites” is a major theme of conservative talk radio. “Who’s looking out for you?” demands Bill O’Reilly, as he excoriates “media elites” who vacation in the Hamptons, Aspen and the Virginia horse country.

But O’Reilly’s question has recoiled upon its onetime beneficiaries. Who is looking out for the Fox-viewing public? For most of the Bush administration, G.D.P. grew strongly, the stock market boomed, new jobs were created. But the ordinary person experienced little benefit. The median household income, which rose in the ’90s, had only just caught up to its 2000 level when the expansion ended in 2007.

there is a major issue that goes unaddressed here. The big money interests support the GOP precisely because they give them the best policies. The gearing of their focus towards the rich and the corporate is what gives them a media advantage. To suddenly start throwing that, and the money that comes with it, away seems far fetched. To his credit Frum finds a way around actually paying employees more. In true Republican fashion he goes supply side. If we dont pay more we will lower supply costs.

What the middle class needs most is not lower income taxes but a slowdown in the soaring inflation of health-care costs.

It is very true that helping get everyone health care. Frums proposal of eliminating employer based health care and shifting totally to a market approach similar to car insurance is not something i really favor. Over all it is an interesting approach to the problem.

Personally i just do not think that this is enough. Frum makes assumptions about inequity that i dont know hold true. He basically says that no one would vote democratic if people were more equal. I think the better point is that the dems would lose a lot of voters if people were making more money related to expenses. Frum is saying that if prices had not gone up no one would have cared about the fact that the rich make a whole lot more. The problem is that prices always go up. they dont stay the same so predicating your argument on that is specious. That is frums idea about how to keep the party alive. My own will be part II.

Read more...

Democratic Party as a Social Institution

Diary titled 5th of November was rescued on Daily Kos last night. The diary makes an interesting suggestion about what could be done with the Democratic Party to increase not only electoral effectiveness but make it a more cohesive and unified organization. The author makes five suggestions about what could be done.

First: We must make every Democrat know that they are full members of the Democratic Party.

Second: We must police ourselves. It should be a privilege to run as a Democrat.

Third: The party itself needs to be more responsive to local issues.

Forth: we need to work on more projects with Republicans.

Finally, how do we pay for the outreach and larger permanent organization? I think it could be done in a couple of ways. One, we could allow people to contribute money to pay for some of it

These suggestions generated a positive response (from myself included) and caused me to think about them more deeply. After some thought i believe that there are some good ideas here and some problematic ones. I will address each suggestion one at a time.

First: We must make every Democrat know that they are full members of the Democratic Party. We need to act more like a club - why aren't new members of the Democratic party contacted and invited to join activities? Why aren't we asked to come to meetings? Why aren't we asked our opinions (where and when to have meetings, etc.). Even things that seem silly, like calenders and newsletters for members, helps to make people feel that they are part of a organization that exists and wants their participation even when there isn't an election.

This is actually my favorite of the group. People may not realize but socialization is a very important part of determining how people vote. Many people are socialized into a particular party and take on the ideology and thought process of that party only after joining. The are introduced to political parties by their parents and their friends. It is these groups that help people determine where they stand in the political world.

Building a party infrastructure that is active all the time and not at peak times during elections would help to cement the socialization of voters. People are less likely to drift away from a party when they are constantly exposed to the party and other people they relate to in the party. Regular meetings and newsletters and such are a good way of helping build a democratic community. It creates party cohesion and unity. It will also help in getting more people to volunteer and get involved. Having people you already know around when starting an activity for the first time makes that activity much easier. Simply involving people making them feel included is important. This first idea is one that should be implemented as soon as possible.

One good thing about this is that Obama has already done a great deal of the work for us. He has built a huge database of email lists and his site is designed to help organize and to get dems in touch with each other. Obama has made the first steps toward a real and sustained dem community.

Second: We must police ourselves. It should be a privilege to run as a Democrat. It would be wonderful if the next story of a politician gone bad started out with: The Democratic party announced today that congressman "fill-in-the-blank" is being kicked out of the party and that documents obtained through an internal investigation are being turned over to the Justice Department blah blah blah....

If people knew that we didn't let people who were unpatriotic, criminals or morally bankrupt run as Democrats, we wouldn't have to defend our candidates when the Republicans attack them. We could spend our money on presenting the issues and building the party.

This one is a little bit problematic. I understand why the diarist wants this. I just see real problems with implementation. What are the criteria to judge who is allowed to run? Could John Edwards run? How about Lieberman? What are the lines we draw that prevent one person from running versus another because if we get into a situation where we stop some one from running because they dont fit a certain ideological purity that is a real problem. It is also something that i could see happening especially if the decisions are made higher up.

Imagine a scenario where there is an insurgent candidate and an establishment candidate. If we have a solidified party that cares about party dictates the establishment could kill off candidacies it did not like. Many would be forbidden the chance to run because they have not earned the privilege. We should definitely make sure that any criminal who tries to run with a D next to their name is labeled a criminal and a DINO in the eyes of the public. In addition there are 1st amendment issues in play when dealing with elections, nominations, and political parties.

There is actually a good deal of Law dealing with the situation where a candidate is representing themselves as a party but the party is actually opposed to them. The controlling case law holds that,

The First Amendment does not give political parties a right to have their nominees designated as such on the ballot. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U. S. 351, 362–363 (1997) (“We are unpersuaded, however, by the party’s contention that it has a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message, to its candidate and to the voters, about the nature of its support for the candidate”). Parties do not gain such a right simply because the State affords candidates the opportunity to indicate their party preference on the ballot. “Ballots serve primarily to elect candidates, not as forums for political expression.”

This means that you are allowed to self identify as a dem, run and win in the primary and keep a d next to your name and the party cannot do anything about it.

Third: The party itself needs to be more responsive to local issues. Ex: An elderly person has a problem with their social security. They should be able to call a local member of the Democratic party (a volunteer) who will help them make the phone calls to social security or get them a volunteer who can help them through the bureaucracy. Another ex: neighborhood and homeowners association meetings should have someone at their meetings who represents the Democratic party -- this could be someone who lives in the neighborhood who has volunteered to take on the responsibility of being a liaison between the neighborhood and their elected officials.)-- Sort of like Tammany Hall without the corruption.

This is an idea i think we could get to work with a few conditions. The first of these is that the services need to be open to everyone regardless of political affiliation. We cannot have a situation where we compel people to join because Dems have started to control basic services. We are not Hezbollah and should not look to be the shadow government of the neighborhoods. There is always a danger in these types of situations for a quid pro quo to develop. We cannot be seen to barter services for votes or donations. Constituent service operations as an arm of the dem party could be very useful in dealing with the elected officials of both parties so long as they are free to everyone. You can see the potential problems here if we start privileging these services?

It is not that i am opposed to the dems becoming more involved in community issues but i do not want to see the rise of local bosses. It is also likely that the republicans would develop rival set ups to ours and if it is not handled right we could see a hyper partisan system where dems help dems and reps help reps. There is always the danger that party's become too powerful as institutions and start to lock out those with the smaller voice. The more solidified we make the Dem party the more likely this becomes.

Forth: I know that this is going to get some folks going - we need to work on more projects with Republicans. We could work on a park project together or school projects - as Democrats and Republicans, but together. I think this is a way of implementing Obama's call to find common ground. It would be a way to reduce some of the "politics as usual" - less demonizing, less negative advertising and more dialogue that can help to get us to a deeper and more productive working relationship.

One of the reasons that i was concerned about this idea is that i think instead of doing what it is intended, bring us all together on common ground, it is creating division. I may be wrong but i get the feeling that this would solidify the identities of the two groups. The more people hang out with the one group, like the theorized dem party, the less likely they are to have friends from the opposite spectrum. I think that the best way to carry out the Obama message of less partisan gridlock is through everyday interactions. Meeting as solid blocks seems less effective to me than interacting in other, non politically tinged, settings. By adding a political focus to all of these events i think it would be hard to avoid and increase in partisanship.

Finally, how do we pay for the outreach and larger permanent organization? I think it could be done in a couple of ways. One, we could allow people to contribute money to pay for some of it (it's not like we don't ask them to donate money every couple of years to pay for massive amounts of advertising - advertising that would be less necessary if we had a stronger grassroots organization). Also, much of the work can be done by volunteers - many of us volunteer our time now - why wouldn't we volunteer on a regular basis if it meant that things we cared about like better schools and the environment were improved?

I am fine with this. Donations must be totally optional though. They cannot become dues that must be paid to belong.

One thing to consider is that not everyone is going to want to be interested in joining. There are always people who are not interested in politics. We should not pressure these people into joining. Can you imagine our country where the Dems and the Republicans are competing at every level for everything? There is something to be said for a more abstract party system where the structure is not so rigid. Moving too far down the path of a club risks alienating the non members, whose votes we need.

Read more...

More on the Dark Side of the Convention

The Convention in Denver has largely been a peaceful affair. The speeches given by both Clintons, John Kerry, Joe Biden and others really rocked the house. There were no instances of Clinton loyalists stabbing the Obama in the back and the unity was evident for all to see. That was all in front of the cameras. Behind the scenes there was some business being done. It is almost fitting that some of this stuff is coming up right at the time the Jack Abramoff the king of corruption is going to e sentenced. I wrote yesterday on the ATT party thrown for the Blue Dogs efforts on their behalf in congress. Wednesday there arose another story from the dark side of the convention, that of Asa Eslocker an ABC News producer arrested attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Snip

Video taken at the scene shows a man, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County sheriff, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk in front of the hotel, to the side of the entrance.

The sheriff's officer is seen telling Eslocker the sidewalk is owned by the hotel. Later, he is seen pushing Eslocker off the sidewalk into oncoming traffic, forcing him to the other side of the street.

It was two hours later when Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.

During the arrest, one of the officers can be heard saying to Eslocker, "You're lucky I didn't knock the f..k out of you."

Video Here

Eslocker and crew were there investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention. That is some important work and we hope that there efforts to expose the seedy ties between corporations and our nations lawmakers. As of interest is what happens in the courts with this case. The facts at issue are unclear as it would have to be checked whether the hotel did in fact own that sidewalk.

In any event it is obvious why the hotel and these particular guests would be opposed to seeing themselves portrayed as corrupt. A story to keep an eye on...

Read more...

NYT hardcore concern trolls on FISA

I am constantly amazed by the White House’s ability to multitask when it wants to achieve its horrific agenda. One thing I thought we had finally found a victory on was the FISA legislation. Here was something we could at least be somewhat proud most of our Dems showed a vertebra or two. It appears that some of our Dems may be getting nervous, at least that’s what I get from the NYT who wrote a text book concern troll article on a possible “compromise”.

The opening paragraph gives an indication of what tone the article is going to take.

With Congress at an impasse over the government’s spy powers, Congressional and intelligence officials are bracing for the possibility that the government might have to revert to the old rules of terrorist surveillance, a situation that some officials predict could leave worrisome gaps in intelligence.

“Some officials predict could leave dangerous gaps in intelligence” is code for Republicans might not get to protect their corporate allies. Reverting to the old FISA would not be the worst thing to ever happen. If it were then the president would be willing to accept a short term extension to prevent any possible increase in risk. Instead, he is holding his breath still waiting for the Dems to cave. This idea of “dangerous gaps in our intelligence” has been revealed as false. Remember the White House FISA Facts Sheet?

MYTH: Even if the critical tools provided by the Protect America Act expire, the authorizations already in place to monitor terrorist communications will leave the Intelligence Community with all the tools it needs to continue current surveillance and begin new surveillance on any terrorist threat.

FACT: If Congress lets the Protect America Act expire without passing the bipartisan Senate bill, the Intelligence Community’s ability to obtain vital foreign intelligence information, including the location, intentions, and capabilities of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets abroad, will be weakened.

The Times itself ran a piece in February that pointed out the fact that there will not be any serious gaps.

The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.

If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday, intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

What happened? Where did the disconnect come from? They used to know that the Republican arguments were bogus but now they are running articles concern trolling for the Republicans. The article goes down hill from here. The next three paragraphs are just wrong.

But government and Congressional officials said in interviews that they saw it as a dangerous step backward. A return to the old rules, they said, would mean that government lawyers, analysts and linguists would once again have to prepare individual warrants, potentially thousands of them, for surveillance of terrorism targets overseas.

Telecommunications companies would also have to spend considerable time shutting down existing wiretaps, and then start them up again if ordered under new warrants, officials said. In some instances, the broad orders given to the companies starting last August cover tens of thousands of overseas phone numbers and e-mail addresses at one time, people with knowledge of the orders said. A senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration was concerned that reverting to the older standards and requiring individual warrants for each wiretap would create a severe gap in overseas intelligence by raising the bar for foreign surveillance collection.

In some cases, the government might simply be unable to establish in court why it suspected that a foreign target was connected to terrorism. Part of the problem, officials said, is that communications going from one foreign country to another sometimes travel through a telephone switch on American soil and, under some interpretations of the older rules, could not be tapped without an individual warrant.

Are you kidding me? There are two highlighted problems here. The first is that it would just be too much work. That is really the argument in the first two paragraphs. It is not that it is especially hard or a major hurdle it is just more work. The second argument is contained in the last paragraph. The second argument is that they might not be able to show a reason to tap the phones.

The bar is not particularly high. There hasn't been a single FISA warrant turned down since 9/11. You don't even need to have the warrant before you start wire-tapping the suspected terrorist. You get three whole days to prepare a warrant after the fact. There really is no reason that they would be unable to get a warrant from the FISA court unless they really have zero basis to get the warrant in the first place. If they cannot establish a link to terrorism in a secret court designed to hide secret sources then they have no basis for the warrant.

The Times goes all out to raise the concern level on this. They get quotes from some very impartial and impressive sources like Mukasey and unnamed Dem staffer probably working for Jay Rockefeller.

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey has described the idea of reverting to the older standards of foreign surveillance as “unthinkable,” adding, “I still hope and actually think that it won’t happen.”

Even some Democrats, at odds with the White House for months over the surveillance issue, said they were worried about the summer situation. “Until August, we’re O.K.,” said one senior Democratic Congressional aide involved in the negotiations. “After August, we’re not O.K.”

If it is so unthinkable that this legislation expires then pass the extension. It is not that big an impasse. If the fate of America is uncertain then the Republicans should simply help the extension pass. The White House and the GOP were really confident that the Dems would end up caving but when that did not come to pass they found themselves in a bad position, victims of their own hubris.

Officials said that even at the start of the year, when it became apparent that Congress might allow the temporary surveillance law to expire, intelligence officials took no steps to try to go to the secret intelligence court and renew the one-year authorizations from last August so that they would have extra time.

Some people still hold out hope that the Dems will cave and that the Republicans will get their way. Examples of these people include Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, and Senator Christopher S. Bond. Both have been working hard to ensure that ATT (as well as President Bush and their own asses) are well protected.

“I was hoping we’d made progress,” said Mr. Bond, who has been the White House’s point man in the talks. “But the longer this drags on — I’m not so sure.”

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee and is heading negotiations for the Democrats, declined to be interviewed, his office said. He said in a statement that “it has taken many months of difficult negotiations to get to this point, but I’m increasingly optimistic that we’re on the verge of a deal.”

Seriously no deals. Bush is almost gone why give in now? The Dems have finally done one thing that the American people elected them for and Rocky wants to give it all away. As always the motivation behind the potential Democratic capitulation is fear. Fear of being labeled “soft”. Soft on terror or crime or drugs or Iran, whatever it is being soft on it is seen as a major weakness and the accusation is something the DLCers seem to run from.

As hard as the White House has pushed, Democrats may have even more at stake. They acknowledge not wanting to risk reaching their national convention in Denver in August without a deal, lest that create an opening for the Republicans and Senator John McCain, their presumptive presidential nominee, to portray themselves as tougher on national security — a tried-and-true attack method in the past — just as the Democrats are nominating Senator Barack Obama.

There will be no opening if they stand tall. Anything backed by Bush is immediately suspect these days and Bush has gone to great lengths over his desire for immunity. The instances where Dems assert themselves on National Security have been rare. They need to become common. The GOP has proven that they cannot be trusted with the security of our nation. Capitulating on FISA would be a major step backward for the Dems and America. Another question might be why the NYT is concern trolling for the Republicans.

Read more...