Jason Rosenhouse thinks that PZ, Ed Brayton, Revere, and I have reached a "strange conclusion" about the recent Democratic cave-in on wiretapping. It doesn't make sense, at least to him, that we'd blame the Democrats, given that 80% of the Democrats in Congress didn't vote for the wiretapping bill. (That figure doesn't appear to include the substantial number of legislators - particularly in the Senate - who lacked the courage to vote on this measure at all, but I get Jason's basic point.) Given that why are we mad at the whole party?
Mostly, it's because the party leadership really did cave on this one.
The majority party in Congress has power that goes beyond the number of votes that they have. The leadership (if I can be excused for using that word to refer to the clowns running the show on The Hill these days) has a great deal of power when it comes to the actual movement of legislation. If the leadership decides that a bill should get a vote, it gets a vote. If the leadership decides that a bill should not get a vote, it doesn't see the light of day.
The wiretapping legislation got a vote. The leadership allowed the bill to reach the floor, and pass largely based on Republican support. A relatively small number of Democrats voted for it, another pack - cowards, all - declined to vote either for or against it, and the remainder voted against it.
From the perspective of the politicians, everyone got to make the safe choice. The ones who voted for it can go back home and tell folks that they're hard on the terrorists, and are willing to make the tough sacrifices (like your freedoms) that are needed to fight it. The ones who voted against it can go home and tell folks that they tried, but the Republicans were just too tough for them. The cowards can go home and tell the left that they didn't vote for it and the right that they didn't vote against it. And the leadership can breathe a sigh of relief, because the administration can't accuse them of being obstructionists when matters of vital security.
Many of the Democrats in Congress held the line on this one, but the Congressional leadership failed us again. They were the ones that we most needed to stand up for our rights, but they weren't there for us. Again. From where I sit, that's a damn good reason not to donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. I gave them money before, but they're not getting another dime until they show some spine.
That's another part of our anger that Jason doesn't get:
While I share revere's contempt for those who voted in favor of the amendment, I can not endorse his recommendations about the DCCC. In every case the alternative to the Democrat who sided with Bush on this one issue was a Republican who would have rubber stamped virtually everything Bush wants to do. I do not know how much money the DCCC gave to the Deomcrats under consideration here, but every penny of it was money well spent. Politics is never pretty, and sometimes you just have to accept the lesser of two evils. Not supporting the DCCC only makes it easier for Republicans to get elected. Out of 251 Congressional Republicans, precisely 2 voted against the amendment. It's as simple as that.
I'm sorry, but "Vote For Us, We're Not Quite That Evil" really doesn't do a lot to stir my enthusiasm. Look, I'm not an idiot. I do think that the Republicans would be worse. Unfortunately, that painful fact fails to rescue the Democrats from the realm of suck. Given the lack of alternatives, I'm not about to write off the entire party, but I am writing off the leadership. Until the Congressional Democrats find new leaders, or until the ones that they have now start to take some real action, I'm not going to route my contributions through the DCCC. I'll contribute to individual campaigns. I'll contribute to political groups that support candidates and causes I believe in. I'm just not going to donate to an arm of the current Democratic Congressional leadership.
- Log in to post comments