Dover Bitch

Tuesday, March 14, 2006


There is just about nothing that pisses DB off more than this article on Raw Story.

Will somebody with both principles and balls join Russ Feingold in Washington? For the love of God?

Though all say they believe the program warrants "more investigation," several Senate aides rebuked Feingold for proposing censure. They say that his move had the potential to derail Democratic efforts to strengthen the party's image on homeland security issues, noting that a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue. Bush has defended the program, calling it a "terrorist surveillance" program, and has used aides to defend its legality.

More investigation? How about any investigation? How much more do you need to know about it to determine whether or not it was illegal? Hint: It was.

While you wimps are "noting a large part of the country believes the eavesdropping program should continue," please also note that a large portion of those voters believe it should continue with oversight. And censuring the president for violating the law would not stop you from being able to refine the laws and review the program. Idiots.

Standing up for principles, civil liberties and the rule of law is not a position of weakness. You don't look soft for standing up for justice. You look weak by tossing your principles out the window because some freaks who sleep in dirt have threatened us. If you want to look strong on national security, propose and defend ideas on protecting America and hammer away at the administration and GOP leaders when they drop the ball. Don't stop. Every damn day, deliver that message.

But caving on other issues isn't signaling strength to anybody. It's shameful and it tells the people who try to support you that you don't reciprocate.

"Feingold's grandstanding screwed the pooch and played into Bill Frist's hands," the aide said. "Thank God Dems punted this down the field. Frist was going to force Democrats to vote on a resolution Feingold had kept a big secret and he would've split the caucus on an issue that needed time to get the whole caucus to support. Russ Feingold had only one persons' interests in mind with his Sunday bombshell, and those were his own. He practically handed a victory to a Bush White House that desperately needs a win."

Maybe after watching the party cave to Frist and Roberts, Feingold decided that waiting for the rest of the caucus to get on board would be on par with waiting for a disconnected phone to ring.

Feingold, defending his censure plan today on Fox News, said: "I'm amazed at Democrats, cowering with this president's numbers so low. The administration just has to raise the specter of the war and the Democrats run and hide... too many Democrats are going to do the same thing they did in 2000 and 2004. In the face of this, they'll say we'd better just focus on domestic issues...[Democrats shouldn't] cower to the argument, that whatever you do, if you question administration, you're helping the terrorists."

You're goddamned right. Thank God there's at least one member of the party who gets it. Oh, and John Murtha, also the recipient of a lackluster effort by his party... despite the fact that he was right and the majority of the country agrees. [UPDATE: DB didn't give Congressman John Conyers his due.]

"I don't think people are unwilling" to support it, one Democratic Senate aide said. "I don't think people are 100 percent yes. If you look at the comments of Senator Reid and other senators' comments, you can see that other people want further investigations. Nobody's said no on censure except Joe Lieberman as far as I know."

Joe Lieberman has as much integrity as an Uzbek duplex in a magnitude-10 earthquake, but the rest of the caucus already blew their chance for a real investigation. How high are they? Are bloggers the only ones paying attention?

"The majority of the American people agree with what the president's doing. A lot of people outside the beltway see this as a tool that's keeping Americans safe."

Translation: We already totally fucked up delivering our message and we can't understand how to read a poll. Or a series of polls.

The rest of the article is just painful:

"There were concerns that this would backfire on the Democrats just as they were beginning to get the upper hand or at least beefing up the playing field on homeland security credentials," the aide added. "The Dubai deal, the war in Iraq, the president's numbers heading south. Democrats have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot when the good things work and we've been known to do some things that end up hurting us rather than helping us."

Several aides said their offices were stressing "more investigations" as an alternative to censure. One aide said public hearings would be better in bringing Americans around to the idea that Bush had done something wrong.

"Democrats had decided that public hearings were needed on the wiretapping to educate the public before considering a censure," one staffer quipped. "Hearings would've forced Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration. Everyone knew that was the gameplan. Feingold just wanted to hog the spotlight. If he were interested in holding George Bush accountable he would've made his pitch in the Democratic caucus behind closed doors."

These lazy, worthless tools. The Democrats weren't "getting the upper hand." The Republicans are just being exposed as frauds.

"Forcing Arlen Specter and Lindsay Graham to continue to criticize the Administration" just makes them look more independent and principled. Running away shitless makes Democrats look pathetic. Besides, how many Americans or television pundits are giving the Democrats even half the credit for standing up for port security?

In 2004, the Republicans scored points by saying Kerry couldn't stand up to Howard Dean, let alone terrorists. How do these morons expect to look if they can't stand up to Bill Frist or a president with a 34% approval rating?

Why does everything have to be a calculated political strategy for these "leaders" anyway? When, in the last six years, have any of their political calculations yielded anything positive for them?

Can't they agree that a president who breaks the law needs to be challenged? Can't they stand up for civil liberties? Is Bill Frist correct -- do they have no principles or convictions?

Labels: , , ,