August 30, 2007

Democrats Split Over Terrorism

After essentially caving on FISA legislation, Democrats have started to turn on each other, according to the Washington Post. Activists blame Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for failing to use their majorities to turn back Bush administration policies, while conservative Democrats warn that the Left will push them back into minority status:

A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush's most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.

The Democrats' failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party's leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies -- on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.

At the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress yesterday, panelists discussing the balance between security and freedom lashed out at Democratic leaders for not standing up to the White House. "These are matters of principle," said Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the center. "You don't temporize."

The Left has finally started taking off the gloves. They may now realize that the Democrats overpromised in the 2006 elections, raising money among the more extreme groups while electing Blue Dogs to office. The demographics of their majority form the basis of the obstacles facing Reid and Pelosi, but without the conservative Democrats, none of their agenda could possibly pass.

Nevertheless, Reid and Pelosi promised yet again to fulfill the Left's demands. They plan to propose habeas corpus rights to foreign unlawful combatants for the first time in American history, a move that will require the troops that capture them to travel back to the US to testify against them. They want to revisit the FISA disaster short of the six-month limit they themselves placed on the legislation in order to shut down a program they explicitly endorsed four weeks ago. They also want to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, which has some symbolic meaning but fails to address where we want to put captured terrorists, especially those whose home countries don't want returned, for obvious reasons.

All of these will prove popular among the Left, but the rest of the country may wonder whether the Democrats have lost their minds. None of these proposals have a hope of gaining passage in the Senate, thanks to the cloture requirement, but it's doubtful that any of them would garner a majority. The FISA revamp won 60 votes, including 16 Democrats and Joe Lieberman. The House would have trouble passing most of these as well, given the conservative nature of almost a quarter of the Democratic caucus there.

The Democrats are well on their way to scaring off center-right voters in the districts they took from Republicans last fall. If they grant foreign terrorists the same rights as Americans in civil courts, they will be spending the 2009-10 session of Congress in the minority.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (12)

Posted by TomB | August 30, 2007 12:42 PM

Thanks God for common sense among the Democrats. But what that also meens, that last election was more against Republicans' excesses and pumped up by MSM, than against the War. If only somebody could tak to the people better, than the President does.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 30, 2007 2:19 PM

You can't build majorities on sand. Or under the water level, when you're being hit by uproars like hurricanes.

In other words? What's Harry Reid gonna pull on? These days if he reaches for a man's short hairs, he's got Larry Craig's problems.

While LBJ got what he wanted in the senate. And, screwed himself up in the presidency. Which should teach political lessons all its own.

Not that the activists are bright. They are not! They are, however, "credentialed" in affirmative action programs. And, as long as the products don't face the marketplace, they don't face the music.

But let's say congress passes this crap? What's the votes gonna tally? And, what happens to "seasoned seats" in congress; if just about anyone and his dog can challenge during the primaries?

Oh, and afte the bill is passed to the White House, Bush locates his VETO PEN.

Trust me on this. 2/3rds of the senators live in fear they can lose their seats. Just as Lindsay Graham discovered showing distaste for his constituents, and calling them "bigots," still lingers.

Maybe, the activists are hoping that Larry Craig's mess affects the GOP? Especially, if he's gone. And, then the Bonkeys can claim the affirmative action ground. It's not high on a hill. Nobody else is "roving" over there.

And, you have to be nuts to think you can run the Bonkey party on the fumes of the activists.

Posted by NavyspyII | August 30, 2007 2:20 PM

The only problem is that the Demo's are stronger as a minority than the Repubs are as a majority.

With the current behavior of our Congress-critters, they do indeed back up the appelations of "Evil Party" (D), and "Stupid Party"(R).

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 30, 2007 2:30 PM

My absolute favorite remains Reid's claim that the Democrats' Congress' approval rating of 18% is because President Bush's approval rating is low.

I think anyone who saw that one had the same expression my dog gives when I ask her to go to the fridge and get me a beer.

Posted by Carol Herman | August 30, 2007 2:35 PM

In my book, and, because of the Internet; we're having a political re-allignment.

To claim this puts the Bonkeys, ahead, is silly.

Because they're losing in the marketplace. And, yes. The corruptions that occurred in congress; due to mismanagement by the GOP; who have locked their lips on pork ... is also a significant reason neither party can really must "the troops."

But at least the GOP is growing wiser. And, in 2008, we'll discover if either party can reach mainstream voters. Or not. And, if the candidate who reaches the White House is "one of them," or someone strictly "independent."

That current congress critters are under pressure? You bet! And, where's the harms in that?

Sometimes, the aristocracies just refuse to listen to the people. Europe is known for this. So, too, is Israel. But that's not how we've elected people to office. And, in America, you can come from "humble beginnings," and make it to the top of the list. At a grave time indeed, Lincoln did.

Even if Bush thought he's hand the Saudi's Mideast real estate, he's not anywhere near that goal. As to Irak? Not a bad idea to take our military to the "hub" of activity. Where we're learning the rules for the battle "games" ahead. No harms in that. IF we drafted soldiers, we'd have millions of them! We don't do "the draft." So we get professionals.

And, in Irak, so far, the People voted in Maliki; and he seems to be holding his own.

We still have monumental rot at the UN. State Department. And, CIA. With the clowns in the FBI, not too far behind. But their leadership is without elephants.

Meanwhile, the Saud's have used their oil profits to fund the terror through their religion. Wouldn't be the first time "fighting" like this was tried. Our history books are full of unsuccessful examples.

Yup. 2008 will court change.

And, I think enough Americans will demand a fair accounting system, so "stealing the votes" won't quite cut it. For leadership? Well, you really need leaders.

Our system has worked.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 30, 2007 2:47 PM

My absolute favorite remains Reid's claim that the Democrats' Congress' approval rating of 18% is because President Bush's approval rating is low.

I think anyone who saw that one had the same expression my dog gives when I ask her to go to the fridge and get me a beer.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 30, 2007 2:50 PM

sorry for the duplicate-dunno how it happened

Posted by NoDonkey | August 30, 2007 3:17 PM

"these will prove popular among the Left, but the rest of the country may wonder whether the Democrats have lost their minds."

This Democrat Congress is possibly the dimmest collection of clowns, ever assembled for the purpose of passing legislation.

Every day that Harry Reid drools, curses and fouls himself while attempting to address Congress, is a dark day for this nation and just yet another day of disgrace for the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.

The last time a Congressional Democrat was capable of a complete thought, was in the midst of a deep bong hit during a 1967 Jefferson Airplane concert.

Every single Democrat should be dragged out of Congress and hurled screaming into a DC sewer.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | August 30, 2007 3:23 PM

Wow, it took the leftists 9 months to figure out they'd been duped in the '06 elections? I'm shocked.

I read the Harry Reid interview with the noted doofus Bill "Lovenstein Institute" Press. Press makes this hilarious claim:

"And the reality also, Senator, is that the Republicans have put up a sixty-vote obstacle on most issues, and they have enough votes that they can stop you from getting to sixty."

Press seems to forget that the Dems used the exact same tactic when they controlled the Senate.

Posted by Lightwave | August 30, 2007 4:57 PM

The minority in 2008-2010? More like the minority from 2008-2030. If not longer.

I seriously believe the fallout from the continuing improvement in the Iraq War is being grossly underestimated. The damage to the Dems among swing voters will assure that the close races go to the GOP...and will stay there.

"The Democrats are the party that almost lost us the Iraq War" will be a generational meme, Ed. As the situation on the ground in Iraq improves and the Dems continue to pander to the moonbats, the center-right and independents will turn to the GOP to lead this country, convinced that 2006 was a fluke that can't be allowed to happen again.

Americans will get behind the war when they realize it can be won, and that more importantly, it is being won now. The Democrats are invested fully in America's failure in Iraq. That's the only platform plank they have. In 2008, the voters will make them walk that plank. We're already seeing the evidence that the Democrats are self-destructing.


Posted by Bennett | August 30, 2007 6:29 PM

I don't think it's a bad thing to debate these issues and for us to know what is safe to know about what the government is doing. I don't reflexively assume my side is right and the other side is wrong. And that's the problem I think. As soon as I hear someone ranting about Gitmo and how it should be closed, I think okay, I'll give that a fair hearing but what do you suggest we do instead? And there doesn't seem to be any solutions offered from the left.

National security issues should transcend partisan bickering. But they don't. It's all about pushing back against the White House or punishing Bush or, on the other side of the aisle, politicizing the left's politicizing of the issues.

If you're a Dem, anything done by the Republicans is bad. And vica versa. And so nothing gets looked at fairly or debated honestly. It's all just leverage. Somebody benefits from all this bickering but I don't think it's the American people.

Post a comment