Is This Why There Are Lottery Payoffs for the Halftime Score?
The odds are considerable that the recent mini-victory achieved by the House in refusing to knuckle under to fearmongering and bullying by the white house thugs will prove fleeting.
Until now, few in the esteemed halls of Congress have sufficiently transcended their own egomania to notice the fragility inherent in the increasingly self-esteem-challenged and pathologically introspection-phobic executive branch.
May this be a harbinger!
Nevertheless, at this point I am prepared to be thrilled with even tactical victories and on even a limited scale.
Greenwald (at Salon these days) has a considerable (and deserved) store of cynicism when it comes to democratic congressional performance of late, yet even he has some upbeat comments to offer. I encourage you to read the whole post:
-clip-
Americans are worried and even angry about many things. Whether Osama bin Laden is throwing a party because AT&T and Verizon might have to defend themselves in court isn't one of them. Outside of National Review, K Street, and the fear-paralyzed imagination of our shrinking faux-warrior class, there is no constituency in America demanding warrantless eavesdropping or amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms.
On one level, it's difficult to maintain any sustained optimism about the House's defiance yesterday. They were acting far more out of resentment over the procedural treatment to which they were subjected by the White House and, more so, the Senate -- having a bill dropped in their lap again just a couple of days before a deadline and told that they had to pass it, as is, and immediately -- than out of any principled objection to warrantless eavesdropping or telecom amnesty.
-clip-
Still, basic human nature -- if nothing else -- dictates that having finally liberated themselves, however fleetingly, from the truly moronic rule of the Ted "Osama-is-Celebrating" Poes of the world, and having seen that -- as McJoan put it -- "the Democrats stood up to Bush, and the world didn't end," Democrats will crave more of the sweet taste of dignity and autonomy.
As I've noted before, newspaper headlines throughout the year have invariably (and accurately) used verbs such as "surrender" and "bow" and "succumb" and "capitulate" and "lose" to describe what Democrats have done on key issues with regard to George W. Bush. But look at how they are described today by The Washington Post:
[House Defies Bush]
Identically, the NYT article trumpeted the Democrats' stand this way:
[The decision by the House Democratic leadership to let the law lapse is the greatest challenge to Mr. Bush on a major national security issue since the Democrats took control of Congress last year]
Political parties that are "strong," and which are perceived as strong, are ones that "defy" orders and mount "great challenges" against weak and unpopular Presidents by standing on principle -- not ones that bow and capitulate and surrender and lose. Again, leave aside any hope that Democrats will actually be sufficiently motivated by the crucial constitutional principles at stake here. Just basic political self-interest, and basic human dignity, ought to mean that this singular act of defiance will lead to others.
The Post article highlighted the true crux of the "controversy":
White House officials and their allies were angry that the Democrats did not "blink," as one outside adviser said. The decision to defy the White House came in the form of a weeklong adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon.
The reason the President refused to extend by 21 days the "Extremely-Critical-to-our-Survival" Protect America Act -- and instead chose to allow it to expire -- is because the only thing that drives the Republicans is forcing Democrats into ritualistic humiliation: forcing them to surrender and bow over and over. While Jay Rockefeller, Claire McCaskill, Herb Kohl, Ken Salazar and their distinguished friends in the Senate happily rolled over as always, House Democrats, for once, actually refused to play their assigned role of submission, and instead issued clear, potent and persuasive counter-attacks from the likes of Steney Hoyer, Silvestre Reyes, and this one from Chris Van Hollen:
Several Democrats said yesterday that many in their party wish to take a more measured approach to terrorism issues, and they refused to be stampeded by Bush. "We have seen what happens when the president uses fearmongering to stampede Congress into making bad decisions," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "That's why we went to war in Iraq."
-clip-
The always-effervescent and delightfully spot-on Keith Olbermann was also inspired by the white house's absurd and could-have-been-comical, were it not criminal, ongoing intransigence:
A part of what I will say, was said here on Jan. 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then.
"Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer.... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?"
Like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 90-66. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability!
You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger! This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.
For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.
You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You've got to have this law, or we're all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.
It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.
But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.
"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."
Believed? Don't you know? Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.
You're a fascist - get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism?
-clip-
You go, Keith, I couldn't have said it better.
And, in closing, try this from Talking Points Memo on for size:
A Democratic Hill aide checks in:
I can’t remember which show it was – something like the Brady Bunch – where the protagonist is being picked on by a bully and at a certain point lashes out and inadvertently bloodies the bully’s nose (and ends the bully’s tyrannical reign, etc). It seems that the House may have inadvertently done just this. In the face of an all-too-familiar pattern of administration fear mongering instead of cowedly acceding to the administration’s wishes (and tacitly reinforcing the effectiveness of the administration’s fearmongering) the House seems, through something other than a concerted response, to have stumbled into a situation where they have bloodied the administration’s nose. Short of cancelling his Africa trip and spending all of next week demagoging this issue, I don’t see how the admin keeps their credibility on this. A line has been crossed.
I'm not a pop culture aficianado, but I think it was a Brady Brunch episode. In any event, bullying is precisely what the Bush Administration has done to cow Democrats. I'm not yet convinced that we have crossed the Rubicon in terms of Democrats punching the bully in the nose. But even if we have, what took so long?
Late Update: We're having a Brady Bunch v. A Christmas Story throwdown in the emailer comments. Here's TPM Reader DM:
It’s definitely possible that The Brady Bunch had an episode where one of the boys bloodied a bully’s nose, but I’m reasonably confident that the reader is thinking about “A Christmas Story,” where Ralphie finally snaps at all the taunting he is receiving from Scut Farkus, attacks ol’ Scut and beats the crap out of him.
Later Update: The Andy Griffith Show fans are making a late push. Writes TPM Reader JR:
Sorry, but the best example in sitcom land of a bully getting a blackeye is the "Opie and the Bully" episode No. 33 of Andy of Mayberry. In fact, it is far more relevant to the current House-White House showdown than the Brady Bunch. Opie had previously been giving the bully his milk money whenever the bully demanded it. Andy tells Opie a story about how Andy had faced down his bully when he was younger and how even when the bully hit him, it didn't hurt. So, Opie refuses to give up his milk money the next day, takes a shot from the bully (which he doesn't feel) and punches out the bully, who runs home crying.
Pop Culture Arcana Update: TPM Reader SS does the honors:
In that Brady episode, Peter doesn't bloody Buddy Hinton's nose, he knocks his tooth out, giving Buddy a lisp much like the one he mocked Cindy for having.
Until now, few in the esteemed halls of Congress have sufficiently transcended their own egomania to notice the fragility inherent in the increasingly self-esteem-challenged and pathologically introspection-phobic executive branch.
May this be a harbinger!
Nevertheless, at this point I am prepared to be thrilled with even tactical victories and on even a limited scale.
Greenwald (at Salon these days) has a considerable (and deserved) store of cynicism when it comes to democratic congressional performance of late, yet even he has some upbeat comments to offer. I encourage you to read the whole post:
-clip-
Americans are worried and even angry about many things. Whether Osama bin Laden is throwing a party because AT&T and Verizon might have to defend themselves in court isn't one of them. Outside of National Review, K Street, and the fear-paralyzed imagination of our shrinking faux-warrior class, there is no constituency in America demanding warrantless eavesdropping or amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms.
On one level, it's difficult to maintain any sustained optimism about the House's defiance yesterday. They were acting far more out of resentment over the procedural treatment to which they were subjected by the White House and, more so, the Senate -- having a bill dropped in their lap again just a couple of days before a deadline and told that they had to pass it, as is, and immediately -- than out of any principled objection to warrantless eavesdropping or telecom amnesty.
-clip-
Still, basic human nature -- if nothing else -- dictates that having finally liberated themselves, however fleetingly, from the truly moronic rule of the Ted "Osama-is-Celebrating" Poes of the world, and having seen that -- as McJoan put it -- "the Democrats stood up to Bush, and the world didn't end," Democrats will crave more of the sweet taste of dignity and autonomy.
As I've noted before, newspaper headlines throughout the year have invariably (and accurately) used verbs such as "surrender" and "bow" and "succumb" and "capitulate" and "lose" to describe what Democrats have done on key issues with regard to George W. Bush. But look at how they are described today by The Washington Post:
[House Defies Bush]
Identically, the NYT article trumpeted the Democrats' stand this way:
[The decision by the House Democratic leadership to let the law lapse is the greatest challenge to Mr. Bush on a major national security issue since the Democrats took control of Congress last year]
Political parties that are "strong," and which are perceived as strong, are ones that "defy" orders and mount "great challenges" against weak and unpopular Presidents by standing on principle -- not ones that bow and capitulate and surrender and lose. Again, leave aside any hope that Democrats will actually be sufficiently motivated by the crucial constitutional principles at stake here. Just basic political self-interest, and basic human dignity, ought to mean that this singular act of defiance will lead to others.
The Post article highlighted the true crux of the "controversy":
White House officials and their allies were angry that the Democrats did not "blink," as one outside adviser said. The decision to defy the White House came in the form of a weeklong adjournment of the House yesterday afternoon.
The reason the President refused to extend by 21 days the "Extremely-Critical-to-our-Survival" Protect America Act -- and instead chose to allow it to expire -- is because the only thing that drives the Republicans is forcing Democrats into ritualistic humiliation: forcing them to surrender and bow over and over. While Jay Rockefeller, Claire McCaskill, Herb Kohl, Ken Salazar and their distinguished friends in the Senate happily rolled over as always, House Democrats, for once, actually refused to play their assigned role of submission, and instead issued clear, potent and persuasive counter-attacks from the likes of Steney Hoyer, Silvestre Reyes, and this one from Chris Van Hollen:
Several Democrats said yesterday that many in their party wish to take a more measured approach to terrorism issues, and they refused to be stampeded by Bush. "We have seen what happens when the president uses fearmongering to stampede Congress into making bad decisions," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "That's why we went to war in Iraq."
-clip-
The always-effervescent and delightfully spot-on Keith Olbermann was also inspired by the white house's absurd and could-have-been-comical, were it not criminal, ongoing intransigence:
A part of what I will say, was said here on Jan. 31. Unfortunately it is both sadder and truer now than it was then.
"Who's to blame?" Mr. Bush also said this afternoon, "Look, these folks in Congress passed a good bill late last summer.... The problem is, they let the bill expire. My attitude is: If the bill was good enough then, why not pass the bill again?"
Like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Or Executive Order 90-66. Or The Alien and Sedition Acts. Or slavery.
Mr. Bush, you say that our ability to track terrorist threats will be weakened and our citizens will be in greater danger. Yet you have weakened that ability!
You have subjected us, your citizens, to that greater danger! This, Mr. Bush, is simple enough for even you to understand.
For the moment, at least, thanks to some true patriots in the House, and your own stubbornness, you have tabled telecom immunity, and the FISA act.
You. By your own terms and your definitions, you have just sided with the terrorists. You've got to have this law, or we're all going to die. But, practically speaking, you vetoed this law.
It is bad enough, sir, that you were demanding an ex post facto law that could still clear the AT&Ts and the Verizons from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with your illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass e-mail.
But when you demanded it again during the State of the Union address, you wouldn't even confirm that they actually did anything for which they deserved to be cleared.
"The Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America."
Believed? Don't you know? Don't you even have the guts Dick Cheney showed in admitting they did collaborate with you? Does this endless presidency of loopholes and fine print extend even here? If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend.
You're a fascist - get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it! What else is this but fascism?
-clip-
You go, Keith, I couldn't have said it better.
And, in closing, try this from Talking Points Memo on for size:
A Democratic Hill aide checks in:
I can’t remember which show it was – something like the Brady Bunch – where the protagonist is being picked on by a bully and at a certain point lashes out and inadvertently bloodies the bully’s nose (and ends the bully’s tyrannical reign, etc). It seems that the House may have inadvertently done just this. In the face of an all-too-familiar pattern of administration fear mongering instead of cowedly acceding to the administration’s wishes (and tacitly reinforcing the effectiveness of the administration’s fearmongering) the House seems, through something other than a concerted response, to have stumbled into a situation where they have bloodied the administration’s nose. Short of cancelling his Africa trip and spending all of next week demagoging this issue, I don’t see how the admin keeps their credibility on this. A line has been crossed.
I'm not a pop culture aficianado, but I think it was a Brady Brunch episode. In any event, bullying is precisely what the Bush Administration has done to cow Democrats. I'm not yet convinced that we have crossed the Rubicon in terms of Democrats punching the bully in the nose. But even if we have, what took so long?
Late Update: We're having a Brady Bunch v. A Christmas Story throwdown in the emailer comments. Here's TPM Reader DM:
It’s definitely possible that The Brady Bunch had an episode where one of the boys bloodied a bully’s nose, but I’m reasonably confident that the reader is thinking about “A Christmas Story,” where Ralphie finally snaps at all the taunting he is receiving from Scut Farkus, attacks ol’ Scut and beats the crap out of him.
Later Update: The Andy Griffith Show fans are making a late push. Writes TPM Reader JR:
Sorry, but the best example in sitcom land of a bully getting a blackeye is the "Opie and the Bully" episode No. 33 of Andy of Mayberry. In fact, it is far more relevant to the current House-White House showdown than the Brady Bunch. Opie had previously been giving the bully his milk money whenever the bully demanded it. Andy tells Opie a story about how Andy had faced down his bully when he was younger and how even when the bully hit him, it didn't hurt. So, Opie refuses to give up his milk money the next day, takes a shot from the bully (which he doesn't feel) and punches out the bully, who runs home crying.
Pop Culture Arcana Update: TPM Reader SS does the honors:
In that Brady episode, Peter doesn't bloody Buddy Hinton's nose, he knocks his tooth out, giving Buddy a lisp much like the one he mocked Cindy for having.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home