And it is worth noting that in the House, the Dems voted party line against the Patriot Act on the initial procedural vote in favor of a much better alternative. It was only when it was clear that the GOP had the votes to pass it that a lot crossed over to vote in favor. But literally a handful of extra Democrats in the House and the Patriot Act as passed would have been defeated.
I agree that statements are mostly symbolism but then so too are final votes-- what matters are the real amendments that have a chance of passage. And the progressive Dems fought tooth-and-nail for a far better alternative and, while they lost, they still managed to force through the sunset provision - an achievement that will matter tremendously over the long run.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis
To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Dems Fold on Ashcroft
Nathan:
Where was the "fold"? Edwards, Cantwell, Leahy and Feingold are all listed as making tough questions and criticisms of Ashcroft policies. Yep, the hearing did not go as well as hoped because of cautiousness and limits on how long questions could go on from each Senator, but poor strategy is different from "caving." If the Republicans had their way, no hearings would have been held at all.
I knew I could count on you to tout the Dems on this, Nathan. And believe me, I'm not interested in bashing them for lib bashing sake -- too much is at stake. But how does the Patriot Act become law without Dem support? I've heard nothing from Gore on this issue (is he still seen as a, or the, party leader?), and Lieberman's position is simply awful. And yes, there are some like Cantwell and Feingold who've taken principled stands, but they don't make up the core of the national party, and tough questions in a limited hearing session (one that turned into an Ashcroft infomercial) count for zip in the long run. Bottom line, the Dems as a national party are simply going through the motions on this, and even if they could stop Ashcroft, I doubt that they would, fearing how it would make them look come election time. To say the Dems are "cautious" because people like me mention Bob Barr (who seems to have a better understanding of Fourth Amendment issues than Lieberman, who encourages neighbors to spy on each other) makes my point: if Dems acted like a real opposition party, from top to bottom, people like Barr wouldn't stand out in comparison (and why would my mention of Barr hold them back if they truly believed in opposing Ashcroft?). Yes, yes, I know, the Repubs are worse, and we should be thankful that the Dems held hearings at all. But given the result, I wonder what the point was. Opposition pantomime? Raising questions with no interest in actually doing anything on the ground? I remember this during Iran/contra, and the taste is almost as sour.
DP
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20011210/64f28be7/attachment.htm>