Dems Fold on Ashcroft

[Nathan Newman]

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.

This silly we have to "depend on Bob Barr" statements gives the few isolated rightwing civil libertarians credit for breathing, while the Dems fighting public accusations of treason for holding a hearing are trashed.  With friends like this backing you up, no wonder the Dems are cautious.  

Feingold and Leahy especially should be praised to the sky for the steady public defense of civil liberties they have made from day one of this crisis. Sure, they could do more, but any Republican replacement would demonstrably do worse.  The Nation article makes that quite clear.

-- Nathan Newman

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Dennis 

  To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com 

  Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:00 PM

  Subject: Dems Fold on Ashcroft

  Not to sound like a certain West Coast writer who loves to thump libs, but what are we to make of the Dems who've either avoided probing Ashcroft, or worse, agree with him? 

  http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=corn20011206

  Is it left to the likes of Bob Barr to protect what liberties remain? I'm sure Nathan will list dozens of Dems opposed to the Patriot Act and like measures (if dozens exist). But what does it matter if most Dems, when facing Ashcroft, simply fold?

  DP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20011210/a5682087/attachment.htm>