<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I never ever say the Dems act as an "opposition
party"- heck, I challenge the idea of a unified "party" in the European sense
all the time. But let's draw some distinctions here-- Leahy did delay
passage of the Patriot Act for weeks and while the end result was still bad, it
has one crucial amendment, the sunset provision, which means in a few years the
Right will have to pass the whole thing again, which will give the chance to
vote it down in a period of hopefully less hysteria. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Nathan Newman</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=dperrin13@mediaone.net
href="mailto:dperrin13@mediaone.net">Dennis</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 10, 2001 2:13
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Dems Fold on Ashcroft</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nathan:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>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.</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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 <EM>the,</EM> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>DP</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>