More advice on how to “fight back,” this time from Elaine Kamarck, who was a lecturer at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and a senior adviser to Vice President Al Gore.
“Some Democrats are so freaked by the past they are arguing that members of the party should stay away from one of the biggest issues of the day: the Bush administration’s domestic spying operations.
This is a mistake for two reasons. First, if the Democratic leaders stay away from this issue, the activist left will fill the void. The left wing of the party frequently manages to sound weak on defense and weak on terror. Nothing could play more into Rove’s hand. He wants this debate to be about eavesdropping on al-Qaida, familiar territory on which they win.
Second, if Democratic leaders can’t question an issue with profound constitutional importance, a great many Americans will wonder – as they did in the past two elections – whether this party believes in anything at all.”
Update [2006-2-9 22:34:5 by howieinseattle]: Howard Dean Frames the Issue on Good Morning America Today:
“GIBSON: There has been a lot of discussion in Washington in recent days about the warrantless wiretaps that have gone on. The President says this is necessary to fight terrorism. Do you think this is a winner for the Democrats?
DEAN: Many in his own party disagree. Wiretapping is certainly necessary and the Democrats certainly approve of as much spying on Al Qaeda as we possibly can. What we don’t approve of is breaking the law in order to spy on Americans. The present law is very adequate and the White House itself said so four years ago. All we ask is that we not turn into a country like Iran where the President of Iran can do anything they want at any time. The reason the constitution of this country has lasted as long as it has and this country lasted as long as it has as a real democracy is because there is a check on presidential power. Now, there’s not a big check on this one. We just ask the President to go get a warrant after the fact if he thinks there is an emergency. But there is no reason this President shouldn’t obey the law. And, we expect him to obey the law while defending the country.”
-excerpted from the DNC transcript.
The print press hasn’t found this interview newsworthy, so far.
Then she gets down to how the Dems should state their case:
“And so the challenge is to get the debate onto Democratic grounds. Here’s where not to go. Over the weekend, The Washington Post reported that a majority of these questionable wiretaps led to nothing at all. So what? One good lead could save American lives. Democrats ought to be in favor of all leads that could break or at least interrupt al-Qaida.
Second, it is oh so tempting to compare the case of a president who lied about his girlfriend and got impeached with the case of a president who lied about violating the laws designed to protect Americans’ privacy and didn’t. Don’t go there. It looks like sour grapes.
The questions Democrats ought to be asking are simple: “Why, Mr. President, was the existing law (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) not sufficient to protect us?” The answer is likely to have to do with the new technology of communications, an answer that does indeed have some merit.
So the next question is: “Why, Mr. President, didn’t you seek to update our laws so that they are in keeping with the new technology?” The answer is likely to be that going to Congress would reveal the program to the enemy. But every year Congress passes an intelligence budget that is not revealed to the enemy, to the public or even to the rest of the government. Surely there is a way to do this.
If Democrats get sucked into a debate over tactics in the war on terror, they will lose. But it’s hard to see how they lose if they wage the debate over the rule of law and if they show their willingness to amend the law to strengthen the war on terror.Most important of all, however, is that they take strong positions, grounded in strong values. So how about this for a start, provided to me by my colleague Bill Galston of the Brookings Institution: “We believe that the conduct of war is consistent with the rule of law.”
That’s too long for my bumper. How about this:“Fight Terror, Not the Constitution.”
I like your slogan better than hers. Succinct and direct.
Where can I get one? I’ll take about fifty and start handing them out.
In this business, any love at all is appreciated!
Let’s review what Kamarck* says:
Activist left–selling out to the terrorists.
Bush’s actions and arguments–have merit.
*Elaine Kamarck–founder of the DLC’s “think tank”, the “Progressive” (sic) Policy Institute.
Yep, us damn lefties just hate protecting our country. Yep, we would never ask relevant probing questions about the law. Yep, we have fresh baked cookies for all those misunderstood terrorists.
Maybe the public feels Centrist Dems are too weak to protect our country because they are too weak to even stand up to the Republicans.
I decided to just focus on the content of this article. and not go back and disagree with her over the past, again.
So us leftist are “weak” on national security and terrorism because we have the fuckin GUTS to fight for what’s right, including the illegal surveillence.
The Centrists Dems — the fuckin weak-kneed, head-in-the-sand, scared-of-Rove’s-shadow do-nothings — whose inability to fight for ANYTHING is one of the central reasons we’re in the mess we’re in to begin with, are now calling us lefties weak.
Gimme a fuckin break!
was on the right track in his eulogy at the Corretta Scott King funeral, when he talked about both the Kings being victims of illegal wiretaps.
The Bush Administration claims to have the power to authorize warrantless wiretaps, since we are at war. But what happened to the Kings, to peace groups, and to countless others shows what can happen when powers are in the wrong hands and allowed to go unchecked.
That may be the approach to take — “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” We have those checks and balances for a reason…and if we allow those checks and balances to be thrown aside in the name of the War on Terror, well, then the terrorists have truly won.
You make a good point, reminding us that these abuses are not restricted to the present. I’m not sure their intentions are all that good, however.
The Democrat whose voice sounds loudest and is most credible is the voice of William Jefferson Clinton. He understands the issues, can articulate them more clearly than anyone else, has enough clout to ensure that all the other Demoflunkies fall in line, and has credibility with the American public.
So the question ought to be: Mr. President, do you believe that Bush’s arrogation of power is Constitutional? If so why? If not, why not?
Until Clinton comes out, there will be no traction. The pressure has to be on the Big Dog. Nobody else’s balls are big enough to make a difference.
When we talk about blunders using force and military action, all anybody has to say is Vietnam and “Somalia Black Hawk Down” and crashed helicopters trying to rescue our Iranian Hostages and the Democrats run like scared fucking dogs! What about Bosnia/Kosovo…….Oh yeah, all anybody has to say was that innocent people died when we bombed and we all want to die a thousand deaths. We probably ought to want to die a 1,000 deaths too because innocents died. If anybody has a conscience they want to die a 1,000 deaths when they have had anything to do with the death of innocents. In Clinton’s Army people with security clearances, which is most of the military, knew stuff. They were trusted to know things they needed to know. My husband was called away to an emergency briefing, he came home and his face was ashen but he couldn’t tell me anything. Two days later it was released to the press that in Bosnia through satellite observation we saw what we thought were mass graves gouged into the earth, and we had now confirmed it. My husband told me that that was why he was ashen. The entire Clinton Army had been called to an emergency briefing to let all the soldiers know that they thought this was going on. Then we went in and we went in with Nato, and our soldiers did and still do 6 months tours of the region and yes innocent people died but innocent people lived and they aren’t carving huge graves out of the earth with DC9’s and lining 1,000s of people up in front of them anymore to shoot them in such a manner as to make it simple to kick the ones in who don’t happen to fall into the grave. Fucking, fuck, fuck, fuck, Democrats did it……they committed to it, they took the world with them right in the middle of fucking Europe…..you want to talk about a fucking mess from hell if we would have done it badly, but we didn’t……..we succeeded as brilliantly as anybody could have I think given the whole pile of shit we were given! We won’t own it though and we don’t claim it and we act like it didn’t even happen and it was the most brilliant use of military and force to stop a war and genocide right smack in the middle of the civilized world that has ever happened! I hate war……the ashen faces of soldiers the day of that briefing let me know that soldiers hate war……but war comes sometimes and doesn’t even have to be made up (I know it is hard to imagine such a thing right now), and when the war came for the Democrats they try to act like it never happened. I suppose because they didn’t enjoy it. Well nobody is fucking supposed to enjoy it (unless they have reasons to be institutionalized). Facts are facts though and we did it!