« Bipartisan Victory for Net Neutrality in House Judiciary Committee | Main | Heather Embraces Bush, Carville Visits for Madrid »
Friday, May 26, 2006
More Dems Added to the Hall of Shame
General Michael Hayden was approved by the Senate to be the new CIA director by a vote of 78-15, with 7 Senators abstaining. As discussed in a previous post, many Democrats apparently decided not to rock the boat. (See list below.) This despite Hayden's failure to answer many important questions or even to acknowledge at his confirmation hearing that the president must follow the rule of law. This seems especially egregious as we begin the Memorial Day weekend, a holiday honoring the terrible sacrifices made to preserve our freedom, our constitution and the rule of law.
Hayden is a strong supporter of the so-called "unitary presidency," a position that holds that our chief executive can pretty much operate outside the law as long as he makes certain excuses. It's hard to imagine Democrats in an earlier era falling in line so effortlessly for this insidious, unconstitutional and illegal power grabbing.
Today, however, Democrats are falling over each other in an effort to convince voters they're not "weak on terrorism." Instead of standing up to increasing tyranny in the executive branch, they operate entirely within the paralyzing boundaries of right-wing, Rovian issue framing. Neocons everywhere must be chuckling at the ease with which Democrats fall into this trap. So many Dems remain cowed, shamed and manipulated in the face of grave dangers to our democracy, our constitution and the intricate balance of power between the branches of government. They seem unwilling to confront or even admit the growing abuses of power that Dems out here in the real world can see so clearly.
Rather than stepping into the fray on these kinds of issues, too many Democrats are more concerned about not appearing to be "obstructionist." Blindly reactive to right-wing prodding, they spend their time and energy on avoiding criticism instead of representing their constituents. Ask almost any Dem if he or she supports Hayden for CIA Director and you'll get a vehement NO! Then again, ordinary Dems don't seem to count for much in the scheme of things anymore. Our members of Congress answer primarily to big donors, outmoded concepts of "conventional wisdom" and the name-calling of Rush, Rove and right-wing ranters. It's a very sad story.
I was at a Democratic candidate appearance last night and one question raised was why Democrats aren't clearly articulating strong positions on important issues. Several people asked how we can answer critics we meet while canvassing or talking with friends when they complain that Democrats don't stand for anything. The candidate basically responded that the questioner had fallen under the sway of Republican propaganda on that count, and not to believe it.
However, when even incredibly loyal Democrats are disgusted over and over by craven surrenders like this one on Hayden, it gets harder and harder to be out there touting the appeal of Democratic candidates. It gets more and more difficult to get Dems to canvass, phone bank, donate and vote. It becomes almost impossible to counter the criticisms of potential voters when their complaints are justified, reasoned and accurate.
If Democratic leaders want to change the pervasive view that they stand for nothing and are unwilling to fight for what they believe is right, they must do more than pay lipservice to our values. If they're for protecting our privacy and civil rights, they have to vote that way and speak out strongly in defense of these values. If they're for universal healthcare, they must stick their necks out and fight for single payor universal coverage. If they're for equal rights under civil law for all Americans, they have to step up to the plate and say so in no uncertain terms. They have to stop beating around the bush, equivocating and taking the path of least resistance. If they don't I'm afraid they'll find that the Democratic base they need to win elections has drifted off into the sunset. Wake-up calls are everywhere. Let's hope more Democrats hear them and answer them with fearless and principled stands. If not now, when?
Voting Yes: Here are the Dems, including our own Senator Jeff Bingaman, who refused to stand for the rule of law by approving a man instrumental in creating a burgeoning and secretive domestic spying and data mining web:
| Democratic YEAs | ||
Akaka (D-HI) | Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) | Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) |
Democrats who voted against approving the nomination of a man responsible for carrying out illegal acts as head of the NSA:
| Democratic NAYs | ||
| Bayh (D-IN) Cantwell (D-WA) Clinton (D-NY) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) | Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Kennedy (D-MA) | Kerry (D-MA) Menendez (D-NJ) Obama (D-IL) Wyden (D-OR) |
Democrats who did not vote, thus avoiding taking a stand:
| Democrats Not Voting | ||
| Boxer (D-CA) Conrad (D-ND) | Inouye (D-HI) Rockefeller (D-WV) | Salazar (D-CO) |
May 26, 2006 at 11:43 AM in Democratic Party | Permalink
Comments
I see our Senator Repub Rubber Stamp Bingaman, voted in support of Hayden. It makes this Memorial Day all the more meaningful in that we can now add the constitutional concept of personal privacy and the Fourth Amendment to the long list of causalities in Chimp McFlightsuit war on terror. I have come to the conclusion that the so called opposition party is very comfortable in their role as a minority without a voice, guess it's just easier to go along with everything and then whine to the voters how they can't get anything done. If this isn't one more good reason to give some serious thought to a purge of the party leadership, I don't know what is. What the hell do we need Party Leaders for if Harry and Nancy can't get the rest to vote with one voice???
Posted by: VP | May 26, 2006 12:48:13 PM
I can't understand how any of these creeps can justify putting in someone who has done what Hayden has done. Maybe they're thinking the Repubs will make nice with 'em if and when (probably not for years to come) the dems regain a house of congress. They have learning nothing. The republicans are playing hard ball and dems are drooling and trying to act polite.
Politics aint about "nice" and "polite" with the neocon monsters.
Posted by: lalaland | May 26, 2006 12:57:23 PM
Jeff once again show no cajones. Go along and get a long. Wooosh woooosh wooooosh ...the sound of liberty going away.
Posted by: PlacitasRoy | May 26, 2006 3:36:11 PM
At least Madrid made a principled stand on Hayden!
https://www.madridforcongress.com/node/669
Posted by: Madrid Standing Up | May 26, 2006 3:49:28 PM
Your website should also focus on Democrats in New Mexico who continue to break the law and run for public office. Your Hall of Shame list is missing the biggest criminals in New Mexico Please do your homework.
Posted by: Edge | May 27, 2006 1:00:27 AM
Madrid seems to be one of the few Democrats NOT supporting Hayden. Good to see she is taking a strong stand on this one, unlike Bingaman.
Posted by: Nmexdem | May 27, 2006 11:49:23 AM
On the Randi Rhodes show, she offered the explanation that many Dems think that if they stick their neck out they'll immediately be targeted for a smear campaign by the admin/far right. They think that their chances for re-election will be hurt more by a smear campaign than a vote for the admin on an issue which they believe they'll lose on. Are there races where that that thinking is supported by what's going on. Bingaman's recent TV ads suggest he thinks voters in his district prefer someone who can pass as a good neighbor but apparently doesn't take a stand on issues.
Posted by: suz | May 27, 2006 1:51:17 PM
I know that's the usual excuse -- that Republicans will intitiate a smear campaign if Dems support our core values. However, I haven't noticed Republicans stopping their smear campaigns when Dems give in to fear and go along with Republicans, have you? The kicker is that Repubs will smear regardless, so why not vote for what's right, wise and fair?
A good example is the gay marriage issue. Dems have been trumpeting far and wide and often that they don't support gay marriage. And yet Repubs still continue to try and smear Dems on that issue. Why? Because they know Dems are afraid and they use that fear to make points in showing Dems are too cowardly to speak their minds. Everyone knows the vast majority of Dems are for equal civil marriage rights for all. So when Dems pretend that's not true, they just look weak and fearful, like they do with this approval and praise for Hayden.
To be a leader, one must lead, not just follow along in the dust behind Republican fear campaigns. Unfortunately, there aren't many true leaders around these days, certainly not in the Dem candidate pool. And if a few arise, the pack of cowards symbolized by the DLC will slap them down as fast as they can.
Posted by: barb | May 28, 2006 10:37:27 AM
I heard a powerful arguement the other day against Gay marriage. In fact this person said the issue was debated in the NM legislature.
The state cannot afford the social cost of gay marriage. Divorces, court costs, child services, benefits etc.
At first I felt offended on behalf of Gay people because they contribute to the commonwealth as much as anyone else if not more. Wouldn't they be just as entitled to partake of the social coffers?
Having thought about it, I guess it would make a cost impact.
Has anyone else heard this arguement?
Posted by: qofdisks | May 29, 2006 3:11:44 AM
Yeah, that's a great argument against gay marriage. If that's the case, why not make it illegal for straight married people to divorce? Especially if they're Catholic. After all, if Catholics don't want gays to marry because it's against their religion's rules, why are they permitting everying, including Catholics, to get divorces? Shouldn't this be stopped? It costs the state much money.
Speaking of that, why not put straight people in jail if they have children outside of marriage? If we're going to start using civil law to enforce religious rules, why allow this without prison sentences?
Finally, I think we should start enforcing the Old Testament rules that appear alongside Biblical prohibitions against gays. Let's start arresting people for eating shellfish and having sex with their wives when they have their periods. Even better, why allow shellfish to be sold at all? The Bible says it's evil.
If we want to save the state money, why not ban anyone but rich people from getting married and having children? That way we won't end up supporting with welfare and medicaid all the children of straight marriages who end up living with single mothers and receiving benefits.
Obviously I don't agree with any of these recommendations. They make about as much sense as being against gay marriage because it would cost the state money.
I can't believe it's being raised here as something that may make sense. Bigotry lives.
Posted by: Kossian | May 29, 2006 12:19:05 PM
These are all very good points Kossian. I certainly felt the same way when first hearing this. It seemed absurd. However, the arguement IS being used to stop Gay marriage.
But, the costs of social services as they stand are already absorbed.
What about the sudden added social cost as Married Gays are absorbed?
Are there any stats out there say from MA? What are the facts? Is it too soon to tell?
People will have to come up with a solution to this "problem" based in facts before this vital civil right can advance. The cost or any percieved cost will stop this civil right cold.
Posted by: qofdisks | May 29, 2006 1:14:15 PM
