I expect Bush any day now to inform us that we have the enemy on the ropes, and that all that's needed to clean up the remnants is to insert 200,000 or so more troops.

Did anyone expect something else?

Of course, it's not merely blameshifting, but also the groundwork to keep our new permanent bases.

And what are Hilary and Clinton promising to do, exactly?

BTW, didn't the Dems just roll over on defense appropriations, FISA spying modifications and in providing a resolution that can serve as a causus belli laundry list for Iran?

what are Hilary and Clinton promising to do

Hilary has vowed to release another lame pop record. Clinton has his sights set on bringing the mothership home.

Thanks. Now how about Hilary and Obama then?

And what are Hilary and Clinton promising to do, exactly?

Is that a rhetorical question, or are you expecting someone here to do your research for you?

M/M, rhetorical, while correcting the error that Ca kindly pointed out.

Certainly didn't mean to burden anyone. After all, we know that Hillary and Obama along with the other Dems in Congress, are basically sheep. That's why they're so popular.

Oh, if only there were organizations and activists who cared about these things!

Okay, but what's your recommendation, Tom? The reality of American politics is that we have a far right and a center-right party from which to choose. As the quadrant post illustrated, 'most everybody who hangs out here is to the left of Kucinich and nobody is offering full-throated defenses of the Democrats. But you have to go with the opposition you have, not the opposition you wish you had. So I'm not clear who you feel you're debating.

If a post-withdrawal Iraqi government should break off relations with the US, what happens to all those bases -- not to mention our billion dollar embassy?

apo, if you're all with me in wanting to see a Democratic party that has backbone and cares about our rights (instead of a bunch of pussies who don't want to do any real work to set prioroities and defend their Constitutional role and prerogatives), then why I am the only one asking for it?

I think we desperately need checks and balances, and the Dems in Congress now inspire no confidence. If this is how they are now, then for checks and balances in 2008 I am very concerned that we will simply mirror what we got with the Rethugs.

didn't the Dems just roll over

Not all of them, no. But enough to go along with the entire Republican caucus that the Republican president got what he wanted. Am I disgusted with the Democratic (lack of) leadership on those things? Of course I am. Would this be happening under a Democratic president? Possibly. Bill Clinton's record on civil liberties was spotty. But it was a hell of a lot better than you'd get from anybody on the other side of the aisle (blah blah Ron Paul blah blah, call me when he breaks 1% nationally).

Look, if you'd like my opinion of Hilary Clinton, here's what I wrote at Unfogged:

It isn't just video games and flag burning. She has defended the Defense of Marriage Act, supported building a wall along the Mexican border, supported the Israeli wall in the Palestinian territories, supported the PATRIOT Act, supports the death penalty, opposes single-payer healthcare, only Santorum got more money from the insurance industry last cycle, she voted for the godawful bankruptcy bill...and of course, she still can't bring herself to say the Iraq War was a mistake.

What am I supposed to find appealing here? We do have *actual* Democrats we could run for president.

I think she's the worst possible nominee for the Democrats at this point in time. As for Obama, I'm neither here nor there on him, as I have trouble pinning down exactly where he stands on things, given his propensity for talking in vague generalities. And I've been pretty clear that I'm an Edwards supporter, as he's the only candidate with a shot at winning who is actually out supporting honest-to-God progressive policies and offering some detail.

But any of them is still leaps and bounds better than the GOP, and the pox-on-both-your-houses approach to American politics is deeply unserious. American foreign policy is and always has been terrible under either party, but it's significantly less terrible under any Democratic administration since LBJ. And there are other issues where the differences are much more clear cut. For example, we're one Supreme Court justice away from back alley abortions with coat hangers.

So I'll ask again: what's your recommendation, given that nothing on God's green earth could get me to vote for Ron Paul with his 76% lifetime rating from the Christian Coalition.

Charles, good question. I am afraid that there is no intention that we walk away from those bases at any time in the foreseeable future.

then why I am the only one asking for it?

You aren't.

12: The candidate I support intends to walk away from the bases.

if you're all with me [...] why I am the only one asking for it?

Because it doesn't make sense to ask of it people who have no ability to do anything about it. I mean, if it makes you feel better to keep asking the commenters here why we haven't personally stopped the war in Iraq and balanced the budget, then I guess I can understand wanting to feel better, but it ain't accomplishing much. My representative in Congress voted against the FISA amendments and the like. My senators are both Republicans, and lost causes.

14: And Gitmo too?

15: My Congressman is Mike Conaway, a Bush stooge from way back. He was CFO of Arbusto, for god's sake. (Then I got Kay Bailey Hutchins and John Cornyn for my Senators.)

And Gitmo too?

Yes. "As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture."

I say it's high time to try the President in a court of law, convict him, and sentence him to death by hanging on the White House Lawn.

Okay, maybe not, I'm against the Death Penalty.

Perhaps we should simply have him detained as an enemy combatant.

Just wait. The war rhetoric on Iran is building up just like in 2002. Are you ready for World War Three?

Bush doesn't want to leave his Presidency with Iran unscathed, you know.

That ought to make things rather interesting for our Shia "allies" in Iraq in the coming years.

14: Great. But I guess this is his more nuanced position. But ongoing military "training" and protecting the huge embassy seem like very flexible caveats.

TT: I realize you are against the occupation of Iraq torture, the destruction of civil liberties and war with Iran. But are you against them enough to make any sacrifices? Like, for instance, supporting -- or god forbid, actually donating or volunteering for -- a candidate who's with you on the most important stuff, even if they're not perfect? or is it more important to you to stay on your high horse?

lemuel, thanks for the questions.

I'm struggling with answers, honestly, because it seems increasingly obvious to me that underlying all of our current mess are dynamics that fuel the growth of government and the concommitant partisan bickering over who gets to control the spigots of power. Both parties are guilty of jerrymandering to lock the other out power wherever it can, neither seems particularly interested in policing its own or standing up to a President of its own party, so we simply have a joy ride of pork barrel and corruption when the other party can't provide a check on the other - as the Bush administration/Rep Congress show so well.

Another check that has gone missing is a Congress that cares about its Constitutional responsibilities and prerogatives.

More and more, I am concerned that the closest we get to responsbile government is when one party has the White House, but the other has the Congress (or Congress is split). For this reason, I voted straight Democratic in the last election.

As for the election coming up, I'm torn. I wouldn't be able to stand voting for most Republicans, but am worried that out imperial government will continue on its merry bloated way, without really rolling back the worst offenses of the Bush era, if Dems control both the Congress and the White House. I don't really want to rag on people here too much, but don't mind sharing my concern about the dynamics.

I certainly do consider that to be a productive use of my time. As far as sacrifices go, there are certainly personal costs to standing outside of the mainstreams and being critical of both.

By the way, did anyone see the news that a conservative think tank has hosted a commentator's call for Bush to declare himself "President for Life" and to remove all Arabs from the Middle East so he can "repopulate the country with Americans", thereby "turning it from a liability to an asset"?

Oh, for the days when "conservative" meant a small government that didn't meddle abroad and left its citizens alone!

Regards,

TT

Oh, for the days when "conservative" meant a small government that didn't meddle abroad and left its citizens alone!

And when was that exactly?

It only means that when they aren't in power. Tom, what you're describing is essentially the Nader dilemma. Neither party is all that close to your preferred policy, but they are the only realistic options available. The lesson to be drawn from it is just how far the Naderites' agenda has gotten since his windmill-tilting vanity runs. Nobody here, I'm betting, thinks the Democrats are any great shakes. We're all adults, we've all been watching American politics for a long time. The issue, really, is the Republican Party. It isn't hyperbole to say they are rapidly transitioning into an authoritarian party dominated by neo-Confederate racists and religious fanatics. It's just true.

You're not going to get your ideal libertarian DC; I'm not going to get my ideal social democratic one. But there are only two choices on the menu right now and one of them has revealed itself to be—let's call it what it is—evil. Lob all the criticisms you like against the Democratic Party, but they didn't assert a right to hold US citizens indefinitely without charges or representation, the very most basic right that modern representative government is supposed to protect. They have *consistently* been more responsible economically, less belligerent abroad, and less willing to fellate Pat Robertson and Sun Myung Moon. Perhaps not to the extent that you or I would like, but nonetheless, consistently so.

Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a time-honored mistake, but it's still a mistake.

24: It certainly was a long time ago, M/tch.

26: You mean never, right?

Let's not forget our founding fathers, okay?

There were at least a few small-government conservatives in politics after then, though certainly Lincoln was not one of them, and the way was lost when we annexed the Phillipines and Roosevelt won the court-packing contest that brought us the New Deal and a clearly preeminent and rapidly growing federal government. Probably Goldwater was really the last prominent and sincere small government conservative in politics.

Perhaps you also noticed that there has been a rather famous break-up between the "make the world safe for Israel" neocons and the those "paleocons" who think we should rein in our government and empire, which they view as the biggest threat to our liberty and security. As I previously noted, some of them are behind the "Freedom Pledge", which is intended to draw attention to the abuses of Bush.

By all means bash modern "conservative" hypocrisy as you see it; I'll probably agree. Smaller government (certainly a smaller military) is the key to less hypocrisy and pork barrel.

Perhaps we ought also to take seriously Jefferson's proposal the the constitution, all laws and public debt expire automatically every 19 years, to give each generation the ability to make its own start and to prevent current generations from voting themselves federal largess at the expense of their children.

Good points, apo. The real reason to vote Democratic in my mind is that we need to set right what's been wrong in the Justice Department and to really pursue the abuses of power that have occurred.

The problem will be that Dems will be subject to the same pork-barrel and influence-peddling temptations that the Republicans have so infamously proven incapable of resisting. So investigations and the like will probably seen as simple partisan payback, with Dems also pumping up the budget to provide favors for constituents and special interests (what we are guaranteed to see for ethanol and "alternative energy" by the way) even as they are unlike to have much interest in dealing with corrpution on their own side of the aisle (Jefferson).

The pure partisan view is what allows you to call the whole Republican party evil. I'd save that for a few at the top, and leave the rest at craven, pandering, self-deluded and self-righteous. But there have been very few Dems who have shown any backbone either, and the reason that both parties have been keen to jerrymander the other out of power has nothing to do with better representing the interests of constituents, but getting a lock on power to control big government.

I will probably vote Dem, but I hope people will start to question what underlies this very sick dynamic, which allows elites at the top on both sides) to mismanage government for private purposes. That temptation will never disappear, so we need a real focus on checks and balances and on limiting the relative importance of central government and thus of the consequences of manipulation for the benefit of special interests.

unlike to have much interest in dealing with corrpution on their own side of the aisle (Jefferson)

Jefferson was stripped of his committee assignments. The people of Louisiana decided to re-elect him. There is little else the Party can do but wait for the federal trial. However, if your point is that political parties will attempt to game the system to their advantage, well, clutch the pearls.

The pure partisan view is what allows you to call the whole Republican party evil.

The past six years are what allows me to call the whole Republican Party evil. It's more than just a few people at the top. At the federal level, the Republican Party is a criminal enterprise that has fought tirelessly to legalize torture, eliminate habeas corpus protections, and unilaterally attack nations that neither have nor could threaten us. All the while hurling accusations of treason at those who have opposed them and clawing their way into office by whipping up homophobia and racism among the nastiest and most regressive elements of American society.

Look, there were good and decent people serving in the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, in the Communist Party in the USSR, and in the Nazi Party in Germany. That doesn't mean that the entire enterprises weren't evil; it just means that ruling parties are more than their individual constituents. The GOP as it exists today is not a force for good. They are a different beast than they were even twenty years ago, when some moderates still retained power.

I'm a registered Democrat, though I find the Democratic Party well to the right of what I'm comfortable with. I'm not really concerned with promoting their fortunes. I'm concerned with stopping a Republican Party that turned criminal in the 60s and has since slid steadily toward open fascism. And there's only one group with any shot whatsoever of doing that.

Apo, I completely share your sense of outrage. However, one should distinguish between mere (though gross) corruption and lack of concern for institutional prerogatives in Congress, vicious gerrymandering efforts by the Party organization and Delay in Texas, and the real blackness in the White House.

Evil comes in many forms, including the dragons' teeth sown domestically in divisiveness and fear for political gain, the eagerness of average Americans to jump at these, and the lack of balls by many in Congress and outside to stand up to this for a long time.

Not trying to argue with you here, though. Our country needs us all to have a really good dose of righteousness and outrage right now.