FISA fight
My current prediction (based upon some conversation's I've had with aides and upon simply considering the incentives at play) is that we're not about to see a big cave on FISA. But the last week's reports can't just be ignored, and so, for what it's worth, I have a Comment is Free piece up now explaining why a cave now would be worse than a cave at the outset.
As soon as it became clear that securing congressional approval for a series of draconian espionage policies wasn't going to be as easy as they'd expected, Republicans kicked off a brash but predictable campaign to convince Americans that the Democrats were endangering the country's security, at times even suggesting that their intransigence stemmed from their commitment to the welfare of trial lawyers (presumably the very trial lawyers who will make a killing from civil lawsuits against telecommunications companies who helped the government illegally spy on Americans).There was just one problem with this campaign, and that is that every single element of it was untrue.
Comments
You write in your piece, "Or maybe it was a sign that the American public is genuinely suspicious of such broad power in the hands of the government." Although you present it as theoretical, you're giving the American public too much credit. At one point in time this might have been true, but I'm not so sure "many" Americans can see past the issues that CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News tell them. Nor can they see beyond their six packs of beers, or bags of Chicharrones, or SUVs, or $5.00 a gallon of gas (now being reported in San Francisco). The irony in this whole FISA issue is that Republicans, even slack-jawed, redneck Texas Republicans, should be incensed that this Administration illegally spied on Americans and that this President wants to broaden that power. But they are not! Historically, Republicans have vociferously opposed such government intrusion. Remember how much hell, and rightfully so, Janet Reno endured by some of these same Republicans hailing the updating of FISA and the provision of immunity for telecommunication companies involved in the illegal wiretapping of Americans?
However, you also state, "And if they nonetheless decide they can't win, one might cynically conclude that, deep down, Democrats enjoy the thought of unchecked government surveillance authority as much as Republicans do... they will be signalling that...they haven't learned to speak as a party about national security with anything resembling confidence or principle." I won't cynically conclude that "deep down" Democrats "enjoy" it, but I will cynically conclude that they are in essence giving the Republican argument relevancy by caving. Listen man, if we don't have principles, what do we have? I believe, and maybe naively so, that politicians should "always" fight for principles that are good and just.
I once personally knew a guy who would fight for these principles no matter what: bodily harm, imprisonment, etc. He would literally risk his life for people, even those who had come from considerably more priveleged backgrounds than his, because of these principles. Maybe these Dems need a lesson from Chilean students who definitely know how to fight for what is right out "out of principle!" However, these rich, bloated, comfortable Democrats on the Hill know nothing of this. I could give a rat's ass if it costs them politically. At least I would be able to look at them with pride and honor, something we've forgotten about, brother. Remember why you went to Washington to cover politics or decided to abandon your Astrophysics degree in favor of a modest career in Journalism, even when people told you you were making a mistake? Principle.
By the by, it looks like you've become quite the scholar on FISA. Thanks for keeping us aware of the issue! And, sorry if this comment seems like a pedantic diatribe!
Post A Comment