The Broad View

Full faith and credit -- not!

It's axiomatic that "capitalism depends on credit," and that credit relies on faith -- faith in the ability of the other guy to repay his loans, faith in the markets to play by the rules, faith in the rules themselves. Faith and uncertainty are mutually exclusive. With the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the economic stability package, the uncertainty has not only not been resolved, but, according to some market watchers, has hardened into despair. The enormous stress on markets is global in scope, and as the commentators on CNBC are noting, now with some regularity, in this crisis Main Street and Wall Street are not severable; they are joined at the hip.

The "nay" votes were presumably not driven by any reality except a short-term political one and an exceedingly narrowly conceived ideological one. Congresspersons looking to next month's election were particularly responsive to the negative view of the legislation flowing to them from their constituents. Their job was, first, to educate themselves, and then to educate the folks back home about the Main Street realities. In this, too, they obviously failed.

So, of course, did the press. The public relations aspect cannot be overlooked. The more the press headlined "Wall Street bailout" the less likely it was that John Q. Public would understand that passage was essential to his own well-being, not merely, if at all, to the well-being of the fat cats with their mansions and Mercedes-Benzes.

Some Republicreep has the CNBC microphone saying he doesn't want to add $700 billion to the debt of his children and grandchildren. How thoughtful of him. But in the meanwhile, today $1 $1.4 billion in market capitalization has been eradicated. That's twice the amount of the rescue. In one day!

And some of that money was mine.

What I wanna know is this...

How come suddenly the opinion of the "the American people" is so damned important to Republican legislators, when they never seemed to pay attention to public sentiment on, say, the Iraq War?

I weep for us...for our poor, broken country

Glenn Greenwald: "Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama — The Democratic nominee's support for this bill speaks volumes about what he is and isn't."

Read it and you'll weep too.

I ♥ Russ Feingold

I ♥ Russ Feingold, here speaking at the New America Foundation:

Why couldn't he be our president? I suppose the country would sooner vote for a black centrist in progressive clothing, a woman centrist in center-right clothing or an intellectually bankrupt senatorial hack who's spent the last thirty-five years dining out on his wartime captivity and unrepentent warmongering than for a scrupulously straightforward, maverick Jewish liberal.

Update: If not Feingold, how about this guy? Chris Dodd is another hero of mine. He and Feingold are pledged to filibuster the FISA abomination. The latest has Reid suggesting that he may push consideration of the bill to after the 4th of July recess. If so, patriots have more time to push back against Dems determined to sell out their constituents and our Constitution. Let's get to it.

Is it time for the revolution?

Here is Barack Obama's statement on the FISA abomination just passed by the House:

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

A nuanced statement, indeed. We have to squint to detect any meaning, but a close reading is rewarded with this: "I may have taught constitutional law, but now I'm running for president and I'm so afraid of the big, bad Republicans calling me a sissy that I'll toss over the Fourth Amendment and promise to do better 'going forward.' Please stop asking me to actually lead the party in opposition to this bill. It's a done deal. I'm trying to put enough lipstick on this pig in the hope that you'll believe me and not the ACLU or your own lying eyes. Harry Reid's a nice old man, and I really don't want to make trouble for him, so do try to see that this is the best of all bipartisan worlds and, while you're at it, go to barackobama.com to make your donations, little people."

Speaking of Harry Reid, a dKos diarist has this from an interview Reid gave Bloomberg Television (no link yet):

Reid said the Senate may try to remove a provision from the bill that shields telephone companies from privacy lawsuits. Holding a separate vote on that issue next week may provide political cover for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Even though the attempt may fail, Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to "express their views."

"I'm going to try real hard to have a separate vote on immunity," Reid said in an interview to be aired this weekend on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt."

"Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try."

Translation: "I'm a Potemkin Senate Majority Leader. You can express your views as much as you like, but the sham will go on."

Greg Sargent over on TPM Election Central (a good place to hang these days) shares an email from Glenn Greenwald:

"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"

As an American, I am truly ashamed of my government. I fear the corruption and rot are so endemic that nothing and no one will be able to stop our slide from a great nation of laws into a backwater banana republic, stinking and flyblown.

The Democratic leadership treats us, their base, as cynically as the Republicans treat theirs. The underlying assumption is, "Who else ya gonna vote for? Nader? Just sit down and STFU. Oh yeah, send a donation." That last bit? The DCCC, over the signature of Madame "Off the Table" Pelosi, sent out a fundraiser email right after the Great FISA Cave-in. Ha!

The only campaign I'd be willing to donate money toward is the campaign to get rid of Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, and every other Dem who's been eager to bend over and take it for Bush.

"An evisceration of the Fourth Amendment..."

The imminent cave by House Dems to Bush's FISA bill demands finally makes sense.

The FISA bill, as we all know by now, gives the telecoms retroactive immunity for illegal wiretaps at the behest of the administration as well as broad new powers to spy on Americans. In this, it renders the Fourth Amendment a quaint relic of a braver and simpler age.

All the time, it was obvious that the sine qua non of the bill was the retroactive immunity. It would shut down cases already in motion and by doing so, keep the details of the administration's machinations forever secret, safe from pre-trial discovery. In other words, the immunity wasn't so much for the telecoms, it was for the lawbreakers in the administration, from John Yoo to Dick Cheney to George W. Bush and all the little Republican eavesdroppers in-between.

I've been so naive, actually thinking that it was the usual spinelessness of the Democratic leadership that kept the abominable bill alive -- that, and the fact that the telecoms have been most generous in their contributions to all concerned.

On Countdown tonight, however, Jonathan Turley and Olbermann suggested the real motive for Pelosi, Hoyer, Rockefeller and Reid's eagerness to cave in and move on -- the real reason the bill never died but came back each time with more urgency -- was that too many Dems, especially in the leadership, are just as guilty of colluding with the administration and enabling Bush's clearly illegal spying.

Essentially what we're witnessing is a bi-partisan "evisceration of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution," according to Turley. He also characterized the bill as "reverse engineering, the type of thing the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing, that is, to change the law to conform to past conduct."

It's simple: If Bush had been robbing banks for the past seven years, he's about to get the law changed to make bank robbery legal. He'll be off the hook, and so will his gang and the Dems driving the getaway cars.

How could I be so stupid and naive? It's all very, very demoralizing. I was furious with Congressional Dems as it was. Now I'm just utterly deflated. I don't even hold out that much hope for real change with Obama. Right now, he's busy tacking rightward for the general election and I've always thought it's where he's most comfortable anyway. Is he about to risk standing up in the Senate and devoting a little of his eloquence in defense of the Fourth Amendment?

By the way, can I tell you how much I adore Jonathan Turley?

Methinks he doth protest too much

Wow. I happened to catch a break in the Spitzer Scandal and Totally Tanking Economy news coverage: Emperor Bush commanded some live teevee time for a little barking from the bully pulpit on the House Dems' "partisan" FISA bill. Let me tell you, he's trying to sound pissed but it's looking more and more like panic to me.

Anyone who believes Bush is merely an inarticulate clod hasn't seen him when he's really focused and right now he's totally focused on getting telecom immunity. In just a few minutes, he pulled out every bogus argument, hammered each at least twice, implied that House Dems would rather embolden terrorists and trial lawyers than keep your children safe, vowed to veto the House bill and demanded they pass his bill before Easter break. He then turned and stalked off.

I don't expect the craven Dems to hold the line against this. They have no idea how to counter Bush's version of reality. They're too frightened of President Twenty Percent to see or even care that in this we've finally found his Achilles' heel.

Bush knows these telecom suits will pry open the doors of his administration's dungeon and that he could be found criminally liable. I believe there is no issue more important to Bush right now. From now until next Jan. 20 the White House will do everything to shred, burn and bury the evidence of eight years of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The miserable Pelosi may have taken impeachment off the table but there's no reason Bush couldn't be indicted in criminal court or sued in civil court once he's an ordinary citizen again. (Here I must admit to a small irrational fear that Bush and Cheney will engineer the October surprise to end all October surprises, such that elections are "postponed" indefinitely.) The idea -- no, the certainty that Bush and his criminal gang will walk is intolerable.

Update: Kagro X over on DKos is feeling more sanguine about the House Dems' ability to resist Bush:

Every time Congressional Dems actually slow down and take stock of the situation -- from Senator Chris Dodd's brave (and lonely and seemingly futile) stand, to the cautious maneuvering of House Dems today -- new revelations arise that should make all Americans who value our freedoms glad they did. [...]

Every time the Congress seems ready to give in on FISA, we find out more about how crazy Bush is, the deal falls apart, and the Constitution wins back a few inches of turf.

No one will be happier to be wrong about the House Dems than I. If enough of them rediscover their backbones -- with a little help from blogosphere activism -- to defy Bush's demands, I will do a happy dance. Update 2: Glenn Greenwald has more.

The choices before us

I'd like to second Ellen's post below and add another name to the list of today's important progressive commentators and analysts, namely Glenn Greenwald. Glenn has been the blogosphere's point man in documenting the administration's assault on the Constitution. Which brings me to the reason for breaking my long silence: Now that Dodd is out of the race, which of the remaining Democratic candidates is talking about restoration of Constitutional norms, of rollback on the Bush-Cheney unitary executive?

On Thursday night I watched what was perhaps the most important Democratic debate of the primary season. Not only was the question not asked, neither candidate thought it necessary to raise the issue.

The Boston Globe published an interview last October 11 in which Clinton declared, "I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency." She also claimed that she did not subscribe to the unitary executive theory and would use signing statements only as clarification of contradictory bills.

In an interview with Clinton published in the Guardian on October 23, Michael Tomasky opened pointedly:

I want to start with some questions about foreign policy and terrorism. If you become president you'll enter the White House with far more power than, say, your husband had. What is your view of this? And what specific powers might you relinquish as president, or renegotiate with Congress - for example the power to declare a US citizen an enemy combatant?

Well, I think it is clear that the power grab undertaken by the Bush-Cheney administration has gone much further than any other president and has been sustained for longer. Other presidents, like Lincoln, have had to take on extraordinary powers but would later go to the Congress for either ratification or rejection. But when you take the view that they're not extraordinary powers, but they're inherent powers that reside in the office and therefore you have neither obligation to request permission nor to ask for ratification, we're in a new territory here. And I think that I'm gonna have to review everything they've done because I've been on the receiving end of that. There were a lot of actions which they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted or that in my view that was inherent in the constitution. There were other actions they've taken which could have obtained congressional authorization but they deliberately chose not to pursue it as a matter of principle.

I guess I'm asking, can a president, once in the White House, actually give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle?

Oh, absolutely, Michael. I mean that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.

What sounds like a promise of rollback is, if read closely, more of a promise to review "extraordinary" (not "illegitimate") powers. It's all rather nebulous. Tomasky asked for specifics -- even provided the specific example of the power to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant -- and Hillary produced a lot of words signifying little and promising nothing beyond her "intention" to do something. It is worth your time to read the entire transcript, as well as Tomasky's analysis of the interview. He writes:

One major concern of liberals about Clinton is her preternatural caution as a politician-her general unwillingness to stick her neck out and risk political capital in behalf of a progressive policy goal that wasn't a safe issue. I asked her to name one issue during her Senate tenure on which she'd done this. Answer: "Well, I think, you know, voting against funding. What did we get, 12, 13, 14 votes on that?" She was referring to a vote last May to make emergency supplemental appropriations to the Iraq war effort. The measure passed 80-14. Clinton and her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, both voted no, announcing their votes very late in the process.

This, of course, wasn't really what I meant. By the time of this vote, she was in full presidential campaign mode and trying to establish her bona fides with the party's anti-war base. So the political risk inherent in this vote was small. Indeed it was Joe Biden, who was the only senator/presidential candidate to vote yea, who risked something politically, whatever one thinks of his vote substantively.

After I followed up, Clinton went into a defence of how progressive her voting record was; but again, this wasn't what I meant. I was asking about examples of leadership. So the answer to the question was that there really wasn't one thing that she could think of on which she'd taken a risk in behalf of a progressive policy end.

This has been one of my chief complaints about Clinton -- that she has never taken a controversial stand or headed the Democratic opposition despite having a safe seat and the stature to rally support. As I wrote back in October:

When will Democrats understand what the Republicans seem to know in their bones: Issues are all very well and good but when all else is equal, the edge will always go to the candidate who convinces the majority that he/she is the best leader. Character does count, and there are too many people -- myself included -- who just don't trust Hillary Clinton.

I didn't start out being a Hillary hater. But her stands on the biggest issues of our times are the stuff of clouds and mist. She is the ultimate political chameleon.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has no problem in asserting leadership and he is eloquent on how and where he wants to lead the country. But like Clinton, he seems loathe to risk alienating anyone. He wants to change how politics are done -- by fiat, or force of will or personality, or something. He wants to bring us together and has based his entire candidacy on the belief that this is What Americans Want.

Well, yes, we would like unity for a change. But not at any cost.

My question for Obama is this: Are there any limits to your desire to reach across the aisle? In other words, is there anything on which you will not compromise? Are there any progressive goals or ideals which cannot be diluted? Is there no issue where liberals are unequivocally right and compromise would be wrong?

And the follow-up: What exactly leads you to believe that Republicans will suddenly agree to change how they do politics? How will you respond when (it's virtually a certainty) the right wing starts attacking your character, your patriotism, your honesty and your judgement? You've staked out the side of the angels. Decency is your calling card. You're clearly uncomfortable on the attack. Do you think you can shame Republicans into shutting up? Good luck. I think they're shameless.

I'm not happy about my choices for this Tuesday. I've made no secret that my dream candidate would have been Al Gore. Since that was a non-starter, I'd been leaning toward Edwards even though I knew his passionate advocacy for the people the Democratic Party has forgotten would read as pugnacity and anger and get him nowhere with an electorate (and a media elite) that finds any rhetoric stronger than milquetoast politically unsavory.

It's now in the wee hours of Saturday morning and I still have not decided for whom I'll pull that lever on Tuesday. I had vowed, way back when, that I'd vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton. I just couldn't see the rationale for her candidacy and I resented any view of her as heir presumptive. Obama sounds like the leader so many of us have wanted since JFK and Bobby Kennedy were taken from us. But is he really that leader, or is it all rhetoric?

Both Obama and Clinton have objectively been followers of Edwards during this campaign. It's been Edwards' detailed proposals that have forced them -- shamed them, actually -- into offering something beyond bland boilerplate on Iraq, health care and the growing gap between rich and poor in America.

At this writing it appears that whoever ultimately prevails will face St. John McCain in the general election. The ass-backwards wing of the Republican party may hate McCain, but he's their best chance at winning in November. McCain will present some unique challenges to the Dem candidate and the question remains which of the last two standing can best knock McCain off his pedestal.

I opened with the observation that neither Clinton nor Obama are conspicuously championing the restoration of Constitutional norms. On the afternoon before the debate, Digby wrote this in a post explaining why, despite rumors to the contrary, politics are not likely to change anytime soon:

Democrats may very well win the election. And they may have a large working majority. Hopefully they will get some good things done for the country. But if they do not run on and then act on these constitutional abuses, they will be used again the next time a Republican is in office (if not sooner) and we will have to fight this battle all over again, having lost a tremendous amount of territory in the meantime. What we will have lost in terms of morality and decency is uncountable.

This stuff should not be brushed aside. And my biggest worry is that neither Clinton, due to the structural and institutional loathing for her in the political establishment, or Obama, who is running as a uniter not a fighter and will have little political capital for "looking backwards," will make this a priority.

Thoughts, anyone?

Toujours l'audace

The internets are abuzz over the truly explosive revelations by Qwest's former CEO regarding the administration's interest in supposedly illegal wiretapping six months before the 9/11 attacks. The Washington Post has the story:

A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.

Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.

Details about the alleged NSA program have been redacted from the documents, but Nacchio's lawyer said last year that the NSA had approached the company about participating in a warrantless surveillance program to gather information about Americans' phone records. [...]

In May 2006, USA Today reported that the NSA had been secretly collecting the phone-call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by major telecom firms. Qwest, it reported, declined to participate because of fears that the program lacked legal standing.

Nacchio has said that the NSA proposal was made at a Feb. 27, 2001 meeting. So less than six weeks after taking office, the administration is pursuing warrantless eavesdropping spying on Americans. Their audacity is breathtaking.

Kagro X spells it out perfectly (h/t Avedon):

So here's the key. The domestic spying has always been justified by saying it was a necessary response to 9/11. But clearly there's damned good reason to believe these programs were conceived and initiated well before the September 11th attacks. [...]

But it's not just that. If Qwest's competitors were already abetting this bloodless(?) coup before 9/11, then the "administration's" domestic spying not only has little if anything to do with response to terrorism, but it also objectively failed to prevent 9/11.

When Congress gets to deciding about retroactive immunity for the telcos who signed on to the program, maybe they can forget the excuse that it was the telcos' patriotic duty to break the law. Perhaps Congress might spend a little time finding out what was really going on in February 2001.

Decaying Democrats

These are not good times to be a Democrat. I'm finding it harder and harder to self-identify with the hapless clowns we sent to Congress with such high hopes just six months ago.

I'm supposed to puff up with pride at the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House. I'm afraid that from the moment she declared impeachment "off the table," I've seen only a slightly addled and pleasant grandma who's still under the impression that these are normal times. (And will she please get her goddamn dentures fixed so she can stop adjusting them with every Stepford smile?)

A few days ago, I received a fund-raising email from the DCCC, one more in a stream of email solicitations from various Democratic entities. They want my money, if not my opinion.

This particular effort was signed by James Carville. There are some Democrats who still think of Carville as the pit bull of the 1992 Clinton campaign, the "Ragin' Cajun" who was a tireless defender of the "little guys," the downtrodden base of the party. They don't realize he's morphed into another Beltway hack, the enabler husband of the vile Mary Matalin, another loser consultant who triangulates and tacks rightward, who shows more allegiance to his Beltway cronies than to the electorate he pretends to respect.

Here's a sample of Carville's email pitch:

Karl Rove understands that elections can't be won in 2007, but they can be lost.
[snip]

Together we can send a message that if you're a Republican in the House still playing "follow the leader" to President Bush, we're coming after you. If you're a long-in-the-tooth Republican incumbent, we're going to introduce you to the joys of retirement. If we can't convince Republicans not to run, we can sure as hell make sure they run scared. [snip]

You and I don't have to wait until next November to make big trouble for Republicans who have tolerated all the Bush Administration corruption, overlooked all the Bush lies and incompetence, and let President Bush bring us to the brink of disaster time and time again.

Carville concludes by asking me to "Send Karl Rove a Message: Contribute $35, $50 or more today...."

What an appeal. It moved me to immediately respond to the DCCC. Forget about sending a message to Rove; I wanted to know what kind of message Carville was sending to all Democrats who have worked and contributed to be rid of Bushism when he decided to co-sign a fulsome letter of support for Scooter Libby. (By the way, google Carville and Scooter Libby and a sponsored ad will pop up for ScooterLibby.com: "Find out what You're Not Hearing & How You Can Help!" How heartwarming is friendship?) One day Carville's asking the criminal justice system to ignore Republican lawbreaking and the next he's requesting money to fight the Republican lawbreakers.

Haven't Pelosi and Reid heard? Public approval ratings for Congress now stand at 23%, even lower than Bush. Are they incapable of putting two and two together?

David Michael Green writes, in "If Reid Were Rove":

How in the world could a Democratic Congress manage to earn a 23 percent favorability rating in just six short months, without even doing anything? Perhaps by not doing anything? Nothing, that is, except, of course capitulating on the single issue that enrages the American public the most, and that most explains the rout of 2006 that gave them their very majority. [snip]

The sad fact is that Democrats are frightened of the shadows of their shadows. On an overcast day. Which leads to the even sadder fact that American voters have two bold selections from which to choose when they step into a voting booth. There is the truly disastrous party and then there is the merely embarrassing party.

Green goes on to ask the questions every Democratic voter should be sticking to Congress:

Even if the Democrats don't have the stomach for hardball politics, how about just using the institutional powers given to them for just this purpose by an angry public in the last election? Watching the party fold a powerfully winning hand on the war appropriations bill last month was a sickening visage. Bush needed that money for his dramatically unpopular war - why not continue sending him the same bill (which gave him the money, after all, along with Congressional strings attached) and let him keep vetoing it? [...]

Why can't the Democrats just keep sending the White House bill after bill of popular legislation - stripped of all earmarks and other distractions - and let Bush cast veto after veto of laws and programs the public wants? Healthcare, environmental protection, reform of government corruption, progressive tax reform, workplace protections, college funding, stem cell research, et cetera, et cetera, and yet cetera. If you can't get these into law, at the very least the public should know just which party is blocking the legislation they favor. Make these guys own their unpopular ideas, and make them pay for them!

Green points out what should be obvious to any politician:

Ah, but you're no doubt thinking, there's the prospect of the dreaded filibuster to worry about (careful, now - you're channeling Harry Reid here). And it's true - since the Democrats took control of Congress in January, the GOP has repeatedly used the threat of a filibuster to block consideration of important legislation. But, hey Harry, why do you keep playing that game? Why not revert to the old system, in which a minority had to actually filibuster - rather than just threaten to do so - in order to block business in the Senate? Make them pay for their obstinance. Make them own their regressive and unpopular ideas. Do Republicans really want to be seen fighting bravely for days on end to ensure that the Senate does not actually discuss what to do about an unpopular war?

Who can deny Green's conclusion?

What's most astonishing about the Democrats is that they are so beaten down, so practiced in the art of capitulation, so used to identifying with their tormentors in some sort of twisted political version of the Stockholm syndrome, that they can't even manage to serve their core personal interests anymore. You gotta figure that the Joe Bidens and the Steny Hoyers of this world could at least pull off the one thing politicians are best known for, at the expense of all else. You'd think that they could minimally protect their jobs, whatever that took. And yet they stand by watching, mouths agape, like passengers on a train that just passed their intended station, as the GOP rigs elections, and when that isn't enough then uses the Justice Department to steal them even more efficiently still.

Read the entire piece for the most damning indictment of gutless politicking I've read in a long time. I know it's not every Democrat. But for every Russ Feingold, there's ten Joe Bidens.

Why did the Dems cave on the Iraq appropriations bill? Why hasn't Pelosi started impeachment proceedings against Alberto Gonzales? Why do Congressional Democrats continue to threaten and posture but fail to follow through?

I don't believe the voters' choice is quite as dismal as Green describes, but it's getting close. Are Reid and Pelosi, Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel and the rest still basking in last November's victories to the point where they don't recognize the danger?

The Republican presidential nomination is still up for grabs. It's evident that no one among their pretenders is broadly satisfying to the Republican base, or comes without considerable baggage. The posturing thespian Fred Thompson may change all that. Republicans of every stripe historically seem to prefer ciphers onto which they can project their basest desires, figureheads to be trotted out while the usual beneficiaries of Republican power operate behind the scenes.

I would say the Democratic candidates currently in the race are similarly unsatisfying. We must understand that the White House is not a slam dunk for Democrats in 2008, despite nearly universal loathing for Bush and Cheney. The best way to boost the eventual Democratic candidate is for congressional Democrats to start showing that they can actually fight and get the job done.

Meanwhile, once again we face the risk of quixotic third-party candidates muddying the waters and playing spoiler. Perot played the part in 1992, throwing the election to Clinton. Nader returned the favor in 2000 by giving Bush enough of an edge to steal the election through the Supreme Court.

Nader is making noises about running a third time but he's so utterly discredited that I can't see him presenting any threat. The boomlet around Mayor Michael Bloomberg is another matter. Some see him as a potential spoiler for the Republicans. I don't believe it. His natural constituency is the centrist Democrat, the voters who would otherwise be firmly in Clinton's or Obama's column.

This is not an idle threat to the Democratic candidate. An independent run by Bloomberg will attract the sizeable portion of the electorate that is utterly disgusted with the performance of both parties. (Remember that 23 percent approval rating for Congress!) And we're talking here about the deepest pockets in town. He is perfectly capable of putting $500+ million of his own into a campaign.

Personally, I think the last thing we need is someone like Bloomberg as president. His stance on most issues would please many Democrats but on Iraq and Iran he might as well be AIPAC's candidate. More than that, to my mind he's another Bush in temperament. Another "CEO president." Another authoritarian used to swift and unquestioning obedience from his underlings. Another autocrat who just knows he knows best and besides, dammit, I will get what I want. (West-side stadium, anybody? How about the Olympics?) Oh, he's smarter and certainly more successful a CEO than Bush ever was, but still Bloomberg is a man used to saying "Make it so."

A Bloomberg candidacy is, to my mind, another nail in the coffin of American democracy. Bloomberg, I'll bet, sees himself in the mold of Washington or Jefferson -- wealthy and landed aristocrats who can afford to devote their lives to public service. I see him as a shameless egotist willing to bury the opposition under a mountain of cash. He's spent a lifetime bossing people around in business and as mayor. Now he seeks the ultimate power to boss us around.

I doubt that Bloomberg can win, despite his money, but he can throw the election to the Republicans --  as crazy as that might be. But with the continued failure of Congressional Democrats to rein in the Bush administration and with presidential candidates who -- like Clinton and Obama -- show no ability to throw a punch, let alone lead us, where will the voters turn in 2008?