General Michael Hayden was approved by the Senate to be the new CIA director by a vote of 78-15, with 7 Senators abstaining. 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 here in NM 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 NM 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)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
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)
(This story is cross-posted at Democracy for New Mexico)