I am depressed and confused about the strange turn of events, our party's cave in on FISA, and Obama's weird and weak rationale for supporting this bill. The conspiracy minded part of me suspects all sorts of behind the scenes maneuvering and backroom deals going on, because I can't for the life of me understand why this cave in is necessary.
Is our party leadership so afraid of being labeled soft on terrorism that we just turn tail every time a national security issue comes up for passage?
Does anybody know the answers? The pundits and the blogoshere have written so many explanations and scenarios that it makes my head spin. See below the fold for some of them.
This are a sample of the various offerings from today and yesterday.
Digby has a number of articles-
"Talk To The Hand"
"They Were Only Following Orders"
"No Hope Today"
Jack Balkin also has a couple-
"Why Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won't Come Out and Say It)"
"A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part I"
Glen Greenwald at Salon.com has been writing obsessively on the developments as they unfold.
As I read them and others like them, I kept wondering what is it these politicians know or believe that make them so strangely eager to pass this piece of legislation, and in such a hurried and furtive manner. Some say it's to protect the blue dogs from voter backlash. What backlash? It's not issue number one of voters' minds. I don't think it's issue number 10. People have real stuff to be scared about, like bankruptcy and losing their jobs, their life savings and their homes.
Others say that the legislators are granting themselves immunity by sweeping this under the rug and making it history. I dunno, this one sounds too conspiracy minded to me. The Democrats may be cowards but I don't think they are criminal.
I know the argument that they don't want the Republicans to use this issue to bash the Dems for being soft on national security and not caring about terrorism. And I know the Dems are in a hurry to wrap up congress so they can get on with congressional campaigning. But was't this exact same thing done to them before, with the AUMF 2002 resolution? Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, voted for that resolution, believing it was important to get the issue behind them for the midterm election. They also figured they would get another chance to vote for the war after Bush took it to the UN. But Bush made fools out of them.
Since then the Bush team has been using the terrorist bogeyman as a sword of Damocles over the heads of quivering Democratic pols. Remember the Orange alerts of 2004? And doesn't the 2006 Democratic wave and the 2008 polls tell us that the old fear tactics don't work anymore? Except with our brave party leaders.
What deal was made with Pelosi and Reid to get Obama to go so meekly along with their surrender? I don't understand and my head aches.
Come on people. Stand up now for what's right.