The Senate passed the awful budget reconciliation that provides cash for upcoming tax cuts for the wealthy on the backs of the elderly, poor, and students.  They did this through a 51-50 vote, with Cheney providing the tiebreaker.  A single additional Democrat could have killed this.

Then, on a much happier note, they failed (just minutes ago) 56-44 to invoke cloture on the defense approrpations bill including the ANWR drilling provision - meaning the filibuster stands.  FOUR Democrats voted for cloture: Akaka, Inouye, Landrieu, and Nelson; TWO Republicans voted against: Chafee and DeWine; Frist voted against for strictly procedural reasons.  So, consider how precarious this actually was.  Technically, we didn't require the Republican votes, as we had 40 Democrats plus one Independent.  But being able to muster only 41 minority party votes for this filibuster is too close for comfort.

The talking heads will blather on about how difficult it would be for us to win the Senate in '06.  They're right in a sense - it will be difficult to pick up 6 seats (although hardly impossible).  However, I like to remind myself at every opportunity what a difference a 2 or 3 seat pickup could make.  Today's events drive the point home yet again.

Update [2005-12-21 13:5:36 by arenwin]: I should note that "moderate environmentalist" McCain complained about the move by Ted Stevens to attach ANWR drilling to the defense appropriations bill - and then went right ahead and voted to end the filibuster.  Which, of course, would have virtually guaranteed passage of ANWR drilling into law.  Once again, why is he a hero of some on the left?

This hasn't yet received much play outside the Atlanta media market, as far as I am aware.  However, I was quite struck to hear WABE (Public Broadcasting Atlanta) report tonight that U.S. Representative John Lewis has responded to the domestic spying scandal by calling for the House to consider impeaching President Bush.

The Associated Press has now picked up the story.

This is such a striking statement because of Lewis' enormous stature.  For those not versed in civil rights history, Lewis was chairman of SNCC, the Students Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, back in the 60s.  On this Wikipedia page, you can see a picture of his arrest on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in the famous Selma march that served as a major rallying point for the civil rights movement.

Top civil rights figures have a unique, personal vantage point on how domestic surveillance powers can be abused.  The FISA act was created in large part in response to the "watch lists" that the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service used to monitor "subversives" in the 60s and 70s - anti-Vietnam war activists and civil rights leaders were major targets.

Lewis has unequaled stature as a leader of the old guard of the civil rights movement, as well as a distinguished congressman.  But the message, I think, goes beyond the specific issue of President Bush's possible impeachment.  We of a younger generation interested in civil liberties, civil rights, and anti-war activism need to recapture the synergies that accrue when we recognize that these issues are inherently interconnected.  War, the abridgement of civil liberties for all, and the diminishment of civil rights for some are profoundly intertwined.

We need to find the voice to talk about them together again.

I'd love examples in the comments of specific instances of the younger generation of leaders (not limited to, but of course including the African American community) doing so.  E.g., Charles Rangel has made similar connections - although not yet, to my knowledge, calling for impeachment - but he's also of the old guard.

Update [2005-12-20 0:28:1 by arenwin]: Well, could it be that the FBI is spying on domestic political groups?  Color me unsurprised.  Different agency, same mentality: the enemy within. Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee and PETA both targeted.

Here are three exerpts:

Some of the specific costs to the wealthy that the author mentions:

• reduced financing for scientific research, threatening the basis for long-term economic prosperity
  
• threats to public health due to underfunded regulatory agencies
  
• poor maintenance on public roads
  
• national security compromised by underfunded homeland security initiatives
  
• financial burden of interest payments to non-US lenders, falling disproportionately on rich

There are other examples that the author didn't cite, but could have.  Environmental degradation.  The potential for civil unrest.  Incompetent disaster preparedness and recovery.  A less healthy workforce.  The list goes on; feel free to add more in the comments.

What makes this all the more ironic is that there is now plenty of evidence (as Frank suggests) that people's sense of economic well-being is comparative, not absolute.  In other words, when the people around you have more, you feel like you need more too.  And when you get more, that just becomes the new bare minimum that you "need."  In fact, even for the affluent, "falling behind" has effects on health.  For example, risk for high blood pressure has been linked to people's perceptions of what they have in comparison to what they should have, given what they see as the standard within their community.

I.e., adding wealth at the top sets off another cycle of striving, but doesn't necessarily improve anybody's well-being - not even the wealthy.

Economics is often derided as a dismal science, the science of the zero-sum game.  It's nice to see an economist pointing out in such an explicit way why, and how, the wealthy can vote against their own interests too, when they support unreasoning, out-of-control tax-cutting policies that appear at first blush to benefit them.

I find this extremely disappointing, and hope there is a good reason.  The Republicans only had 217 votes.  Had Towns and Boswell voted against the bill, it would have been 217-217, meaning a defeat.  This is one of those times when every Democrat should have been expected to be present on the floor.  Every Republican was.

This should have been an absolute top priority.  Substantively, this bill was a disaster, with cuts in basics (and usual Republican targets) like student loan programs and already bare-bones public assistance programs.  Politically, it was an extraordinary opportunity to follow up on the embarassing defeat for the Republican leadership in the Health and Education appropriations bill earlier that day.  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership now looks like they were strong enough to pull something out of the fire at the last minute - which is the way the AM headlines are running.

Here are the two articles:

Friday's article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601797_pf.html
Sunday's article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801128.html

This all seems to revolve around Freeh playing defense - after being roundly chastised by the 9/11 commission - by slamming Clinton for supposedly not being interested in pursing terrorism cases.  In particular, he claims and 60 Minutes apparently will report nearly unchallenged that Clinton in a high level meeting with Saudi representatives was more concerned about getting donations for his library than pressing them for help with Khobar Towers.

The problem, as (to his credit) Kurtz points out, is that Freeh wasn't even at that meeting.  A major potential flaw with the 60 minutes story, no?  Sure, they can legitimately report Freeh's accusations, but you think they'd interview someone who was at the meeting.

Well, it would appear that in they decided to play hard ball, and wanted an interview with Clinton, or no one.   Media Matters points out the hypocrisy of that standard.  From Kurtz's first story:

So, according to Kurtz, they were prepared to go to air with these charges unrebutted - and even now are just going to read a statement by Sandy Berger on the air.  Who, incidentally, was actually at the meeting.  And said the Presidential library was never mentioned, while Khobar Towers most certainly were.

Freeh goes out on a shooting spree to try to recover his damaged reputation, and 60 minutes gives him an uncritical platform, originally unrebutted, now nearly unrebutted... because they were annoyed that Clinton himself wouldn't appear on their show?  Or is there some other motivation?

finished on the flip

The Washington Post has an article in today's edition:

Report Warns Democrats Not to Tilt Too Far Left

My first response was mild.  I'm not offended by this point of view.  But then I started to read a few of the quotes and summary statements.

It starts with this standard staw-man style misstatement by Galston and Kamarck (funded by the "Centerist" Third Way) of the viewpoints of many who support a strong partisan strategy:

No, it's not about converting the whole country to wholehearted liberalism; it's about providing enough of a meaningful contrast that people have something to vote for.  The problem is that Kerry never did that.  There were people dying for an alternative to Bush who stayed home, or voted for Bush holding their nose, because they thought Kerry stood for nothing.

And then it gets worse:

Yes, security issues HAVE become very important.  So much so that Democrats must stop waffling and pandering, and articulate clearly that Republicans security policies have been a SECURITY DISASTER. What's the point in voting for a Republican-lite when you can get the real thing?

But the most irritating of all is the authors' apparent decision to do the work of the Republicans for them, by reaffirming the notion that "liberals" alienate the party from "most Americans:"

You know what, gentlemen?  The Republicans use this smear against EVERY SINGLE ONE of us in the Democratic party.  Including so-called "centerists."  You're not helping yourselves by repeating it.

So, what's the solution?

What lovely examples of the worst of Clinton.  Yes, indeedy, if political brutality is what I want, I'll vote for a Republican.

I'm not sure if this clip has been noted elsewhere on the site, because I've been unable to follow the discussions today in detail.  But as of right now, 12:30am on Thursday, there's a front page video clip which is headlined: "Dems to blame for Brown hire?"  I've placed a screen shot in extended.

You read that right.  Not "Dems share blame."  Simply, "Dems to blame for Brown hire?"

So of course, my first reaction was, this is outrageous.  The "liberal" press has once again failed to appreciate their role in truth-telling and fact finding.  In their search for "balance" in reporting - which seems to mean making it look like there are two equal sides to everything, even if one side is patently and demonstrably absurd - they've screwed us again.

But the problem is, stripping away the completely unfair headline and going to the meat of the story, they've got a point.  They're talking about the shameful fast-track confirmation of Arabian Horse Association Brown to FEMA when Lieberman was chairing the hearings.

So, my second reaction was: what a perfect example of the political consequences of behaving like a weak opposition.  

The weak Democratic opposition made it possible for CNN writers to post this grossly unfair headline.  

The opportunity was there to look carefully and ask questions of this nominee.  The opportunity was missed.  And now, as usual, the entire Democratic party ends up tarnished, with reporters assigning them some of the blame for Bush's mess.  Even though Democrats didn't nominate Brown, or promote Brown.  Just like Iraq.  Just like may happen with Roberts.

Accountability is blurred, where it should be clear.  Because distinctions between the Democratic and Republican (especially Bush-Republican) approaches to governing were hazy, where they should have been clear.

On one hand, I'll be writing to CNN, and saying, how dare you?

On the other hand, I'm saying to the Democrats: with your role in this, you failed the party, and you failed the country.  Start acting like you mean something, and people will start voting for you.

We're all at least vaguely familiar with the Warren Commission created in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination, and the 9/11 Commission created to investigate operational and intelligence failures leading to the disastrous attacks in New York and Washington, DC.  

However, in the long view of history, it's easy to dismiss these commissions as little more than window dressing for accountability.  Many have been terribly ineffective, or had their credibility seriously questioned after the fact.  The advice of the Reagan's HIV Commission was almost entirely ignored.  The Rockefeller Commission's report on CIA activity was critiqued as extremely shallow.  The Warren Commission is still under attack for, in the view of critics, failure to probe deeply enough into theories of multiple attackers.  The Tower Commission investigating Iran Contra took a back seat to Congressional investigations.

So, in the wake of this, what is the appeal of independent commissions, and why should one be considered in this case?  In looking to answer this, we can also ask: what made the 9/11 Commission unusually effective in achieving the political influence required to deeply probe its subject matter, and to put nearly all of its recommendations into law?

There's a very interesting recent article in the Yale Law Journal, written by Jonathan Simon and entitled "Parrhesiastic Accountability: Investigatory Commissions and Executive Power in an Age of Terror" (Yale Law Journal 114(6): 1419, 2005).  Simon argues that the 9/11 Commission was so powerful because it leveraged a particular style of speaking truth to power called "parrhesia" - where those with authority stemming from personal experience (especially victims of a disaster) throw caution to the wind, and speak out loudly and publicly.  

I'll start by letting Simon speak for himself. This is Simon's abstract. I'll also summarize some of his points in my own language in extended.

More in extended.