Mark Halperin makes this observation about the FISA compromise today, supported by Barack Obama and 105 House Democrats (including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer):
Watch to see how liberal bloggers and the commentariat react.
Locally, Lee, aka Sound Politics commenter "thehim," is not pleased at all.
Washington Democrats Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, and Adam Smith joined Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and Dave Reichert in voting for the measure.
More proof the netroots does not represent the mainstream of American politics on the issues of the day.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 20, 2008 08:12 PM | Email ThisWish someone will tell her this is a Republic not a democracy. People in high positions sometime conveniently forget important things.
Posted by: Snuffy on June 20, 2008 10:57 PMAnd since these folks love to stay inside their Blue Echo Chambers, they've got no idea that most America does not think like a few nutty Seattle bloggers.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 20, 2008 11:16 PMEric, what does the polling say? I think it would show most Americans would be against this bill.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 20, 2008 11:24 PMIf the polling is as compelling as you imply then 105 Democrats are either a) incredibly stupid or b) recognize at some point you have to govern. Not every policy that qualifies as good would pass a plebiscite.
Nonetheless, I'm not sold this issue is as controversial with the general public as with you guys in the netroots.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 20, 2008 11:27 PMThis is also a good example of how the Progressives and the Left live in a 9/10 world. Most Americans get the fact, that the rules have changed. That terrorists are willing to end their own lives, and go in to elaborate sometimes decade long intricate underground lives in order to do us harm. This isn't 1934. There are bad people who want to kill us, and in today's technological age, there are many new challenges that we simply have to face. And those challenges are not an imposition if we understand the risk and consequences of inaction.
Customs has the right and responsibility to inspect your baggage, search your car and your person when you are entering or leaving the country without a warrant.
The Post Office has the right and responsibility to inspect letters and packages entering or leaving the country without a warrant.
What is the difference if the letter is an email or text message (digital or voice)crossing borders?
Posted by: Snuffy on June 20, 2008 11:52 PMSecondly, what's wrong with getting a warrant to listen in on private communications of citizens? This is the kind of thing that would have caused Republicans to blow a gasket had Clinton proposed it in the 90's. And it's only a question of when, not if, it would be abused by an unscrupulous administration.
Posted by: russell garrard on June 21, 2008 07:49 AMWasn't it the Clinton administration that originally set up this FISA "wiretap" program that has the Netroots so in an uproar?
Posted by: Don Ward on June 21, 2008 08:05 AMThe original FISA legislation didn't take that into account and it wasn't an issue until a judge ruled that simply passing through a US based switch required a warrant.
If that is the case I've never understood what the issue is - Domestic endpoints always required a FISA court approval so what is the problem with this - Or do I have it wrong.
Posted by: TonyG on June 21, 2008 08:53 AMDo barking mad wackaloons like Jeff B., who sees "Marxists" and "collectivists" under his bed and behind every tree, represent the "mainstream?"
Do haters like Rick D. represent the "mainstream?" Do unapologetic racists like John425 represent the "mainstream?"
Do supporters of George W. Bush, whose approval rating ranges from 24 percent to 29 percent, represent the "mainstream?"
Whatever the "mainstream" is, you lot aren't in it. You're the far-right fringe. That's OK, you know. There are extremes in all societies. Just have the honesty to own up to it.
''.... most America does not think like a few nutty Seattle bloggers.''
IMO this is pervasively the case outside the far-left netroots enclaves.
For example, back in my old home state of ND there are a fair number of voters who still consider themselves (D)s. But I would wager that almost all of them are a TOTALLY different type of (D) than the ones that inhabit HA.com & etc.: Many ND (D)s are the end result of the decades-old Democratic-Farmer-Labor movement; or in the Scoop Jackson model. Certainly in WA and to a large part in the left-wing urban centers around the country, that type of (D) became largely extinct a long time ago.
And then:
''they know that biometrics, or profiling would save them a lot of time, and allow the TSA to focus on actually finding bad guys.''
This is the insanity that having ''political correctlness'' live on post-911 has brought us to: Forcing TSA and other government agencies to treat 70-year old grandmothers and blue-eyed, blonde-haired young women with babies in their arms that are citizens the same as 30 year old alien men of middle eastern origin.
Personally I would be happy to carry a national secure ID card. IMO a credit-card size ''real ID'' should be part of having a US Passport. In fact, I would like to see an option for citizens who pass at least a minimal security check to get a combination driver's license - secure ID - passport. That wouldn't guarantee that no bad guys would ever get one, but it would go a long way to separating out the 99.9+ percent of people who are no security threat, and as Jeff B noted allow the gatekeepers to focus on those that are.
And Snuffy is right on @ #7.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 21, 2008 09:57 AMLiberals can only go so far with their looney ideas. Jimmy Carter found that out. So did Mayor Nickels when he tried to ban beach fires at Alki.
Wiretapping to prevent a terrorist attack is something the "mainstream" supports. Even Obama appears to realize that.
I would never claim to represent the "mainstream" of American political thought. Rather I would place myself in the mainstream of the conservative movement based on my own beliefs.
In contrast, members of the netroots do at times claim to represent the "will of the people."
As to what constitutes an extremist, I'm willing to call myself one if you likewise embrace the label. Though ultimately I don't really see the point of that name-calling exercise.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 21, 2008 10:08 AMFor farmers, ranchers, average working Americans, active and retired members of the military, small business owners, and a whole bunch of etcetera:
You bet SP.com is mainstream.
The left-wing netroots like Ivan are so far out in deep-space political orbit that they are beyond comprehending that simple reality. In fact its been pretty clear for some time that there is no bridging the political and social gap between the far-left netroots and middle America. Ivan's so-typical post crystallizes THIS reality:
There is no meaningful ''consensus'' or compromise worth having that can be reached with the current incarnation of the hopelessly far-left. They just have to be politically beaten by better ideas that are effectively communicated to the average voter. Long-term the future and fate of this nation depend on it.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 21, 2008 10:16 AMAnd who has the "better ideas?" Conservatives? I jeer at you in derision.
Let's take a look at the history of conservatism in the United States. At the time of the Revolution, the conservatives were Tories who sided with the king.
Conservatives in the era of Jefferson and Jackson favored the concentration of capital at the expense of the working class, as they do now.
Conservatives were pro-slavery and favored the expansion of slavery into the territories. Yes, many of them were Democrats, and on the slavery issue the Republicans were the "liberal" party.
Conservatives opposed the industrial revolution, and even European immigration, much less Asian Immigration. The racists who formed the Ku Klux Klan were all conservatives, even those who called themselves Democrats.
Conservatives opposed the direct election of U.S. Senators and voting rights for women. They opposed the formation of the Food and Drug Administration.
Needless to say, conservatives opposed the federal income tax. They opposed the eight-hour day, the 40-hour week, and the notion of a minimum wage, as they do today.
Conservatives brought us Prohibition. How'd that work out, Ken?
Conservatives opposed Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and racial integration of schools and public facilities.
Conservatives opposed the space program, stem-cell research, and any reproductive rights for women.
What better ideas are you going to communicate to the average voter, Ken? The average voter in this country, if polled issue by issue, would reject every single advance in this country that I have cited, all of which conservatives opposed at the time.
You're intellectually and politically bankrupt, the lot of you. Your morals are none of my business. Conservatism has failed this nation at every turn, and yet you lot persist.
Fine by me. Be reactionary and retrograde to your hearts' content. Just quit kidding yourselves that you're any way near the "mainstream."
I have almost zero interest in debating your tiresome points @ 21 on this pleasant weekend, in large part because you're starting point of "conservatives opposed the American Revolution" is so absolutly banal.
Yet, I am compelled to note an inaccuracy so gross that it demands response. Conservatives were not responsible for Prohibition, that was a crusade of the progressive movement - including progressives affiliated with both parties at the time. As you well know, and as many current liberals proudly proclaim, modern liberalism has many, many roots in that era.
Given that the same nanny statism that brought us Prohibition still infects governance in the Democratic-dominated environs of Washington state and the Puget Sound region, one would think you wouldn't need that reminder.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 21, 2008 11:19 AMWere there even 'conservatives' then. Did they use that term? I doubt it. You should have prefaced your post with: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' ...
"
My position has always been quite clear, on this blog and off of it. I am opposed to nanny-stateism in all forms when it applies to people's activities in their own homes -- escept for child abuse.
...then why do you self identify with being a "Progressive" which live and breathe by those very standards of nanny statism?
You appear to have some cognitive dissonance going on there Ivan.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 21, 2008 01:00 PMIt is poor form to make broad, over-generalized, and factually questionable statements about one side of the ideological spectrum and then retreat behind "my position" when someone points out the connection with your progressive brethren.
Moreover, regardless of the due credit you deserve for being against nanny statism (as you have said before), a good chunk of your fellow Democrats don't agree. On a related note, you didn't respond to the fact that Prohibition was in and of itself a function of the progressive era.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 21, 2008 01:08 PMHow about two better-known ones:
Billy Sunday
Ruth Tooze
An interesting side note is that the Women's Christian Temperance Union believed it could create a prohibition friendly majority by "getting to the children" .
Hmm, doesn't that sound just like what the left does with their agenda every day in our public schools?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 21, 2008 03:17 PMYou may find some conservatives on the fringe who want the teaching of the theory of evolution banned from public schools...but even you might have to admit that they are few and far between.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on June 21, 2008 04:03 PMNeither is the real conservative running for President this year.
On this issue, it's certainly possible that less than 50% of the American public agrees with me. But the principled people, both liberals and conservatives, who understand the importance of small government, agree with me. And that's all that matters. When we invaded Iraq, far less than 50% of the country agreed with me. Today, more than 50% of the country recognizes I was right.
On this issue, you'll see the same thing in a few years. What it will take is for the conservative arguments against this horrendous bill to be seen in the light of a Democratic Adminstration that could use this unchecked power to enforce gun control laws or environmental laws.
Posted by: thehim on June 22, 2008 11:04 AM