Anti-Censure Senate Democrats Risk Base Backlash

[Paulo_s News]

I've just written and posted the first editorial for Paulo's News:

Anti-Censure Senate Democrats Risk Base Backlash

Let me know what you think. Pithiness encouraged.

[EST]

1. Pithy, hard hitting, direct.

Other than a little smoothing, to kind of sneak up on the subject, instead of hitting it right in the mouth, I wouldn't do much.
The point being, generally readers will already have a good idea what your point of view is but they also like to be entertained.

[Paulo_s News]

5. Thanks for the advice

I think I'm gonna keep this one like it is for now, but I'll remember that for future postings, which I plan to do plenty of.

Thanks for reading,
Paulo

[northofdenali]

2. I like it. Of course, I'm an in-your-face type when dealing with

my congresscreeps and reps - they're all repukes. But I really think, as fed up as the Dem base is becoming, these Senators had better be checking with their home folks before they distance themselves from Feingold's resolution.

And welcome to DU, Paulo :hi:

[Paulo_s News]

6. Amen to that

Thanks for reading,
Paulo

[radio4progressives]

3. Yikes! you're using GOP talking point! Quick Editing Alert!

Please (oh please) use the term DOMESTIC SPYING program, to replace "Terrorists Surveillance" .

Terrorists Surveillance was a new term that Bush Co created to replace "warrantless tapping" ... but even that term doesn't quite tell what's really going on and what is at issue which is Domestic Spying.

Also, the second GOP talking point that i feel strongly needs to be edited is where you say in the first paragraph:

which allows the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on US citizens in the US with suspected terrorist ties ...

that's what the administration wants us to accept is going on, which isn't the issue - the issue is that All United States Citizens phone conversations are being eavesdropped on with their program(s), not just those "suspected with terrorists ties".

That's a critical distinction, which goes to the very reason why Feingold has called for the Senate to Censure this President.

I haven't finished reading the article, but i couldn't get past the first paragraph where i found myself freaking out that a progressive was unwittingly putting out GOP talking points, there-by making their argument for them - which isn't the intention of the piece, i don't believe.. ;) :hi:

[Paulo_s News]

4. I disagree Re:Yikes! you're using GOP talking point! Quick Editing Alert!

I hope you finished reading it. At any rate, I used the RNC term on purpose.

1. The term is inaccurate, as I explain.
2. I wanted to attack the Bush Admin. policy directly. I think when debating political issues, you are often more effective when you attack your opponent on their signature issue rather than cowering behind your own platform.
3. I support spying on americans talking to Al Qaeda, etc. when it's properly run through FISA. This is indeed "Terrorist Surveillance."

That being said, I'm completely with you on being against spying on US citizens, as I said in the article.

Thanks for reading,
Paulo