FISA failure demonstrates why we need real progressives in Congress

[Squigglenob]

I'm still mulling over the massive Democratic capitulation that enabled King George to pass into law the most sweeping violation of Americans' privacy yet–legalizing an illegal program, and making it stronger to boot. Why did this happen? Why did Democrats in both chambers of Congress roll over and give Mr. 28% carte blanche to spy on Americans without any recourse? Why throw away all the political capital that could have been gained from opposing him? As I said in my previous post about the FISA collapse, it wasn't just Democrats who helped push this ugly bill into law--many of the supporters were newly-elected netroots Democrats, who came to Congress on a platform of change and opposing Bush on his draconian usurpation of the rule of law. And the same thing happened in the House–Netroots darlings like Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, who charmed the masses with his law-and-order, straight-shootin' background, voted to support this odious justification of lawbreaking.

It's not the first time this has happened, either. Jon Tester, another netroots favorite, voted against this bill, but earlier in the year voted in favor of the Iraq supplemental, the first big capitulation that had progressive shaking their heads in dismay. It may not be fair to judge the records of neophyte Senators just on single votes--but if people like Claire McCaskill are going to knuckle under to the GOP on this most crucial issue, how can we trust that she can pass laws on other progressive topics, like the credit card reform law she is co-sponsoring with Carl Levin?

It's failures like this that are causing angry, disenchanted voters to gravitate to "second-tier" candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and yes, Ron Paul. The more the system fails us–the more we see how our victories turn to ash for no discernible reason–the more the "extreme" candidates will grasp people's attention. And maybe that's how it should be. Just as the first wave of progressive blogosphere-supported candidated displaced many incumbents, the next wave of even more forthrightly liberal candidates will displace this current crop.

Chris Bowers is absolutely right when he says... Read the rest of Martin Bosworth's post at Scholars & Rogues

[rodeodance]

1. We are too anxious to get anyone with D after their name into office

[Cant trust em]

2. Here are two follow up questions

1. What good is being in power if you have to sell out to get there?
2. What good is being in power if once you have it you don't do anything with it?

Ultimately, voters can see through the smokescreen. People want real change and if the democratic establishment won't give it to them then we'll have to find some alternative candidates.