With Wiretapping Law, Democrats Gave Bush Even More Power Than He Asked For

Remember how quickly the Democratic leadership were spooked into approving Bush's new wiretapping law? They were afraid of being portrayed as weak on terror. Civil liberties be damned, they said; we have an election to think about! Now it emerges that, in their haste to approve the new law, the Democrats in Congress may have given the President even more power than he asked for. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.
...
The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.
...
Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States.

These new powers include the collection of business records, physical searches and so-called “trap and trace” operations, analyzing specific calling patterns.

...

“We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.

If the Democrats can't stand up to one of the most unpopular presidents in history, whom can they stand up to?

Three Cheers for Eliot Spitzer

I'm a Democrat, but I often have problems with the party's positions on economic issues, particularly with regards to the labor market. Thus, I salute Eliot Spitzer, Governor of New York:

Chiding lawmakers for ignoring "the realities of the marketplace," Governor Spitzer stunned fellow Democrats yesterday by vetoing a bill that would have reordered the priorities of welfare offices by forcing caseworkers to steer female welfare recipients to higher-wage jobs in male-dominated fields.

...

The legislation would have mandated that state welfare offices encourage recipients to seek training for "sustainable wage jobs" and promote employment in "nontraditional" fields. The bill defines "sustainable" as 185% of the poverty level, or $37,000 for a family of four. "Nontraditional" is defined as an industry in which one gender makes up more than 75% of the work force. The bill's official memo highlights as "nontraditional" jobs for women such occupations as furniture movers, taxi drivers, carpenters, chemists, firefighters, and aerospace engineers.

...

Mr. Spitzer, in his veto message, took issue with the bill on three major points. Saying that only one-third of parents receiving welfare have a high school diploma, Mr. Spitzer wrote that low-wage jobs, combined with education and training, offer many recipients a better "opportunity" for employment. Lawmakers, he wrote, failed to appreciate the importance of "securing employment even at a low wage and building an employment history over time."

"Moreover," he continued, "providing public assistance recipients with training that emphasizes positions that pay 185% above the poverty level ignores the realities of the marketplace, which has many fewer 'sustainable wage' positions available."

Here, here for Spitzer. Lest you think I am being cold hearted, consider the fact that simply telling poor welfare recipients to get high-paying jobs (and even training them) will not necessarily result in them getting those jobs. As Mickey Kaus points out:

Unless his veto is overridden, embattled New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer has seemingly saved his state's welfare reform from the Good Jobs Fallacy--the idea that it makes sense to tell welfare recipients to hold out for high-paying jobs ("aerospace engineers" and "chemists" are two of the professions mentioned)--before they have to go to work. Keeping recipients on the dole while they "train" for jobs they never get is a time-tested way of ... well, keeping recipients on the dole.

They have a better chance of climbing up the income ladder if, as Spitzer says, they build an employment history at a low-wage job first. There is empirical evidence that welfare reform in the 1990s, which placed an emphasis on getting people off welfare rolls into any job, even a low-paying one, actually did seem to reduce poverty:

During the Pataki administration, welfare rolls fell by about 1 million people. Between 1995 and 2005, the poverty rate for families of single mothers in New York City fell to 49% from 56.3%, according to a report published by the Community Service Society of New York.

The child poverty rate in New York State fell to about 21% in 2005 from about 26% in 1996, the year before Mr. Pataki approved new welfare policies to bring New York into compliance with stricter federal welfare guidelines, which included a five-year time limit for benefits and passed under President Clinton.

During the same period, work rates for never-married single mothers between 18 and 64 increased to 70% from about 52%.

And how absurd is the requirement that welfare case workers steer women to jobs in male-dominated fields? Not that there's anything wrong with women working as furniture movers or taxi drivers-- if they want to, that's great! But requiring it smacks of misguided social engineering. The case workers should concentrate on helping the women get a job, period, without regard as to whether that job is "male" or "female."

Bush Barks, Democratic Leadership Quakes, Congress Passes Warrantless Eavesdropping Bill

You might think an administration as wildly unpopular as George W. Bush's would be unable to bully Congressional Democrats into rubber-stamping yet another bill that tramples on our civil liberties. Wrong! You can read the AP report for the gory details, or just check out Fred Hiatt's editorial in the Washington Post:

THE DEMOCRATIC-led Congress, more concerned with protecting its political backside than with safeguarding the privacy of American citizens, left town early yesterday after caving in to administration demands that it allow warrantless surveillance of the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens, with scant judicial supervision and no reporting to Congress about how many communications are being intercepted. To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law -- or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.

Because if there is one problem in America it is that the Bush administration is too constrained by laws. What's so frustrating about the Democrats' capitulation was how completely unnecessary it was. Now, if the Democrats really did need to pass every civil liberties-trampling law proposed by our Fearless Leader, or risk being thrown out of office, then their stance, though gutless, would at least be understandable. But the truth is that there is no reason for the Democrats to have gone against their principles on this issue. As Glenn Greenwald points out:

Karl Rove's election strategy prior to the 2006 election was to force the Democrats to vote against the Military Commissions Act and warrantless eavesdropping so that he could run around the country accusing them of being "soft" and "weak" on Terrorism. While Senate Democrats chose not to filibuster the MCA and thus allowed it to pass, Congressional Democrats did overwhelmingly vote against it. And most House Democrats voted against warrantless eavesdropping (the Senate never ended up voting).

As a result, Rove repeatedly boasted that Democrats were sure to lose because Americans would punish them for their refusal to be "tough" on the Terrorists...

Rove made national security -- specifically the Democrats' opposition to coercive interrogation, lawless detention and warrantless eavesdropping -- the centerpiece of the GOP 2006 midterm campaign....

How did that big, bad, scary "Soft-on-Terrorism" strategy work out? The Democrats crushed the Republicans in an historic election, re-taking control of both houses of Congress, protecting every single one of their incumbents, and vastly increasing their hold over governorships and states houses. Democrats won in every region of the country outside of the Deep South. Karl Rove's strategy of accusing Democrats of being "soft on terror" due to their opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, lawless detention and torture was a complete failure on every level....

We do not need to wonder or speculate about what might happen if Democrats obstruct warrantless eavesdropping legislation and Republicans are then able to make an issue of it politically. That already happened in 2006. That was Rove's whole strategy. It failed miserably, across the board. And yet the Democratic leadership just permitted, and many Democrats supported, a wild expansion of George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping powers based on a jittery fear of this already-failed tactic, if not based on actual support for these increased eavesdropping powers.

Against all logic, the Democratic Leadership is still terrified at thought that the big, bad Republicans might accuse them of being soft on terror. (As if voting for this bill will prevent that.) What a disgrace. Thank goodness that the legislation expires in six months. Maybe that will be enough time for the Democrats to grow a spine.

Some Musings on the Youtube Debate

CNN held a debate tonight in which viewers submitted questions via Youtube. Of course, CNN got to choose which questions were asked, but still, it was revolutionary... or so CNN tells us.

My favorite point of this two-hour debate came right at the end. There was a ridiculously naïve question posed asking each candidate to say something good and something bad about the candidate to his or her left (it was naïve because Gravel was the only one to actually criticize the candidate to his left). The ever-classy turned to Dennis Kucinich and said, “the thing I like best about you is your wife.”

And I see why.

And she's British! I can’t explain how he wound up with her. Maybe they got stoned and spun into each other at the latest Phil Lesh concert.

On to some specific thoughts on each of the candidates. Mike Gravel. I'm torn about Gravel. He has some legitimate points, and he isn't afraid to speak his mind, but he's really wasting our time. He seems to spend all of his time complaining about how little time he gets. Granted, this is a legitimate point. As Chris Dodd's "Talk Clock" shows, Gravel got the least amount of time in this debate:

And in an earlier June debate:

So, Gravel has a point, but shouldn't he be spending his time making other points besides how little time he gets? This sort of attitude antagonizes the moderator, as could be told when Anderson Cooper was much more willing to let other candidates speak past his call of "time."

To defend Gravel for a second: saying that soldiers in Vietnam died and that soldiers in Iraq are dying in vain is not un-American. Saying that they died in vain is not a criticism of the soldiers; it is a criticism of the policy. It isn't saying "You soldiers failed." It is saying "Your leaders failed." If someone thinks that a war is not worth fighting, then any soldier dying in that war is dying in vain. But, it doesn't sound nice.

Chris Dodd. I wouldn't say Dodd hurt himself (after all, he's been hurting pretty badly as it is), but he didn't help himself either. From waffling on gay marriage (not providing a sincere reason for refusing to go beyond civil unions) to simply sounding like a lecturing old man (approaching Gravel-esque, even), Dodd simply did not seem strong.

John Edwards. I thought it was funny that Edwards said that he did not like Hillary Clinton's jacket. Overall, I think he performed okay. Just okay. He seemed awfully caught off-guard on the gay marriage issue, but his response did sound sincere, unlike Dodd's. He said, rather convincingly, that he has personally wrestled with the issue, but that his religion should not dictate American law. Fair enough. He needs to drop the "son of a mill worker" thing. We heard it in 2004, and it obviously didn't work. It seems unbelievably phony these days. However, he did have a very good "Youtube-style" campaign video (every campaign had to provide such a video):

Hillary Clinton. As front-runner, Hillary generally played it safe, and tried to downplay differences between the candidates, calling the Democrats "united" (sparking a "We are not united!" from Mike Gravel), and saying that any of the candidates would make a great President. However, she still managed to impress me. I think she is getting a lot better at not seeming stone-cold. She spoke with force tonight, but seemed human and passionate. Policy-wise, there was some waffling, like her refusal to say that she would meet with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When Obama said that he would meet with them as President, Clinton basically said that she would not meet with them without appropriate planning. Well, yeah. Appropriate planning was assumed! But, I am beginning to change my feelings about Hillary. I think she would make a great President.

Barack Obama. I think it's going to be extremely difficult for Obama to gain ground on Clinton without attacking her - besides stressing that he was against the war from the beginning, that is. I don't think saying that he has always been against the war is going to do much these days. It may help him slightly, but people want to move forward, and he will have to show why his Iraq strategy is better than Clinton's. He had some good attacks on special interests (as did Edwards and others, for that matter), but that is not truly setting him apart. I think he's going to have to try to sell himself as a "Washington outsider," to turn his inexperience into a good thing.

Bill Richardson. Richardson is the so-called "resume candidate." He has had an amazing career in American and international politics, but he simply does not have the ability to really connect with TV viewers. He seems uncomfortable in front of a camera, which is a real shame, because he has some great ideas (e.g. sacking No Child Left Behind) and would make a great President.

Joe Biden. I think ol' Joe actually helped himself this time around. I think his humor actually struck a chord this time instead of just making him sound like a sleazeball. And he came across as an authority on foreign affairs (particularly Iraq). Still, he has no chance of breaking out of the bottom tier.

Dennis Kucinich. He sounded like he as hosting an infomercial. It was obnoxious. He kept repeating, "Text peace, 73223" throughout the debate. Apparently these text messages will be sent to President Bush and this will bring the boys back home.

Right.

Joshua Marshall on talking to Iran

The much-anticipated meeting between the United States and Iran, their "first high profile, face-to-face talks in nearly three decades," seems to have gone off smoothly in Baghdad today (though it certainly didn't produce any breakthroughs):

The meeting between Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker of the United States and Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qumi of Iran — held in the offices of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, in the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad — produced no agreements nor a promise of a follow-up meeting between the two nations, officials said.

But Mr. Crocker told a news conference that the talks “proceeded positively.”

As you may recall, I'm of the opinion that this meeting between the United States and Iran was long overdue:

I wholeheartedly approve this belated move. That isn't to say that I have much faith in the Iranian government; odds are that nothing much will come of this. It's just that if there is any possibility that the Iranians could be convinced/bribed to tone down their activities in Iraq, we should find out. Maybe the price would be too high; maybe they really are totally committed to creating chaos in Iraq. But the only way to know for sure is to talk to them.

So I will give grudging some praise to the administration for finally coming to their senses. Joshua Marshall of Talking Points Memo isn't in such a forgiving mood:

I don't disagree with the diplomatic decision, but it's worth noting that after years of saying talks with Iran would be reckless and irresponsible, the Bush gang is grudgingly accepting the reality that Dems have been pushing for quite a while.

Would it be rude to point out how often this has happened of late? Dems said Bush should talk directly to Syria; Bush said Dems were weak to even suggest it; and Bush eventually came around. Dems said Bush should talk to North Korea and use Clinton's Agreed Framework as a model for negotiations; Bush said this was out of the question; and Bush eventually came around. Dems said Bush should increase the size of the U.S. military; Bush said this was unnecessary; and Bush eventually came around.

And Dems said Bush should engage Iran in direct talks, particularly on Iraq. It took a while, but the president came around on this, too.

For years, all we've heard from the right is that Bush is a bold visionary when it comes to foreign policy, and Dems are weak and clueless. And yet, here we are, watching the White House embrace the Dems' approach on most of the nation's major foreign policy challenges.

Now, if Bush could just bring himself to accept the Democratic line on Iraq, too, we'd really see some progress.

Bush may not be adopting the Democratic line on Iraq, but he is making noises about finally accepting the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group. Given the President's track record of failures and reversals, it's simply astonishing how eagerly the Republican candidates for 2008 have embraced his foreign policy.

On the Power of Capitalization

democrat - an advocate of a democratic form of government

Democrat - a member of the Democratic Party

republican - an advocate of a republican form of government

Republican - a member of the Republican Party

It is interesting to see these terms defined. After all, Democrats are not always democrats, and Republicans are not always republicans. For instance, Democrats are democrats in that they believe in the inherent equality of all people, but they are not democrats in that they think, for instance, that the Supreme Court should have the power to act contrary to the will of the public. At the same time, however, Republicans often complain that government is too distant (which republicanism seems to endorse), wishing that the will of the majority should become law (which is not inherently un-republican, but it certainly seems more pro-democratic). So, we often see Republicans arguing for democracy and Democrats arguing for republicanism (or perhaps elitism would be more accurate).

I wonder how many Republicans even know what it means to be a republican and how many Democrats know what it means to be a democrat.

Me? I think I'm an elitist Democrat. Or something along those lines. I tend not to trust the will of "the many."