The Blogs Are Alive With the Sound of Angry Democrats
WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 —
Progressive and liberal groups and left-leaning blogs are furious,
tossing around fighting words like “spineless,”
“craven” and “weak.”
So much for the hopes of Democratic leaders that they could avoid a
withering political attack by clearing the way for Congress to approve
an expansion of the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance
program before the August recess.
“Democratic leaders in Congress didn’t put up much of a
fight and they didn’t stand up and say ‘no’ to
Bush,” said an e-mail message that political operatives for the
group MoveOn
sent Tuesday to the organization’s members, urging them to sign
an online petition calling on Congress to reverse the new law.
Activist groups were somewhat forgiving earlier this year when
Democrats backed down in a fight with President Bush over war spending,
but the concession on changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act seems to have touched a nerve.
From the perspective of liberal critics, Democrats again let
themselves be hoodwinked into handing Mr. Bush substantial new power on
the basis of White House warnings of an imminent threat. And they did
so when Mr. Bush’s poll numbers are low.
“Ultimately, it was the Democratic leadership on the Hill that
rolled over to this demand,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a top
lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Instead of standing strong and standing on principle, they
panicked and gave the administration not only what it has been asking
for, but more.”
Democratic officials in the House and the Senate say they understand
the dismay that greeted the measure’s passage and point out that
most Democrats opposed the bill, including the four senators seeking
the party’s presidential nomination. But they say that given
classified security briefings and the approach of the recess, Democrats
had little choice.
“Everyone who heard the briefings from the administration
agreed that the intelligence community did not have what it
needed,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. “Both Democrats and Republicans alike agreed that going home without addressing this issue was not an option.”
And once the Senate left town after approving the Republican
proposal making it possible to institute wiretaps without warrants,
House members found themselves in the position of either acting or
being the last roadblock to the changes sought by the White House.
“We agreed with the administration that there was a problem
with FISA that needed to be fixed,” said Brendan Daly, a
spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi
of California. “We thought we had a bill that protected civil
liberties and addressed their problems, but it did not have the votes
on its own.”
Still, many House Democrats argued Saturday both in private party
meetings and again on the floor that Democrats should either prevent a
vote on the Republican proposal or join together to defeat it no matter
the political cost. They believed the measure went too far in handing
surveillance power to the administration, particularly Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales, without sufficient judicial review.
“We should have stood our ground,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler,
Democrat of New York. “We had a bill that did everything they
said was necessary for national security. I think we could defend
that.”
Progressive bloggers agreed. “Cowards,” said the
headline on a post Tuesday on the Daily Kos Web site, which listed the
41 House Democrats and 16 Senate Democrats who sided with the White
House and Republicans.
As they dealt with the political fallout, Democrats noted that
Congressional aides were already drafting a revision of the bill, which
expires in six months. But they also acknowledged that reaching
agreement on changes would not be easy.
The A.C.L.U. wants to make sure that Congress and the country have
all the information they need for the renewed debate. On Wednesday, the
group filed an unusual request with the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, which operates in near-total secrecy, asking it to
make public its recent opinions on the scope of the government’s
ability to wiretap Americans.
The executive director of the A.C.L.U., Anthony D. Romero, said,
“Unless the FISA court discloses the documents leading up to the
recent law and shedding light on the government’s claimed
surveillance authority, an informed and meaningful debate — the
cornerstone of our democracy — cannot occur.”
Democrats and political analysts said they expected the long-term
political consequences of last week’s votes to be minimal because
most of those who are irate would not be inclined to back Republicans.
“At the end of the day, how many choices do they have?”
asked Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst, about liberal
voters. “How many Democratic primaries are going to be determined
by this? Base voters have a way of complaining, being angry, of holding
their breath until they turn blue. But I don’t see it as having
any real consequence.”
Others say frustration with the party over issues like the
surveillance vote is at the heart of the dismal poll ratings for
Congress.
Some are already talking about primary challenges for Democrats whom
they consider enablers of Mr. Bush, like moderate Blue Dogs who formed
the core of Democratic support for the eavesdropping proposal in the
House. On the Web site Open Left, the blogger Matt Stoller accused the
Blue Dogs of one of their “standard betrayals.”
“The upside,” Mr. Stoller wrote, “is that
organizing is beginning already around fixing the FISA legislation, and
a campaign to destroy the brand of the Blue Dogs is not far
away.”
Eric Lichtblau contributed reporting.
Powered by ScribeFire.
::Tullycast:: 