One of the most depressing examples of one-party rule is the Patriot Act. The measure was originally crafted in classic bipartisan fashion in the Judiciary Committee, where it passed by a vote of thirty-six to zero, with famed liberals like Barney Frank and Jerrold Nadler saying aye. But when the bill was sent to the Rules Committee, the Republicans simply chucked the approved bill and replaced it with a new, far more repressive version, apparently written at the direction of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Why is this the first time I've read about this? Here I thought that the democrats were just being spineless. I guess my abysmally low opinion of American politics is just not low enough.

this is an amazing article

this is an amazing article

what? I didn't even double click submit or refresh or anything. I just posted my comment and closed the window. don't judge me for my double post

the judging was already there, this just kind of adds to it, you know what i mean.......

Great writing indeed:

'It is no big scoop that the majority party in Congress has always found ways of giving the shaft to the minority. But there is a marked difference in the size and the length of the shaft the Republicans have given the Democrats in the past six years.'

wow - kind of puts things in perspective.

I like the 'do nothing congress' bit.

Despite his emphatic assertions--not one accusation distinctly or uniquely Republican.

Like asserting that the Dallas Cowboys are 'ball hogs' when playing against the Mevlinville Pastry Chefs JV squad.

Doesn't mean he's wrong, just means the democrats have their problems too.

dinoza:
'Doesn't mean he's wrong, just means the democrats have their problems too.

You're right. My point is that anyone who is more concerned that this shit goes on in the republican party than they are that it goes on in Washington; and they are so much less concerned that it goes on in the Democrat's politics that they barely get mentioned; such person is just a retard who actually embraces such bullshit-- that the point of writing this article is not to get rid of this bullshit, but to inflict it yet some more from the other side of the aisle.

This LOki is not down with that.

Your point is illogical. First you admit you have no problem with the claims he's making about how bad the republican congress was, then you say his argument is nothing more than partisan bullshit. He can't be lying and telling the truth at the same time, and neither can you have it that there are bad things about the republicans without these bad things being true of the democrats.

Hmm, corrupt and inept politicians, what an amazing concept. Go back to smoking your meth and eating your high fructose corn syrup, that is ultimately more satisfying. God is not listening.

dinoza:
Your point is illogical.

It would certainly appear so if you insist upon the assertion that my point is that he's wrong about the republicans.

An understanable assertion from one whose statist ymathies are so firmly ingrained.

dinoza:
First you admit you have no problem with the claims he's making about how bad the republican congress was, then you say his argument is nothing more than partisan bullshit.

Yes. Considering how he spun this as a Republican problem (excluding Democrats) rather than a Wasington prolem (which would have included his precious Democrats), his little essay was clearly patisan with the transparently bullshit, and partisan, point that Republicans (not Democrats) do these bad things.

dinoza:
He can't be lying and telling the truth at the same time,...

He most certainly can. The bes lies are the ones hat intentionally lead the listener to false conclusions using true statements. Such as listing every bad thing done by Republicans and not mentioning that the Democrats do these things too; then characterizing these bad things as problems for Republicans, without mentioning that these bad things are problems for Democrats too; then characterizing Republicans as destroyers of the constitution, while failing to mention Democrats are in the same manner, and by the same means,destroying the consitution as well; then intentionally allowing the reader to conclude that Republicans are the problem, and Democrats are not.

dinoza:
...and neither can you have it that there are bad things about the republicans without these bad things being true of the democrats.

I know you believe in this--I'm telling you you're wrong--there is no magic formula that always makes Democrats right when Republicans are wrong. There is no magic formula that always make Democrats good when Republicans are bad. The truth is, your Democrats are no less the filty totalitarian statists that the Republicans are. Absolute faith in your statist fairy tale will not change that truth.

LOKI: 'You're right. My point is that anyone who is more concerned that this shit goes on in the republican party than they are that it goes on in Washington; and they are so much less concerned that it goes on in the Democrat's politics that they barely get mentioned;'

The article is based upon the current majority party in congress. I'm sure the author could do a piece about the democrats when they last held power and it would be just as horrifying.

I am insisting that he could do such an article... I submit there's a reason he doesn't, and that reason has everything to do with his approval of these tactics he complains are so fuking wrong.

In classic majoritarian politics, the party that runs the congress is responsible for its actions. Repubs had an unprecedented lock on all major committees, all legislative action. Dems even create a legislative ripple, politically. The minority was excluded from major initiatives. So it doesn't really make anything clearer to say that democrats were corrupt as well. Of all the corruption investigations, the vast majority of them are republican. Ney, Abramoff, Cunningham-these are the largest corruption cases in decades, and they're mostly republican.

The most significant democrat I can think of under investigation or indicted is Bill Jefferson, and he's really just small shit to the rest of them. From all of the corrupt dems I've read about, the ratio is still about 1:4. Maybe that will change when all of this Abramoff work goes to court, but I'm willing to bet it won't. Of the most telling things Taibbi points out is the lack of oversight of the executive. You can't spin this as a democrat fault, republican chairs control investigation of the executive-there was none. They were calling for investigation-they didn't get it. Thats a fundamental violation of the balance of powers. If democrats would do the same with a lock on the congress and the executive-possible, but there's no evidence. Maybe you'll get it in 2008.

^ something to back that up?

How do we know that you're motivation for that submission is not entirely selfish?

Thats always been the problem with rolling Stone articles. the author gets too personally involved and loses objectivety

I am insisting that he could do such an article... I submit there's a reason he doesn't

Yeah, and that reason is that they are not the majority with a democrat president. Hurf durf

(oops - missed the spot: that quip was intended for LOki)

'To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence. '

'At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. '

'The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.'

Thusly, Ann Coulter is a mole working for the democrats to identify the weakest-minded, most impressionable opponents and cast shit on the face of the republican party from within.

Ann Coulter?

Ann Coulter?

You're missing the point, LOKI. The point is NOT whether the tactics mentioned have been part of the Dems approach... they have not. The reason they have not been is because those tactics have been illegal and (perhaps more importantly) frowned upon by both parties up until this congress. You can bet your ass, however, that these tactics absolutely will become a part of the Dems approach now. There's a great point in the article about how the Repubs are really beginning to panic in earnest now that they are beginning to realize that they will have to live under the rules they have created.

Meanwhile of course, the checks and balances that were done away with during this congress (and whatever else you may whine about, the simple fact remains that no congress in history has ever abdicated its responsibility so thoroughly as this one has), will stay gone forever. And ever.

The point being that the system in general is breaking down. And yes, we all knew that (we DID all know that, right?), but now we find that it is breaking down far faster than most probably realized. It is, in fact already on the verge of collapse.

Barbarians at the gate, indeed.

!