Before allowing my hatred towards the US Senate dissipate into optimism, I have to report another blundering decision to end a 30-year old ban on nuclear fuel and technology to India, by an 86-13 vote.

Eric Hundman tries to be cheery and point out that the mere existence of such a geopolitically-retarded law doesn’t necessitate execution. Right!
(more…)

There’s plenty of blame to go around, and I would just love to continue berating those who supported the Wall Street Welfare plan, after initially taking a bold step for all the wrong reasons, but the McCain campaign is already discrediting that attitude with its mudslinging. So, let’s hope Washington’s enablers store enough Christmas goodwill, to endure what I’m sure will be quite painful during next year’s start of reform work.
(more…)

Michael Merritt expressed his preference for divided government, and here’s a cautionary tale against a President McCain and a Democratic-controlled Congress.
(more…)

On the bailout bill that just passed the US Senate, I know I’m in the minority: it’s crap. But, watch, listen, or read this debate between Kenneth Rogoff, Scheherazade Rehman, and John Cochrane on the Online Newshour and tell me that these three experts don’t agree the plan should just contain one provision, the FDIC insurance boost from $100K to $250K. And, tell me that these three can’t properly state why the rest of this grotesque bill would do little more than allay fears irresponsibly stoked.

After that, rebut Daniel J. Mitchell.
(more…)

Timothy Garton Ash argues today: “The challenge to American democracy today is nothing less than to prove it can reform its whole model of democratic capitalism, and make it better.” The US Senate failed the first test (link at UK Guardian temporarily unavailable.)

The US Senate, unhindered by re-election worries, passed the Paulson plan larded with pork.
(more…)

Left and right, blogs are sighing with relief. Another “new-and-improved” bailout bill is on the way.

(more…)

Cross-Posted at Left Flank

Here are two opposite, and not exclusive, arguments, why rejecting the Paulson plan was both a sound political and economic decision.

Firstly, there will be no crisis.

(more…)

Perhaps the failure of the bailout bill is actually a good thing, argues PG’s Balt. (more…)

Cross-Posted at Left Flank (including diavlog with Arnold Kling and Will Wilkinson)

Fundamentally, I’m skeptical about what the US Congress, Hank Paulson, and Ben Bernanke think they’re doing (actually, for the same public choice reasons Will Wilkinson offers in his diavlog) with the compromise legislation awaiting floor votes in both chambers. I also resent the Bush administration’s apocalyptic pronouncements as a tired reprise of post-September 11 doom and gloom. I continue to look for any expert who can reasonably explain the fiasco and give me a decent recommendation.

(more…)

America is way behind the 8-ball in terms of having a next-generation energy program.  But instead of taking action, Congressional Democrats spent the day badgering oil executives about high gas prices and their personal compensation packages.  Democrats like to talk about John McCain’s lack of economic know-how and not without some justification.  But their own approach to energy policy practically screams out that they don’t know what they’re doing.   

(more…)

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are thinking about writing a letter - together with Howard Dean - instructing the Democratic super-delegates to get off the stick and pick a candidate already.  I hope they do just that.  Wouldn’t it be droll if Reid and Pelosi tried to bully the super-delegates into line and were told to stuff it? 

(more…)

If you’re in the mood to get good and hacked off at Congress for failing to live up to its responsibility to ensure that citizens’ views are aired to in its chambers, read Elizabeth Warren’s piece on the House’s credit-card hearings.

The first panel was four regular people who wanted to give first-hand information about their experiences with their credit cards. While the reps from Cap One, Chase and Bank of America went on for hours about their customer friendly policies and how much value they provided free to consumers, the people who had different stories were never allowed to utter a single word.

(more…)

Most of us know about the "Freshman 15", a colloquialism that refers to the amount of weight many college freshmen gain during their first year in college as a result of not exercising proper dietary discipline (and gaining easy access to beer, no doubt).

Given that Congress typically lacks even the most rudimentary sense of fiscal discipline and that we have a new crop of Democratic freshmen who are facing their first House re-election cycle this year, it comes as no surprise that these freshman have, like their collegiate counterparts, acquired more than a little pork during their first year+ in office.

(more…)

Glen Greenwald has an excellent piece up about the FISA amendments that are about to expire, the Bush administration’s bullying scare tactics that got them passed in the first place, and how the “imminent” danger no longer seems important to the president.

(more…)

The no-immunity stance was such an obvious loser that one has to wonder whether it was simply token political resistance to a Republican agenda that the Dems had no way of defeating anyway. (more…)

Nancy Pelosi continues to give her fellow Democrats a severe headache. This time she said that Republicans “like war.” (more…)

After a couple of weeks of partisan bickering, US President George W. Bush is set to win the battle over the US budget and thus (new) war funding. Or, from a slightly different perspective, Democrats are about to cave in.

Democratic lawmakers told CNN that “they’re closing in on a broad budget deal that would give President Bush as much as $70 billion in new war funding.” According to these lawmakers (and staffers) the deal would “lack a key provision Democrats had attached to previous funding bills calling for most U.S. troops to come home from Iraq by the end of 2008, which would be a significant legislative victory for Bush.” (more…)

Two Republican senators have been in the news lately and not for anything good. David Vitter of Louisiana had his telephone number show up:

in the phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, the alleged prostitution ring run in the nation’s capital by Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Palfrey, who faces, federal racketeering and conspiracy charges, says she runs a legal escort service. Prosecutors say the business netted more than $2 million from 1993 to 2006.

Vitter, to his credit, admitted his responsibility immediately, saying “This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible.”

This prompted Ms. Palfrey’s lawyer to claim surprise in a way that only a defense attorney could, presumedly with a straight face: “I’m stunned that someone would be apologizing for this.”

How droll. Prostitution is a crime, after all, albeit a trivial one when all involved are acting voluntarily. Apologizing is what Congress critters do when they’re caught doing something they know is wrong. Vitter’s words seem sincere; perhaps that’s the reason he’s been given a pass on the subject.

Not so for Larry Craig of Idaho, who was outed for having solicited sex in the men’s room of a Minneapolis airport bathroom.

Thus far Craig, who quickly pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in an effort to keep the incident quiet, has refused to categorize his behavior as inappropriate, saying “At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct” and “In pleading guilty, I overreacted in Minneapolis, because of the stress of the Idaho Statesman’s investigation and the rumors it has fueled around Idaho”, referring to that paper’s investigation of rumors about his sexual proclivities.

While not entirely defiant, Craig has not exhibited the humility of Vitter and that’s one reason why he’s been excoriated in the press and abandoned by his Republican colleagues. Craig’s resignation is set for September 30th.

The other reason, of course, is that the action he was allegedly seeking was homosexual in nature.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” the officer said in his report.

The senator then tapped his right foot, “a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct,” Karsnia wrote, and Craig ran his left hand several times underneath the partition dividing the stalls.

“The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot, which was within my stall area,” the officer’s report said.

Fairly damning testimony, to the extent that the act of soliciting sex can ever be damning. Unlike the Vitter case there is no evidence of money changing hands. Neither was there any actual sexual contact made in public. While I personally view male homosexual sex as repugnant, I’m somehow unable to see the crime here.

Not surprisingly, liberals have noted the hypocrisy:

Let’s see - one Republican senator is involved in soliciting sex from a man and the Republican leadership calls for a Senate investigation and yanks the rug from underneath him. Another Republican senator admits to soliciting the services of a female prostitute and there’s not only no investigation…

This even as they’ve undoubtedly been enjoying the spectacle of watching Craig, whose voting record was strongly against changes in favor of homosexual rights, twist himself up in a web of his own making.

They have a point, of course, but as I said earlier one difference is Craig’s unrepentant stance in contrast to Vitter’s forthrightness. Another is that Vitter’s presumed use of prostitutes was several years in the past while Craig’s situation is here and now. Still another is that Vitter has already sought and obtained the forgiveness of the one person who matters: his wife. And yet another is the homosexual angle.

Craig should not be forced to resign from the senate because he is gay or even because he tried to pick up a dude in an airport bathroom. A more appropriate punishment would be expulsion from the Republican Party, an organization whose core principles he violated in that stall and has presumedly been violating in private for years.

The third rat caught in a self-made trap is Democrat William Jefferson, a congressman from Louisiana who I wrote about a couple of months ago:

Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana has been indicted on, according to Fox News, “16 counts of bribery, obstruction of justice, wire fraud, money laundering and racketeering”.

From the article:

The indictment says Jefferson received more than $500,000 in bribes and sought millions more in separate schemes to enrich himself by using his office to broker business deals in Africa. The charges came almost two years after investigators raided Jefferson’s home in Washington and found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. If convicted on all charges, Jefferson could face a maximum sentence of 235 years.

None of this is news. Neither is it news that LA voters re-elected Jefferson in 2006 despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt in these crimes. Let it never be said that people don’t get the representation they deserve.

Jefferson has paid, somewhat, for his crimes by being taken off of a key committee in the House. However, he’s still an active member of Congress in spite of his crimes and is presently hiding behind the privilege of his office in denying the FBI use of evidence seized there:

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that an FBI search last year of the congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., violated the Constitution, because neither he nor his lawyer could protect materials they deemed privileged from being taken by the government.

This is hypocrisy of an entirely different order than that of either Vitter or Craig, who, in submitting to what one might call their baser needs, ran afoul of common moral codes.

Jefferson, however, effectively sold the power of his office in exchange for money, something that should be utterly verboten in the halls of Congress. Yet he persists in inflicting himself on America and Democrats, some unhappily, allow him to do so. His crimes are vastly more destructive that Craig’s, though I hesitate to even use the words in reference to the latter, and should be dealt with - and will be, in time, I am confident - with all the weight and force of the legal system.

Where is the moral indignation over William Jefferson’s graft? Is there any?

Referring to David Vitter, Kathleen Blanco, the incompetent governor of Louisiana:

expressed her dismay over Vitter’s admission, saying she was “disappointed” and indicated that efforts to rebuild from the 2005 hurricane season could be stymied by the new scandal.

“I will travel to Washington in the coming weeks to continue my conversations with congressional leaders, and I hope this scandal will not lessen their critical support of our recovery.”

So her inability to manage the aftermath of Katrina is caused by Vitter’s use of call girls? Hilarious. What of Jefferson, who used his official position to extort bribes and influence government officials in Nigeria?

It’s contrasts like the ones seen in the cases of Vitter, Craig, and Jefferson that make the corrupt nature of party politics obvious.

As much as anything it’s this that powers rogue candidates like Ron Paul, Ross Perot, and potentially Michael Bloomberg onto the scene. It’s also what keeps them from being effective at making changes to a dysfunctional system.

Cross-posted at Black Shards.

Bad news for the Democrat-controlled Congress:

Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Roger L. Simon remarks:

This should give a little pause to those Democratic Party triumphalists who think their crowd is going to waltz into the White House in ‘08. But that’s the least of it. The more important question is why our government is run by such dimwitted mediocrities on both sides of the aisle. I have written before that Silvestre Reyes is the poster child of our Congress - a man who, as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee [sic], couldn’t tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. And he’s still in office! Think about that, those of you who run businesses large and small. As CEO of Pajamas Media, if one of our editors were that uniformed at this point in history I would have no choice but to show him or her the door (not that any of our editors are even remotely that ignorant).

The comparison between government and business has been made many times before and I used to give government the benefit of the doubt. And I am still convinced that there are many things government does better than the private sector, things that it must do. But if government is run by the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Reyes and Hastert, then Heaven help us.

This is one of the major problems of every Democracy, I think: at a certain moment, the most talented people prefer to have successful business careers and ignore politics (or lobby with politicians to make themselves even more successful). Leaders of a nation should be the most talented of the talented, the best of the best. In America - but not just in America, also in the Netherlands - the best of the best are CEOs. Now, if, then, the merely best would become Congressmen, there would not be a very big problem. However, the sad reality of the situation is that ‘the best’ prefer business over politics as well.

The LA Times reports that “in a sharp rebuke to President Bush, House Republicans unveiled legislation Tuesday that would bar illegal immigrants from gaining legal status in the U.S., require tamper-proof birth certificates for Americans and make English the nation’s official language.”

The measure’s core principles include gaining control of the border and enforcing existing immigration laws. It does not provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as the Bush plan does.

Of course, this is more a matter of political posturing - for now - than anything else since this bill stands no chance of passing. However, it does put pressure on Republicans - both in the House and in the Senate not to support McCain-Kennedy. These Republicans are sending out a clear signal: they will not let McCain-Kennedy pass without a big fight.

Mr. M., meanwhile, calls on the US government to open up them borders. M writes:

What’s the worst that can happen? Some old white guy has to worry about his culture being threatened? Dude, the only way a Mexican immigrant is coming close to your country club is to either serve your cocktails or manicure the lawns.

Open up them borders. With a much easier path to citizenship, you’ll have less illegal immigrants, more tax payers, voila. The whole national security argument is bunk, Miguel and his family of four are not here because he hates our freedom. So open up them borders.

And I am sure that conservative Republicans who read that post will be more determined than ever to do anything in their power to prevent McCain-Kennedy from becoming law.

Also read this post at Hot Air: Democratic freshmen, who come from reasonably conservative districts, seem to be siding with the Republicans on immigration.

Bad news for Democrats:

Fueled by disappointment at the pace of change since Democrats assumed the majority on Capitol Hill, public approval of Congress has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.

Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.

And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a “business as usual” manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November’s midterm election.

The Democrats appear to be more busy playing political games, and launching partisan attacks than actually doing what they are supposed to do: legislate.

It is a classic case “say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.”

36% of those polled, approve of the way Nancy Pelosi is handling her job (of House Speaker). “In contrast, 46% of Americans in the current poll said they approved of the way Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia handled the job after he led the GOP into the majority in 1994.”

Why the bad results you ask? It is simple: the liberal Democratic base isn’t happy.

A third of liberal Democrats, who constitute the party’s base, approve of the job Congress is doing; 58% disapprove, the poll found.

Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn. worded it like this:

“They just haven’t seemed to have gathered things together the way they should,” said Martha Wilde, 81, a Democrat from Remer, Minn., who said she had been particularly disappointed in congressional Democrats’ lack of progress confronting the Bush administration over the war.

“I think they should force them more,” Wilde said.

Nancy Pelosi’s spokesman made clear that Pelosi cares a great deal what the base thinks (about her) by saying: “The American people are rightly frustrated with the ongoing war in Iraq, and Democrats will continue to work with Republicans to force the president to change direction in Iraq so our troops can come home and we can refocus our efforts on fighting terrorism.”

Let me rephrase that: “we will continue to do what we are doing: we will make a lot of noise but we won’t get anything done.”

Pelosi et al. made one major mistake: before the elections they made all kinds of promises what they would do once in power. Suddenly they, indeed, won and now they have to deliver. The progressive base does not want to hear excuses (namely that certain things cannot be done because a - it’s stupid; b- Bush can veto legislation he doesn’t like), they wants results.

If Pelosi would have been honest during the campaign, if she would have tried to appeal a bit less to the base, less rhetoric more reason and truth, she would not have the bad numbers she has today.

Paul Kane reports for the Washington Post:

The Senate yesterday rejected a bid to conduct a vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, as Republicans declined to defend the embattled presidential confidant but rejected the effort as a political stunt.

On a 53 to 38 roll call, Democrats fell seven votes short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture and begin the debate on a resolution condemning Gonzales. Seven Republicans broke with the administration and refused to support the attorney general.

They declined to defend Gonzales, but they are not willing to go on record saying they have lost all confidence in his ability to do his job. Talking about political cowardice.

Are the Democrats trying to score points? Sure, of course they are. But that does not meant that Republicans should automatically oppose the Democrats. In this particular case, it seems to me that it is in America’s best interest if Gonzales resigns. A no confidence vote might accomplish that (might).

What matters is - speaking as a foreigner here - what is in the best interest of Amerca; not what is in the best interest of the Republican Party.

I do not quite see how having an incompetent Attorney General is in America’s best interest.

Meanwhile, Jles Crittenden has a post up at Forward Movement about the inability of the US Congress to get things done. Lame-duck indeed.

More at Down With Tyranny!

ABC News reports:

The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren’t doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that’s collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats’ overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now — with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

Yet the Democrats’ losses have not produced much in the way of gains for Bush or his party. The president’s approval rating remains a weak 35 percent, unchanged from mid-April at two points from his career low in ABC News/Washington Post polls. The Republicans in Congress do about as badly, with just 36 percent approval…

he shift away from the Democrats in Congress has occurred on two levels. In terms of their overall approval rating, the damage is almost entirely among people who strongly oppose the war in Iraq. In this group 69 percent approved of the Democrats in April, but just 54 percent still approve now — a likely effect of the Democrats’ failure to push a withdrawal timetable through Congress.

Their decline in leadership ratings vs. Bush is more broadly based — that’s occurred among war opponents and supporters alike, apparently reflecting more an assessment of their performance than an expression of support or opposition.

In other words, the base is upset. The Democrats thought they could talk the talk but didn’t have to walk the walk; they thought they could talk about forcing Bush to do this or that, but they did not truly have to deliver; they could ‘explain’ their surrender to the base.

Guess what, the base is having none of it.

Oliver Willis summarizes:

So, the Democrats are losing footing because they’re following in the footsteps of the president (who has 35% in this poll, unchanged from before and just slightly higher than he measures in other polls) and not… wait for it… listening to the people.

in the Democratic party:

There is a new organization planning to target and reform disloyal Democratic members of Congress. Working For Us, a political action committee founded by veteran labor strategist Steve Rosenthal and backed by top unions, is following the confrontational approach of top liberal bloggers, promising primaries to depose disloyal incumbents. Rosenthal says the group is a “marriage of the grassroots and the netroots,” uniting door-to-door organizers, unions and bloggers in an effort to “change the tenor of politics.”

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended — and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake — and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night…

To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush’s War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.

If you want to read Michael Moore’s entire letter, I suggest heading over to LThomas’ place.

There we have it: the progressive base of the Democratic party is, together with progressive bloggers, going after those Democrats who don’t do exactly whatever it is the anti-war crowd wants.

The question is… will it have an impact? Although Moore doesn’t have a lot of influence outside of the 9/11-was-a-government-conspiracy-crowd, I think that if grassroots, unions, and bloggers unite, they can still have a big impact: they are able to reach out to a lot of voters and to raise a lot of money.

Patrick O’Connor reports for The Politico:

House Republicans have a fairly simple plan to reclaim the majority: Blame Nancy.

The National Republican Congressional Committee launches its first national advertising blitz Thursday with a drive to tie freshmen Democrats to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The GOP’s cash-strapped campaign arm will launch a mix of radio ads and automated phone calls targeting 18 freshman Democrats for allegedly marching in lockstep with the speaker, a California Democrat who is regularly depicted by Republicans as an out-of-touch liberal.

This modest campaign comes 17 months before the next election and signals the seats that Republicans are targeting in 2008. But it also marks an ambitious decision by the campaign committee to go after the speaker in an effort to unseat her most vulnerable members.

Lorie Byrd writes at Wizbang: “Democrats are fond of claiming a mandate as a result of the 2006 elections, but in reality they would not have won if not for recruiting moderate and semi-conservative Democrats to run in key districts. Those freshmen moderates did not run on the liberal agenda Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are now trying to push through Congress and this is one way to let voters know what their representatives are doing in Washington.”

Those Democrats would be wise to be, act and vote a bit independent-minded. If they want to keep their jobs, they’d better reach across the aisle, and, yes, even vote against legislation supported by Pelosi et al. They are Democrats, yes, but they are representing their constituents, not Pelosi.

On the other hand, Democrats shouldn’t be too afraid of the GOP either. The Republicans have their own weaknesses that can be exploited.

H/t Memeorandum.

Monica Goodling testified yesterday and… what she had to say wasn’t good for McNulty, Gonzales and the White House. You can read a lot of posts, including videos and reactions from (Democratic) politicians, at TPMMuckraker. Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy:

“It is curious that yet another senior Justice Department official claims to have limited involvement in compiling the list that led to the firings of several well-performing federal prosecutors. What we have heard today seems to reinforce the mounting evidence that the White House was pulling the strings on this project to target certain prosecutors in different parts of the country.

“It is deeply troubling that the crisis of leadership at the Department allowed the White House to wield undue political influence over key law enforcement decisions and policies. It is unacceptable that a senior Justice Department official was allowed to screen career employees for political loyalty, and it confirms our worst fears about the unprecedented and improper reach of politics into the Department’s professional ranks.

“As Congress continues its oversight to pull back the curtain on the politicization of the Justice Department, it is abundantly clear that we must do all we can to get to the truth behind this matter and the role White House played in it.”

She admitted that political affiliation / loyalty affected the firings and that she had “crossed the line,” which is doublespeak for “illegal.” She also said that Alberto Gonzales did talk to her, and told her what he ‘remembered’ of the firings, after Congress “requested to interview Goodling about what she knew.”

As Paul Kane points out, this directly contradicts Gonzales’ sworn testimony. He said: “I have not gone back and spoken directly with Mr. Sampson and others who are involved in this process in order to protect the integrity of this investigation and the investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General. I am a fact witness. They are fact witnesses.”

Attorneygate… Bush’s Watergate? Could it be that this will drag on for months and months until, finally, it becomes clear that the White House was behind the firings and lied about the role it played in the process?

Keith Olbermann isn’t exactly happy with the compromise Republicans and Democrats reached on Iraq. He said that the president and the majority leaders have betrayed the American people.

after six months of preparation and execution—half a year gathering the strands of public support; translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this:

* The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president—if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history—who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand, that the Democrats “give the troops their money”;
* The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans;
* The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government.
* The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.

You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions—Stop The War—have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you… for a handful of magic beans.
You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate sound bites, about how this is the “beginning of the end” of Mr. Bush’s “carte blanche” in Iraq, about how this is a “first step.”
Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning… is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected and re-elected to do.
Because this “first step”… is a step right off a cliff.

Daniel DiRito comments at Bring it On!

Well it was bound to happen. Just over six months after the American voter sent politicians what appeared to be a clear message about the direction of the country…and particularly their displeasure with the war in Iraq…the criticism of the Democrats (in addition to the Republicans) has made its formal debut in the form of a signature “Special Comment” by the always ebullient and opinionated Keith Olbermann.

Whether the emerging criticism and anger spells trouble for the Democrats in 2008 is yet to be seen…but thinking ahead to the next election, voters may find themselves sending the same message…though wholly uncertain whether they can expect either party to demonstrate enough leadership to bite the bullet and resolve the Iraq situation once and for all.

What I find fascinating to see, is that quite some on the left are actually disappointed. To me, it was quite clear that the Democrats were, well, playing politics. They had no intention of truly clashing with George W. Bush. Bush would win anyway: he would have just vetoed the bill. The Democrats don’t want to stop funding the troops in Iraq: it will make them look bad and hurt them politically. The Democrats cannot win a battle over the war in Iraq: Bush can simply veto every bill he doesn’t like - the Democrats will not have a veto-proof majority on controversial Iraq War bills.

So, what were the Democrats doing? Simple: they were trying to satisfy the base. They thought they could put pressure on Bush, say all the right things, compromise and then explain to the base why they had to compromise, why they didn’t really have a choice, etc. One problem: the base doesn’t believe that the Democrats didn’t have a choice. They understand that the Dems were playing political games.

The Dems don’t want to stop funding the troops, the Dems don’t want to be held responsible for what happens in Iraq after the US withdraws… Here’s what I expect: if a Democrat becomes president and if there are still many troops in Iraq (which there will be), the new president will withdraw some troops, but will keep quite some troops in Iraq for quite some years to come.

The Democrats have surrendered to George W. Bush:

Congressional Democrats relented Tuesday on their insistence that a war spending measure set a date for withdrawing American combat troops from Iraq. Instead, they moved toward a deal with President Bush that would impose new conditions on the Iraqi government.

So it was all just political posturing?

Who would have thought?

If you go to Memeorandum you can read some reaction from ‘liberal’ (as in progressive) bloggers.

Many conservatives are not exactly happy with the immigration reform bill. John Fund for the Wall Street Journal:

It’s understandable that the White House and its Senate negotiating partners want to rush through the compromise immigration bill they agreed to Thursday. Supporters acknowledge that the delicately balanced legislation could collapse if a single destructive amendment is attached to it. Its sponsors admit they want to minimize the political debate. “We all know this issue can be caught up in extracurricular politics unless we move forward as quickly as possible,” says Sen. John McCain, a key architect of the bill.

But this is no way to debate the most sweeping change to our nation’s immigration laws in two decades–especially since the last comprehensive attempt, the Immigration Reform and Control Act, failed so spectacularly. The new bill is set to pass with much less analysis in the Senate than the 1986 law, known as Simpson-Mazzoli, had. Senators did not even receive the bill draft until midnight Saturday. After a test vote scheduled for today, Majority Leader Harry Reid is planning a final vote on the bill this Thursday, only one week after the compromise was struck. Shouldn’t senators have time to actually read the bill they’re being asked to vote on?

Even a key supporter of the bill, Sen. Jon Kyl or Arizona, admitted to radio host Hugh Hewitt that “we don’t have to rush the bill through the Senate in a week. . . . Hopefully, the majority leader would allow it to carry over beyond the Memorial Day recess so we could complete it.”

Why do they want to rush it through Congress you ask? Because giving it more time will provide Americans, not just politicians, to review the bill and to criticize it… as is already happening:

Late Friday night, an electronic version of the “immigration reform” bill was finally published, and quickly found its way into the hands of KLo at the Corner. From there, it has spread all over the net, of course.

But the published version is a big, clunky PDF file (which, if you like, you can download here.) Good if you plan on printing out all 326 pages of it, not so good if you are a blogger who wants to comment on a particular section and show your readers exactly what you’re talking about.

So, N.Z. Bear asks readers to join in: to read the proposal and to comment on it.

Hugh Hewitt summarized the bill so that even the literally challenged, such as yours truly, can understand it.

David Frum is one of the literally challenged people who, after reading Hugh’s summary, finally ‘got it’:

Hugh Hewitt deciphered the bill’s arcane and often deeply misleading structure to discover that it grants immediate legal status to almost all illegals. All the tough talk about enforcement is a cover…

Meanwhile, all the controversy has created on little problem for those who support the bill: they are the minority.

Fewer than 20 senators are publicly committed to supporting the immigration deal that hits the Senate floor today while nearly 40 are already opposed or have serious concerns, underscoring how difficult it will be for President Bush and his allies to craft a coalition that can pass the bill.

Prediction: the bill isn’t going to make it and we will hear much, much more about immigration reform in the coming weeks and possibly even months.

Washington Whispers reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush’s devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie “pro forma” session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he’s the new sheriff in town.

It seems that the left side of the blogosphere suddenly likey Harry Reid.

It’s a bit sad that it’s necessary but a good call by Reid. It is not often that I agree with what Reid wants and / or does, but this is a good decision.