The Senate measure to impose new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures, drafted by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, was in an amendment introduced by Mr. Lieberman and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. And in little-noticed comments on the Senate floor in December, Mr. Durbin complained that the decision by conferees to delete the measure had been "troublesome.
Troublesome? You think? When will a forceful minority draw a line in the sand? I noted yesterday that the new nominee for head of the Department of Homeland Security might be the best we can do. This should not be taken to mean that he is a great choice, which would be silly given that I oppose many of the things he had a major role in when he was in the Justice Department. Aside from this, one is left with a strategic choice akin to the once referenced at the head of yesterday's post: if you are in Congress, what do you do when such people come up?
I guess something can be said for a steady opposition, on merits not politics alone, even if it makes one looks like a total naysayer. If the administration is consistently wrong, "nay" is a legitimate choice. Sometimes, especially for certain members, strategic moves will warrant lesser evils. This might be seen as a sort of "game theory" philosophy. All the same, the underlining point that we are move pieces around on a board that is rotten at the core should not be forgotten.
This includes measures accepted by 96-2 votes in the Senate, but later removed. Legal Fiction voices this in support of Howard Dean for DNC Chair, while voicing some support for a lesser known choice toward the end of his remarks:
Despite his ideological wandering during the primary, his tenure as governor was fiscally responsible, socially progressive, gun-friendly, and intelligently hawkish. ... Growing up as a blue blood, he is fluent in the language of Wall Street and will be able to raise money (just like Bush). But more than anything else, Dean is the only prominent Democratic official that has given the slightest indication that he understands the long-term challenges facing the party. ...
I guess too that I have a soft spot for Dean from early 2003. When I was so thoroughly demoralized about Iraq, it was Dean who spoke out and articulated the, well, rage I was feeling at the time. And even though Dean lost, he didn't come across as wishy-washy or unprincipled or cowardly. He emerged with some dignity. That's because he had the spine.
Word. This is what some who sneered at his candidacy ignored at the time. Dean might not have been a viable choice as President in some ways, but he had some core qualities that the ultimate one lacked in some essential way. Yes, Dean had his own problems, including failure to define himself in a way so that the public realized the positives of his resume. But, his positives just might make him a good leader of the party. This one? I'll let the wonks decide, but he appeals.
As previously noted, the campaign for DNC head has raised calls for changing the way the Democrats frame the abortion issue, though it is somewhat of an ill advised time to do so. A leader of Catholics for Choice has written an article that suggests some of the points being made, though it has made some in the pro-choice community wary.
To summarize my take on the article, I think she has a point that we can honor fetal life without threatening abortion rights (e.g., better health care furthers fetal health without necessary threatening the pro-choice movement), but at times does not give the movement credit for what it has done. For instance, pro-choice members of Congress put forth an alternate "partial birth abortion" bill and Sen. Kerry was deemed a hypocrite for saying his personal beliefs respecting abortion should not necessarily mandate his views on public policy. Her comments on parental involvement also are incomplete and so forth.
But, it is a worthwhile read, suggesting the complexity of the average person's thoughts on the issue.