« Bedfellows? | Main | Withdrawing »

August 06, 2007

Comments

JimPortlandOR

Here's the list of Dems who voted with Bush on the FISA changes over the weekend:

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Chet Edwards (17th Texas)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog

In another day, substituting "Dixiecrat" for Blue Dog would have explained it all.

We are back to two Democratic parties, in essence, so the Dem. majority is largely mythical on key issues. Serious talk of impeachment in this atmosphere is just wanking, even though, as you aptly and ably point out in your TPM piece, impeachment is richly deserved and needed to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution - and to ensure that the President observes his obligation to 'take care that the laws are faithfully executed'. Bush says "I won't", and we can do nothing to make him.

The founders seemed confident that party-loyalty politics would not interfere with the Senate's (and House's) responsibility to demand observance of the Constitution by the Executive. So much for that.

We know have the equivalent of an elected monarchy, and the election part is on the block in 08 (or whenever desired by a power-grabbing President and his party).

ed

I wonder whether impeaching Cheney would be less problematic?

JimPortlandOR

Ed: it might be cathartic, but the danger is that Bush/Rove/Cheney would pick the replacement (probably from among the pliant current candidates) thus giving the one picked a much better chance of winning in 08 - as the VP encumbent - and making Rove's election manipulation somewhat easier.

Even mob bosses can rule from prison, so putting Cheney (and Rove) away from the public eye is no comfort.

ed

You're probably right, especially given the Dem's penchant for blowing elections, although none of the republican candidates seem electable right now even if they were to be elevated to the veep position.

The comments to this entry are closed.