There is no puzzle as to why the Democrats voted for essentially unrestricted wiretapping: it is politically popular.

I do not mean to suggest that Dems are pandering, at least no more so than any other successful group of politicians. Rather, you might say that they are expressing the will of the people.

The fact is that the Great American Voter is so scared of terrorism (and, let's be honest here, of brownish foreigners, especially those practicing strange religions), that there is no serious political objection to laws ostensibly directed against terrorists. Even the once controversial Patriot Act is now firmly planted in the legal landscape, controversial no longer.

On Gonzo, it is worth noting that both the Dems and the White House cannot be right here. If it really would be a disaster for Bush to let Gonzo fall (because of the subsequent confirmation hearings or, my favorite, because politically Bush would be forced to appoint someone who is not a doormat, and then the jig would be up) , then by the same token it would be equally good for Dems.

The problem for the Dems, though, is that Bush does have to let him fall. Censoring Gonzo does nothing (a political stunt, as the Republicans rightly say) and, with Republicans standing firm, impeachment is a nonstarter. These simple facts explain Gonzo's sunny disposition these days.

Unfortunately, you are right about the fear and ignorance of the “Great American Voter”—as well as the fear and loathing of the feckless Dems--which does not bode well for this nation’s future.

The Cheney/Bush regime has perfected the use of fear mongering to eviscerate fundamental civil liberties in the name of fighting the never ending “war on terror.” The majority of Americans could care less as long as they can watch American Idol on HDTV or shoot squirrels with semi-automatic weapons without government interference. Meanwhile, in the House and Senate, Repugs continue to clap mindlessly like trained seals, and Dems cower like wounded hyenas, as the Cheney/Bush regime goose-steps the country towards establishing a proto-fascist state

So the only real questions we are left with is what number cut is this on the way of the death of democracy by a thousand cuts? And how much longer can the core democratic vales of the nation survive the Cheney/Bush regime’s vampirism draining the lifeblood of civil liberties from the body politic?

How many Americans are scared of brown people, who follow Buddhism, Daosism or Hundusim? I mean, these are pretty weird religions, and they are followed by millions of brown people in America - but I haven't heard of anyone expressing much concern about those. I wonder if your claim is based on some faulty analysis.

Hmm, pretty wierd religions? by what standard?

• A religion who was created by a guy claiming an angel gave him magical glasses to read scribed plates no one else can read?
• A religion that believes that ritual symbolic cannibalism absolves you of your earthly venal sins?
• A religion that until about 200 years ago believed that its god lived among the clouds, but who magically decamped to the firmament when balloons were invented and then once again decamped to the unmeasurable borders of the universe once radio telescopes came into being?

But that said, consider that some of the most hated brown people are part of one of the above "wierd" religions (Holy Roman Catholic Church). After all, most of the brown physiognomically meztiso "illegal" immigrants are members of that mainstream religion, yet are hated simply because they are brown.

I think your analysis that the hatred is based simply on adoption of Islam (Toby Keith's "towel heads" are as likely to be Hindu as they are to be Taliban) is just willful ignorance.

In respect to the small subset of Dems who voted for the bill, yes, on some skin deep level people are willing to support that sort of thing. It is a failure of leadership, a supposed end of a republican democracy that avoids the skin deep desires and fears of the populance, that this was accepted.

The people at large actually are not all or nothing sorts. They know deep down that they don't want any measure necessary. We aren't East Germany yet, and with reason. Proper leadership uses this and balances order with liberty, which is what freedom is all about.

I also disagree with those who think censure is meaningless as would be impeachment with conviction. This is akin to saying that I wouldn't worry about being arrested if I knew I wouldn't be convicted. It might not matter to some people, but it sends a powerful message to others. For the future, this has value. This is partially why people like Bruce Fein etc. support impeachment, even if removal won't result.

-j

I think we just haven't gotten around to them yet. Muslims from the Middle East (and Latinos, too--see my reply below) are the flavor of the day.

It is no accident, I submit, that just about every reference to terrorism these days is yoke to some variation of the word "muslim", and that many, many pundits have found gainful employment with drivel about the "clash" of civilizations and the like. This sort of thing reaches a zenith (or nadir, I guess) in the pages of Slate itself, with innumerable columns by Hitchens dilating on the evils of Islam.

If you don't think that anti-Islam is part of the "war on terror", then you are not paying much attention.

Well, I happen to agree with you that Christianity is "wierd" on some (any?) objective scale. Transubstantiation (the Catholic doctrine that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ during communion) is particularly creepy.

But, it is certainly not wierd to the Great American Voter, who bear the same relationship to Christianity as fish do to water (they are so surrounded by it that they do not see it as strange at all). The fact that all national politicians need to burnish their christian credentials, and none feel the need to burnish their muslim ones, illustrates the difference.

On Latinos, I agree with you. This is just simple racism, without the religious component. Indeed, it was this case I had in mind when I phrased my parenthesis as I did.

Finally, I never claimed that hatred was based "simply" on Islam. But it is, I submit, willful ignorance to be blind to the anti-Islamism that has sprung up as part of our "war on terror".

I certainly hope you are right that the people will not support "any measure necessary". But I fear you are wrong. I think the people will precisely support "any measure necessary", and therefore we are a long way from the end of the erosion of our heretofore "rights".

For example, what do you think would happen if there were another terror attack in the US? Do you think that the people would object much to, say, the imposition of martial law? Do you think the Dems and the courts would stand in the way? I have my doubts.

I appreciate you view on attempted impeachment, if I can put it that way. And I certainly would be glad if the Dems grew a pair. But it will not get rid of Gonzo. Attempted impeachment would demonstrate (as if we already did not know) that the administration can thumb its nose at Congress. The threat of impeachment was successful in removing Nixon because Republicans decided he was too much of a liability to defend. We are a long way from that in the Gonzo case.

If the people's support of 'anything necessary' (apparently as defined by the Bush Administration, since experts in the field think many of their proposals actually counterproductive) was so strong, it would have been 'political suicide' for 80% of the Democratic Caucus to vote against bill.

The same would apply come another attack. We didn't suddenly surrender everything when D.C. was under risk by the rebels or Brits either. And, to the degree we surrendered some, there was a strong dissent.

As to removing Gonzo, let's say impeachment won't do the trick if removal is unlikely. Again, it will serve a function for the future. This is often the point of prosecutions in other contexts too. Removing him is simply not the only concern here.

-j

The only people who have to worry are those who the Justice Department *thinks* are doing wrong.

More broadly, I'm guessing that your salary is not public information. This is not because (I am just guessing again) your salary is illegally earned. Likewise, I'm guessing you would not be very happy if your credit card company posted your purchases for the past year online, with your name attached, so everyone could read it. Guessing again, you would object even though you are not using your credit card to buy illegal stuff. Why would you object if your health insurer posted all your families' health claims for the year, even if, and I'm still guessing, none of them were fraudulent? (If the issue is the government, would you be happy if it posted your salary, credit card purchases, and health insurance claims online?)

Why would you object to such invasions of privacy?

If the answer is that you would not object (and if you are being honest with us about that), then congratulations. You may be a fool, but you are a consistent fool.

If the answer is, as I suspect most peoples' answer would be, hell yes, I would be outraged, then you are both a fool and an inconsistent fool.

But, remember, you still have nothing to worry about because you have not done anything wrong (again, just guessing).

TJoad:

Unfortunately, you are right about the fear and ignorance of the “Great American Voter”—as well as the fear and loathing of the feckless Dems--which does not bode well for this nation’s future.

The Cheney/Bush regime has perfected the use of fear mongering to eviscerate fundamental civil liberties in the name of fighting the never ending “war on terror.” The majority of Americans could care less as long as they can watch American Idol on HDTV or shoot squirrels with semi-automatic weapons without government interference. Meanwhile, in the House and Senate, Repugs continue to clap mindlessly like trained seals, and Dems cower like wounded hyenas, as the Cheney/Bush regime goose-steps the country towards establishing a proto-fascist state

So the only real questions we are left with is what number cut is this on the way of the death of democracy by a thousand cuts? And how much longer can the core democratic vales of the nation survive the Cheney/Bush regime’s vampirism draining the lifeblood of civil liberties from the body politic?

See, this post perfectly reflects why average americans hate liberals so damn much.

It seems that once again libs are convinced that the liberal elites need to save american civil liberties from that great enemy of freedom, the american voting public.

Interesting. The original 'true conservative' was not a big democrat (small 'd'), but was wary of the unedited passions of the masses. They supported various checks against our excesses, suggesting the important of republican (small 'r') government over regular democracy.

In fact, they were rather cynical about the masses' abilities to reason properly. Thus, they were more supportive of elites as compared to Jeffersonian democracy.

To the degree liberals don't want to put fundamental rights up to a vote, yeah, they worry about the changing moods of the American public. Conservatives share such concern. They just worry about different applications of the power.

-j

I don't know if you're conservative or liberal, but it really shouldn't matter; the question is not whether you've done something wrong, but whether there is potentially anyone out there who would like to exert influence over you. Are you really saying that you would trust a government run by Hillary Clinton (I'm taking a wild stab at your affiliation here) to restrain itself from the temptation to use against you the legal, seemingly innocuous information it obtained via wiretapping? Would you trust it not to put out of the closet that Republican senator with a S&M fetish, or that Republican congressman who champions family values even as he subscribes to pornography by the boatload? Would you not fear that a Democratic government would quietly use information to exclude rank-and-file Republicans from ordinary jobs simply based upon their political affiliation? This is the point, even for those who have done nothing they need to hide. It is the point of privacy, and it is one reason why the founding fathers did not trust government.