They Still Need To Step Up

Anonymous Liberal is just as concerned as I am that the Democratic "strategy" of sitting on the sidelines of the torture debate could hurt them severely in November.

We're currently in the midst of one of the most important legislative debates we'll ever have in this country. At stake are the very ideals we have striven so hard over the years to achieve, ideals which have come to define us--at least until recently--and which we have tried so hard to instill in others. More than any other time in recent history, the very core of who we are as a nation is on the line. And remarkably, one of the country's two major political parties has chosen to sit out the debate entirely.

You do not make your mark as a national party by letting the other guys take the fire for you. AL notes that this strategy of keeping their mouths shut has not worked in the past:

Remember, Republican Arlen Specter talked a good talk when it came to holding the administration accountable for its blatant law-breaking, but in the end his "compromise" surveillance deal gave the White House everything it could ever have hoped for, and more. It wouldn't surprise me at all if, as others have pointed out, this is all an elaborate kabuki dance that will end in a compromise which gives the White House almost everything it wanted. When you allow others to fight your fights, you tend to get screwed when they prematurely surrender.

But even if McCain & Co. stick to their guns and somehow manage to get the president to sign on to their legislation, you still end up with a law that was drafted by some very conservative Republicans, a law that reflects virtually zero Democratic input.

Indeed, as I've maintained, the actual bill still immunizes the Administration for their past conduct of torturing detainees, and denies them the write of habeas corpus.

Democrats need to understand that Republicans will attack them and call them soft on terror NO MATTER WHAT. So they might as well put up a fight. It's not like the other side is going to call off the dogs. The political culture in Washington rewards aggressiveness and detests weakness. Right and wrong are largely besides the point. Making your principles known forcefully is what matters.

Ned Lamont totally gets this, and it adds to my suspicion that Democrats MIGHT be trying to get into this debate, only to be hit by the brick wall of the media who's simply more interested in the inter-party pie fight:

I just think it’s unconscionable that this country compromises its values like it does, be it on the military tribunals, be it on Guantanamo, be it on playing fast and loose with the Geneva Conventions. Joe Lieberman was one of the few Democrats who supported Gonzales, who said the Geneva Conventions were quaint. That’s not America. I think it’s important for Democrats to stand up and say that’s not America, that’s not our tradition, it weakens us when you compromise us that way.

As long as this gets local media support, Lamont will be fine. And we need more candidates like him. I'd love to see the Fighting Dems, 56 members strong, issue a specific statement on this legislation and what they'd like to see. The Democratic establishment still hasn't figured out how to play the political game. Our candidates are unrestrained by this groupthink. And their press secretaries need to work their contacts and make sure DEMOCRATIC voices get involved in this debate. I really think there could be a breakdown at that level, with the media unconsciously (or consciously) following the McCain soccer ball.