Profiles in Cowardice

Once upon a time, there was a book called Profiles in Courage. Never mind for the moment whether John F. Kennedy actually wrote it or not. Instead, let's focus on what would define a profile in courage. Presumably it would include someone who stands up for what's right, particularly in difficult circumstances. It would feature a person who doesn't back off his or her principles, even if it would be more convenient to do exactly that. It might even entail standing up to bullies, especially if it requires some sort of personal cost. Even without the book, it's not really very hard to figure out what a profile of courage should look like.

If you want to see precisely what it does not look like, take a peek at Dana Milbank's Washington Sketch column in this morning's Washington Post. He's got a whole litany of Democratic senators trying to duck out of responding to Russ Feingold's resolution to censure the President. It's embarrassing. All your favorite Dems are here: Hillary, Kerry, Obama, Schumer, and many more. I'm on deadline again (my latest project should be finished tomorrow--please, God), so I haven't had a chance to browse around the blogosphere, but there may be a few people annoyed at Milbank for shooting fish in a barrel. If that complaint has been made, I think the appropriate response is for Dems to stop acting like fish in a damn barrel! They're worried about their political prospects, they're comfortable in their nice, cushy jobs as disenfranchised members of the opposition (and they are cushy, too--since they have no power, they have no responsibility, so they never have to actually do anything), and they don't want to take any position that might endanger that. How else to explain their refusal to even mention the resolution?

Because the Repubs control the chamber, there's not a chance that this resolution could ever pass, so this is nothing but an opportunity to go on the record about whether Bush has done anything wrong or not. Most of them say they disapprove of the NSA spying program. A few are even willing to suggest that it's against the law. So just vote the same position in this resolution! How hard is that?

The press is spinning the NSA surveillance program as a winner for the Prez, but I don't see it, especially over the long haul. The Repubs seem to think that as long as they use their talking point of "if anyone's talking to al Queda, we want to know why," they can pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Certainly that argument's good as far as it goes. I don't know anybody credible who would disagree with it. Of course everybody supports surveillance on al Queda and their contacts within the US. That's why we've got a FISA court to approve secret warrants to do exactly that. But if we've already gotten that taken care of, why does the Prez need to spy on other Americans the FISA court can't know about? And why can't Congress (which is theoretically charged with overseeing such things) know about it, either? If Dems can get put these questions in front of the people, I think they can convince most people that Bush (who I've heard is hugely unpopular at the moment, by the way) has at the very least overstepped his bounds.

But no. The Dems have to turn tail and run. They seem to be making a pretty good case that they're absolutely useless and don't deserve our support when they run for President in 2008 or just for reelection the next time that rolls around. We need to find some other party that will stand up to the President and defend the Constitution. Is that so much to ask?