Matt,
I'm sadly inclined to agree with you, though my quick read of a news report didn't clearly reveal what's included in this "compromise."  Political concerns and electoral strategy aside for the moment, what do we actually know about it?  From what I read, vagueness and inconsistencies were among its key features, which may have been an intentional part of the political calculus behind the deal, as well as a necessary element in making it happen.
What specifically would you (or anyone commenting in this thread) suggest as the line of attack for Dems in this case, and how it might play into a broader electoral strategy?

Since when do we "compromise" on clear-cut moral issues like torture?   This issue confirms all my worst fears about our Congressional Democrats.  They lack the courage to stand up and do what is right, and they don't even have the political sense to realize that the GOP was handing them an issue that was a winner for our side.  I wrote Hilary Clinton a very stiff letter about the Silence of the Dems on torture.

I can't wait for the next phone solicitation from the DSSC-- they are going to get a fucking ear full.

Harry Reid is a soft spoken pussy....no balls. They better come out swinging next week or else we'll have solid proof that every single politician in DC including most every democrat needs to go.

I hope Feingold stands up all alone and filibusters the torture legislation, for no other reason than to embarrass his Democratic colleagues.

The Democrats are making a huge mistake here. For the past 2 weeks they have been almost completly silent while the Republicans have trampled on whatever remains of what this country holds dear. From a moral standpoint, they have been failures. From a strategic standpoint, they have been failures.

They let McCain and the other two fucks do an end run around them, making the Republican party look somehow principled, a place for honest disagreement. They got their torture and they come out smelling like roses. It's pathetic and will only hurt us in November and two years from now when the "maverick" rides Democratic incompetence to victory.

Aaargh.  And for most of the past two years, Harry Reid had been such a fighter.

When the WaPo thinks this 'compromise' stinks, it should stink to any Democrat this side of Joe Loserman.

I called up both my Senators yesterday (Mikulski and Sarbanes) and neither of them had anything to say about it, according to the persons answering their phones.

This is why it was important to run against Lieberman.  As long as there are so few Dems in Congress that are willing to stand up to Bush, rather than rolling over for him, then what's the point?

Do we ever.

Torture is wrong. Period. We should be willing to win or loose on that principle alone.

It is hard not to despair when the so-called leadership of the Democratic Party demonstrates such utter mediocrity. They will simply not lead on any issue or stand for any principle.

I was watching a You Tube clip from the 2004 concert lead by Bruce Springsteen and a host of activist rock stars. It was moving to remember that passionate plea for political participation. Then I thought of how Kerry slipped quietly into the night after the election was stolen to save what little political capital he had left for 2008.

Where has the Party been in the face of blatant election fraud? The GOP would go to the mat if the Democrats were cheating in the elections, even in a minor way. But Kerry said nothing and allowed the illusion of a fair election to be spun by the corporate media with no counter veiling narrative. But he did save an ounce of his political capital, right? He has less than zero in my mind.

I hate this stinking party of dead-enders. These people are not worthy our efforts, or our money and especially our votes. They are not worthy of us. We need to get rid of as many as possible.

No, I am not a troll.
Yes, I will continue to support Progressives.
I refuse to give up but today I am simply exasperated.  

What evidence do we have, other than our own wishful thinking, that Democrats are anything other than fully enthused to torture people? I reviewed all Democratic Senators' websites yesterday and found what I expected: Carl Levin and Harry Reid statements are the only ones out there, and they're pretty damn pathetic. Do a personal whip count if you don't believe me. Maybe you can come up with ten who'd oppose this thing.

They're not rolling over because secretly, deep down, they have the same outraged principles as we angry ordinary people but they're scared to fight. They're rolling over because they don't care. They don't represent us and they're not fighting for us. Time to stop pretending all they need is more spine.

For too long a lot of us have been making the calculation to just wait till they get in power and they'll show their true colors--without any indication that deep down they care about this issue at all. A minority do. Most of them don't, and they're not going to start if they get in power.

Meanwhile, some time in the next week our elected legislature will officially and bipartisanly ratify the use of torture in law, which is very different than the President ordering it illegally.

As usual the Democrats were set up again They  marginalized themselves while the repiglicans managed the entire show and got themselves credit for standing up against the preznet(playing the loyal the Opposition ).Then got the credit for working with the President for a compromise. Then giving the president every thing he wanted anyway. Finally and worst of all forcing the Dems to humiliated themselves where they had to praise the repiglicans for the entire event! Jesus what a bunch of suckers! The Dems must learn the old idea of letting the other guys fight it out don't work with the repiglicans.

There's a Washington Post article (Babington and Weisman) describing the situation pretty well, and alleging that a few Dems have denounced the bill. I think the Dems have left themselves room to come out right on this, on Monday morning, and they need to be convinced that they will gain, not lose, by doing so. Seems to me they may have thought McCain et al were going to come up with something better than this, but they didn't, and now a vigorous response is still timely and deeply appropriate.

No analogy goes more than part of the way to explain anything.

But you get an idea of where the Dems are now when considering the old GOP.

First enormous difference: the GOP were completely marmalized by FDR in the 1932/36 elections. There were comebacks, but from a pitifully low base.

But - in 1932, the GOP had been used to being the natural party of government (at least in the Congress) since the end of the Civil War. Barring Cleveland (a Wall Street wet dream), the only post-war Dem prez had been Wilson, purely because of the Bull Moose butting in.

This long history of supremacy brought them a barrel-load of self-delusion.

Between Hoover and Daddy Bush they only had one prez (Nixon) who might be called a regular poll. They took both houses in 46 and 52, but for one term only. Three Congresses in the Senate under Bonzo - and that was their lot.

By 1968, the Old Party was no longer Grand but Defunct. A shell of which the conservatives did a reverse takeover.

Since 1994, the Dems have been cushioned from facing reality first by Clinton holding one elected branch; the Jeffords fluke; and - and this most especially - the fact that they have never suffered a loss in the Congress anything like as catastrophic as the GOP in 1936.

They've kept it close. And, whatever adjustments you say have to be made to account for the enhanced value of incumbency and redistricting and such like, 15 seats sounds to the partisan mind's ear like a piece of piss.

The corollary, however, to this new arithmetic is, a miss is as good as a mile.

But the Congressional Dem leadership has little about them of an organization fighting for its survival. They're evidently still working on the one more heave theory. Preserving their own positions is much more important to them than any good that they might do in a majority in the House or Senate.

The GOP are the other way round: like some self-made man out of Twenties fiction, who owns palaces but still fears the gutter. The Dems are toffs who have fallen on hard times and, like good old Mr Micawber, are waiting for something to turn up.

For all the great things that Dean and a good many others are doing with the party, that Micawberish attitude amongst the Congressional Dems is going to take a long time to shift.

Its simple-McCain made a deal with the devil!

After my earlier and poorly informed comment I did a little more reading--including the Glenn Greenwald post Matt links to. I'm sorry--but not too surprised--to say that Glenn sums it up all too well:

The one good thing about incidents of this sort is that they really shine a light on just how dysfunctional and sickly our political institutions are. The President has been torturing people in violation of the law. Republican Senators pretend to object to that but then end up enacting a law legalizing the President's conduct and giving him the power to torture. The media disseminates the patent falsehood (jointly emanating from the White House and GOP Senators, and unchallenged by Democrats) that the President "compromised" and everything Good was preserved. And Democratic Senators, in order to excuse their fear to take a position one way or the other, cheer the whole thing on after it's done, in the process obsequiously praising their political opponents seven weeks before a major national election.

What I'd add to that is that it shines a light on the importance of what the progressive netroots and a handful of courageous and principled Democratic officials and candidates are trying to accomplish.  It underscores that we don't only need to win elections, we need to win control of the Democratic party...and we also need to develop media systems that can, over time, replace the MSM as the source of what most Americans see and hear about what's happening in Washington and the world.  Today's Washington plays by the rules and with the tools mastered by Karl Rove.  We need to change that, and we are.  And while this is a sad day for Democrats, and a reminder of how much needs to change, my hope is that it will also strengthen our resolve and inspire new ideas and initiatives to make that change happen faster and more completely.

You see it does make a difference when you choose those who are willing to compromise on principles.

I am willing to bet Feingold will oppose a law to OK denial of basic constitutional principles.  Hope he is not too lonely.

Best,  Terry

Here's the joke (it's dumb, but...):

Q:  What's the difference between a good and bad haircut?
A:  About six weeks.

This legislation--and the sick PR scam behind it--is a seriously immoral haircut.  

In "about six weeks" we will take the first giant step towards righting this wrong.  Between now and then, we keep pushing.

Personally, I see a malaise sweeping through the top tier blogs over this issue and as much as I can understand that--as much as I agree--I would like to send out a general battle cry to not let a down mood sweep through the blogs.  

You folks set the tone.  So...

Heads high.

Eyes forward.

Why do DCDemocrats always take a powder and play right into Rove's game at election time?

Are they politically stupid? Morally bankrupt? Craven cowards?

Hopefully not all three.

On a side note, as sceptic06 pointed out in a couple of diaries, where was the blogosphere while all this was going down? His diaries were barely even commented upon and, correct me if I'm wrong, there were no main page entries on the subject until this one after the "compromise".

It was inspiring when everyone was rallying to beat Lieberscum in the primary, but since then it's been poll and ad watching -- yawn.

This is one of those times when I don't think we just need new leadership -- we essentially need a new party. I'm not fool enough to think that means we need something with no content and a bunch of primadonnas (Greens) but I do mean that to turn this country around, we need to get rid of ALL the current Democratic leadership and pretty much ALL incumbents.  These rats disgust me.

Matt: You asked for information on Democrats opposing the compromise.  This isn't much, but if Jane Harmon actually sticks to it, this kind of opposition could matter.

Most Democrats appear poised to support the bill, but some say they will insist on being given more information before supporting changes to the War Crimes Act. Representative Jane Harmon, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said she will insist that the president detail the interrogation techniques he plans to approve, and provide a legal justification for each one before the intelligence committee.

Kerry, Kennedy and Feingold will come out against it, once they've had a chance to read the fine print and get a bead on the target.

Hillary will waffle, along with the all the other 40.

I have nothing significant to add to the comments here, all good to great, but this:

I ain't giving up.

I've added another item to my political 'litmus test'...

It used to be:

If you voted for the AUMF or you voted for the Bankruptcy Bill...

You gotta go!

Add: If you don't oppose this morally repugnant 'Torture Bill' you...

Gotta go!

It is becoming crystal clear who is the problem and that, in the sadly long run, will be very useful.

Demcratic 'leadership' should have learned from Losermann's experience with us that: 'You can run but there's nowhere to hide.'

Guess ol' Ben Franklin was right on the money when he said: "Experience keeps a dear School, but Fools will learn in no other, and scarce in that."

We just have to 'learn' dem 'Spineless Dems'.

Learn 'em right out of office.

In this Reuters article, Markey sounds opposed:

But Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, derided it for using "legal mumbo jumbo to obscure the fact that the CIA will continue to be allowed to use torture and will actually be insulated from legal liability for previous acts of torture."

And beachmom on Raising Kaine says Rep. Bobby Scott (VA-03) spoke against the "compromise":

Not only have Republicans gutted our budget, Rep. Scott spoke of how they are now trying to dismantle settled law, like our basic civil and human rights.  Right now, he continued, they are debating whether we should torture people.  At first it seemed that the Republican protest in the Senate would stop it.  However, they went behind closed doors to "compromise", and came out saying, "Well, instead of breaking five parts of the Constitution, we're only going to break two parts".  In addition, the wiretapping law that passed the House would give the Attorney General the power to immunize anyone who had broken the law, something formally only the President had the power to do.

Shhhhh! Be quiet! What's the matter with you guys? Our leaders are very sick. They're in a deep coma. What are you trying to do? Give them some kind of shock? Can't you see that we're better off this way? Because when they do wake up, the Republicans just laugh and make them look like jerks.

doninduhbronx

The Daily Brew
September 25, 2006
Chance of a Lifetime

I realize that the entire leftwing blogosphere is apoplectic because Democrats failed to even participate in the deal cut last Thursday allowing Bush to torture people. I don't see why. I am probably too optimistic, but I think Rove has finally outsmarted himself.

For years Democrats (including myself) have bitched and moaned that GOP talking points fit neatly onto bumper stickers, while it takes a thirty page white paper with 200 footnotes to explain the Democratic alternative. For once, the shoe is on the other foot. The GOP has given us the opportunity to make the Republicans the Torture Party. We ought to run with it.

Every time Bush has squarely addressed the issue, he has denied that "we" torture people. That tells me two things. First, it tells me that Bush is lying. I saw the pictures from Abu Gharib. Bush is definitely in the torture business. Second, and almost as important, it tells me that the word "torture" doesn't poll well for Rove. So if you keep calling Bush a torturer, he will have to keep denying it. So lets do it.

For Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin, the fact that Bush is morphing into Josef Mengele is a plus, but we are not getting the pro-torture votes anyway. For all the normal folks whose sense of morality forces Bush to deny he tortures people, this debate is a gift from God.

Is there a better sound bite than "I oppose torture"? Is there an easier thing to say than "I am not going to vote for this bill. Torture is immoral. Torturing people who haven't even been charged with a crime endangers both our troops and the American public. If we make it US policy to torture people who have done nothing wrong, based on the mere suspicion that they might know something useful, is there any doubt that foreign governments will likewise subject our troops and US citizens traveling abroad to the same treatment"?

Sure, we all know that once we start, the right wing noise machine will spring into action. But for once, we've got them where we want them. Out talking points are simple. Theirs are not. Just by having the debate, we win it.

The actual bill is a complicated mess. Unless you are an endowed chair at the Yale law school, good luck figuring out what it means. So when we say "Torture is wrong," they have to say "The bill does not authorize torture. Under paragraph 3(g)(4) subsection iii, the proposed legislation clearly provides that...." Yada, yada, yada. Get the idea?

Little Suzy Swingvoter and her husband Joe the Undecided Working Guy aren't going to listen to the whole debate, and they damn sure aren't going to read the bill. Their impressions are going to be formed on the basis of sound bites, and in this debate, we have the better sound bites. We can make the GOP the Torture Party. All we have to do is make sure we don't give them any bi-partisan cover, and repeatedly force them to deny that they are torturing people. We will come out miles ahead.

If the Rove tries to debate this bill by saying that Democrats are soft on terrorism, then the GOP implicitly concedes that the bill authorizes torture, and we win; the GOP is the Torture Party. The tougher they act, the more they cement the idea that they are torturing people. On the other hand, if they try to make convoluted arguments about how much you have to harm people before it is actually considered torture, then they are dancing on the head of a pin with the devil, and the GOP is the Party of Torture with Law Degrees. The more they deny the bill authorizes torture, the more they undercut their own message that Democrats are soft on terrorism. We win both ways.

All Democrats have to do is keep making simple statements over and over. "Torture is wrong." "Torture is Un-American." What is the GOP going to do? Say torture is a family value? All Democrats need to do is trust that the American people will reject torture.

Maybe Digby is right. Maybe the Democrats have been "punked." Maybe a mere six weeks from the fall election, Democrats will again take the seemingly safe route, meekly sit back, say nothing, and allow the compromise to become law. McCain will get to play the Republican rebel maverick, who did the moral thing and looked out for the troops. Bush will get to play the Republican statesman and leader, who showed that he is committed to protecting Americans but that he is willing to listen and compromise, and Democrats will look like ciphers who don't have the stones to even say a word when the most important moral issue confronting the government is being debated.

On the other hand, maybe pigs will fly, and the Democrats will finally get smart. Maybe Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will realize that when it comes to torture, good policy, good morals, and good politics all converge. Maybe Democrats will stand up for the idea that torture is wrong, and hang this atrocity around the necks of the entire Republican party like a burning tire.

Of course, if they don't, then I don't really care what happens. For me, we reach the Rubicon this week. Any political party that won't stand up and be counted against torture is not a party that I want to be associated with, regardless of how evil the alternative. I think opposing torture is a political winner. But even if I am wrong, and standing up against torture will cost the Democrats the majority, then SO BE IT, they should do it anyway.

Anyone in Congress who isn't willing to risk their seat to oppose torture I don't want in power regardless of what party they are in. If a Democrat doesn't have the courage to do the right thing on an issue this basic and fundamental, then they are a coward who is unworthy of their seat. We should make any Democrat who gives the GOP bipartisan cover for this abomination the "Joe Lieberman" of every future election they enter. If they aren't smart enough to see that doing the right thing here is a long term political winner for the party, even if they are worried it might cost them their job in the short run, then they are more committed to their own power than our principles, and to hell with them.
______________ ____ ____
The Daily Brew is an editorial/opinion column delivered exclusively via email.

Please forward it to your friends, relatives, congressional representatives, favorite bloggers, and other media outlets.

Anyone who wants to be added to this list can sign up here:
http://brew.notifylist.com/thedailybrew. html

A clear explanation of the legal points in the legislation is posted at FindLaw. John Dean's Sept 22 column concludes:

>>Frankly, this proposed legislation is shameful. Even the much-heralded opposition of a few Republicans - Senator John Warner of Virginia, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Senator John McCain of Arizona - does little to correct the many deep flaws in this proposal.

This proposal, however, is going to tell us a great deal about where we are as a nation, for as General Powell said, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts." As will amending the war crimes law to absolve prior wrongs, denying detainees "a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples," and enacting a law that insults the Supreme Court. <<