Oh Man, I Wish I Had Not Found This (JM)

As much as Slate's Delegate Counter was addictive (imagine how bad it would have been if they had had one at the beginning of this process, I would have spent hours setting up scenarios whereby Biden was facing Mittmentum and all sorts of other wonderful dreams) I feel that the new Congressional Power Rankings might be more injurious in the long run. The rankings measure position, influence, earmarks, and legislative activity. They give breakdowns of each category, but don't detail exactly how they measure indirect influence (worry not dear readers, I have an e-mail out to them as we speak).

Anyway, a few interesting notes. It seems to me that the most powerful members of congress right now are amongst the most liberal. Notably high ranked members of the House include the very liberal Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank and David Obey. In the Senate it is a bit less true, Kennedy and Leahy being amongst the top ranked liberals. I suspect the reason for this is less about the political temperament of the country and more about seniority and incumbency. Very liberal districts are often likely to elect and reelect their representative, and that person is likely to be more left of center given their constituency and the safety of their district. Over time this will lead to more power through seniority and public recognizability. It's an interesting effect, because in general parties come to power on the back of centrists, but then turn power over to the less moderate portion of the party due to congressional rules and the nature of the political world.

Once I get an answer on what data points are used to determine measurements of indirect influence, I am going to run data analysis of power rankings as compared to liberal-conservative rankings. My hypothesis is that amongst the most influential Democrats we will find a heavily liberal tendency and amongst Republicans we will find a fairly conservative tendency at the top (as in party leaders and such), but then in the middle to near top we will find more moderate negotiators. Anyway, this is going to be such a colossally interesting giant waste of time.

Finally, I also discovered there is such a thing as fantasy congress, but since even Dennis abjectly refused to play in a fantasy congress league with me, I think perhaps it is best if I avoid it. Besides I already spend enough time on insanely competitive fantasy baseball I really should spend my time wondering if Steny Hoyer is going to drop to the second round.

Political Horse Trading and FISA (JM)

As frequent readers of AOTG may know FISA and telecom immunity is something of deep irritation of mine. I deplore the Dems who chose to stand by in the Senate and let the GOP dictate the terms of the deal, all the while threatening to monger fear in their direction should they not pass a new FISA bill.

Now, as it transpires, House Democrats seem like they're about to back down on telecom immunity. Why? So that they can get "exclusivity". What is "exclusivity" you ask? It is the guarantee that FISA is the only means by which the government wiretaps and collects foreign intelligence. In other words, it is a guarantee that the government doesn't keep a secret wiretapping program going along side FISA. This is just so completely insane that I am at a loss for words.

I get that horse trading is part of the political process. It is often necessary to make some concessions in order to get broader support on larger policies. However, the problem is (and always has been for that matter) that the Republican positions are so extreme, so far away from anything resembling moderate compromise, that in order to negotiate the Democrats often have to accept wretchedly horrible policies. FISA is the ideal example. House Democrats are willing to give in to one of the GOP's absurdist policies, telecom immunity, in order to guarantee that they get "exclusivity", something they absolutely ought to have been guaranteed in the first place.

Perhaps, it is time for the party to be slightly less reasonable. The Republicans are the ones who are totally unwilling to sign an extension of FISA in the first place. Basically, they are willing to go nuclear and paint the Dems as soft on security unless the Democrats are willing to accept a false compromise in the first place. It's really time for the Democrats to stand up and say, "This is totally absurd, there is no way we are bargaining telecom immunity to guarantee that this is the only method of surveillance. The American people expect and deserve both and we're going to give it to them." It's unfortunate when we live in a world where compromise is impossible, but when you're facing a party that uses compromise as an opportunity to, for all intents and purposes, hold a gun to your head, you have to push back.

Despite my tirades to the otherwise we can pretty much bet this compromise will happen. These types of compromises will continue and we will watch our rights slowly, but surely, get eroded until we recognize that Republicans will fight to the death and the only way to beat them is to do the same. I've, for the first time in my life, sent e-mails to my congressman and Senators (because I am pretty sure Hillary has a lot of free time to read my e-mails right now) and I encourage you to do the same. This is a battle worth winning, as is any battle at this point. Trading is part of the political world, but when one side makes absurd demands and expects you to choose between them, sometimes it's worth standing up and walking away.

One further quick note on this. It is a larger problem that the stubborn party is the one the eschews most forms of regulation to begin with. This is especially an issue with the confirmation of Bush administration appointees. Bush would love to see his nominees appointed by the Senate, but he seems equally okay with organizations like the FEC and several industry regulatory commission just not doing anything. Thus, we are left with the unenviable and false choice between appointing someone who will do nothing or simply doing nothing. These are large problems, that take complex political skills, but the first step in the battle is to get out in front and let the public know what the GOP is doing. That is a job that has been poorly done by the Democratic congress, and it shows in their approval ratings. It's time for real action on the part of the Senate, and my only hope is that either candidate who fails to get the nomination will go back to the Senate and be a real leader in the fight against the GOP, because even if we pick up my congressional seats, nothing changes unless we change our willingness to fight.