Here's the problem: Feingold and the activists are right that Democrats can't just take a pass on the wiretapping issue, because Bush's legal claims are so suspect -- even to many in his own party. The opposition job is to raise alarms over potential abuses of presidential power.
But Democrats, unlike Republicans, have yet to develop a healthy relationship between activists willing to test and expand the conventional limits on political debate and the politicians who have to calculate what works in creating an electoral majority.
For two decades, Republicans have used their idealists, their ideologues and their loudmouths to push the boundaries of discussion to the right. In the best of all worlds, Feingold's strong stand would redefine what's "moderate" and make clear that those challenging the legality of the wiretapping are neither extreme nor soft on terrorism.
That would demand coordination, trust and, yes, calculation involving both the vote-counting politicians and the guardians of principle among the activists. Republicans have mastered this art. Democrats haven't.
Turning a minority into a majority requires both passion and discipline. Bringing the two together requires effective leadership. Does anybody out there know how to play this game?
Bzzzzzzzzzz, no, no, no, sorry, no trophy for you E. J. Bush's claims are not suspect. Have you even read the Hamdi case, and if you have, did you understand it? The case law is on the side of Bush. Even if you dispute that, it would need to go to SCOTUS to be determined. It doesn't matter what you, the howling monkeys on the extreme left, or what some RINO's may think.
Go ahead advise the Democrats to pull the pin on that thing you think is a grenade. The only ones that are going to get blown up, are the Democrats. It doesn't matter how many gather around Feingold, they aren't going to be able to throw him far enough to hurt any Republicans. The only ones that would get hurt, would be those Democrats that gave it the old college try.
Feingold is playing in the left field, the far left field. Even if every one on his team gets together to agree he's in center field. That isn't going to help the team, or fool the umpires. It just means everyone on the team is going to be out of position. To attack the administration for listening in on al Qaeda phone calls to their operatives this country is not a winning issue for the Democrats, it's a dog that wont hunt.
The problem isn't that there are no Democratic leaders able to navigate between their base and the electorate at large, there is no navigable water between the two. When the Republican party was in the minority. They did not attempt to appeal to the lunatic fringe (Birchers) and the electorate at large. They drove the lunatics out of the party. The Democrats have allowed the lunatics to take control of the party. Until you and the rest of those who want to see the Democrats become a viable national party again, realize this simple fact. The Democrats are going to continue to be the Washington Generals, to the Republicans Harlem Globe Trotters, until they do.
The new information age we now live in, has ripped the rug right out from underneath you, the MSM, and the Democratic party . The loud mouths you hear, are the voices that were never allowed to get near the megaphone, until very recently. We were drowned out by loud mouths like you, with the aid of the MSM. Us loud mouths over on this side would get labeled extreme by you and the MSM, and our ideas would never be allowed a fair hearing. Well the worm has turned.
Turning a minority into a majority requires more than just passion and discipline. It requires a message based on principles that are acceptable to a plurality of the electorate. The Democrats can no longer simply play act, or just mouth the words they think the electorate wants to hear. You can't win the big game, without the basic skills needed to play the game.
With the advantage of three years of hindsight, politicians' failed predictions about Iraq make dispiriting reading. "Any war will cause a refugee crisis of huge proportions," insisted Charles Kennedy. Iraqis proved him wrong by distinguishing perfectly well between a war on tyranny and a war on them, and stayed put. "The same doctrines [of pre-emptive war] could equally be applied by India vis-a-vis Pakistan, or in any dispute where a state feels threatened," warned Shirley Williams, shortly before India and Pakistan initiated talks to resolve the Kashmir dispute. In his tirade before the US Senate, George Galloway eulogised his own wartime perspicacity, which presumably included his assessment of Saddam Hussein: "I think he will be the last man standing in the bunker."
0 comments
Published Tuesday, March 14, 2006 by cam.
You have just got to check out this animation of a nanofactory. This is not science fiction this stuff is really on the drawing table. It may be some time before we actually see something like this, but it is going to happen.
Estimating a Timeline for Molecular Manufacturing
Overview: Molecular manufacturing (MM) means the ability to build devices, machines, and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place. Today the theories for using mechanical chemistry to directly fabricate nanoscale structures are well-developed and awaiting progress in enabling technologies. Assuming all this theory works—and no one has established a problem with it yet—exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing appears to be inevitable. It might be become a reality by 2010, likely will by 2015, and almost certainly will by 2020. When it arrives, it will come quickly. MM can be built into a self-contained, tabletop factory that makes cheap products efficiently at molecular scale. The time from the first fabricator to a flood of powerful and complex products may be less than a year. The potential benefits of such a technology are immense. Unfortunately, the risks are also immense.
Context: Saddam was not only vile, he was a reckless leader and therefore could not be reliably deterred
Neither Saddam's villainy nor his irrationality were reasons to invade Iraq, but both traits made it impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt about anything. There was no depredation beyond his morality, and substantial evidence that he was too reckless in his judgments to be deterred.
The video is partially dynamic; based on your IP address, it gathers data from your nearest weather station and the video unfolds accordingly, the look of the piece taking its feel from the weather outside your window.
Since it is dynamic, the video is never quite the same twice, and they even have a Flikr gallery of screenshots that people have uploaded.
Warning: a certain amount of processing power is needed.