Rove's not brilliant... the Dems are stupid!

Jack M. Balkin at Balkinization and Glenn Greenwald at Salon explain why I'm forced to conclude what I just wrote above. I have implored them so many times before to Do the right thing!, but they are such moral cowards! It's only this current crop of Republicans that could make these Dems seem like a better alternative. Bear with me as I quote extensively, the importance of what they say necessitates it.

Greenwald:

Many political pundits have opined that the key to a Democratic victory in November (as is true for most midterm elections) is high turnout, which is accomplished by energizing the party's base. Voting for and lauding the president's torture and detention bill does not exactly appear to be a politically astute way to energize the base, to put it mildly.

In 2002, substantial numbers of Democratic senators voted in favor of the resolution to authorize President Bush to use military force in Iraq. At the time, they argued that they had no choice politically but supporting that measure because their opposition would be used by Karl Rove to depict them as weak on terrorism. Despite support of the war resolution by a solid majority of Democrats (29-22), the centerpiece of the GOP campaign against Democrats nonetheless was the accusation that they were weak on terrorism. The GOP even ran commercials morphing the face of Max Cleland into Saddam Hussein's face even though Cleland had voted for the resolution.

That Rovian strategy -- luring Democrats into supporting Bush's terrorism policies and then accusing them anyway of being weak on national security -- is precisely what led to the 2002 GOP takeover of the Senate and historic midterm gains.

In 2004, Democrats rejected a candidate who unambiguously opposed the Iraq war (Howard Dean) in favor of a candidate who voted for the war resolution (John Kerry), only to watch as Republicans successfully depicted Democrats as being weak on terrorism. Over and over, Democrats allow Republicans to depict them as weak on terrorism because they are afraid to take a stand and to articulate the rationale behind that stand.

Rove has made no secret of the fact that he plans to repeat this strategy to stave off defeat this year, and few things could aid that strategy more than the Democrats' failure to oppose the torture bill in any meaningful way. Some Democrats of conscience will vote against it, which will enable Rove -- despite substantial Democratic support for the bill -- to argue that Democrats are weak on terrorism. As the Times reports: Republicans "said they were hoping to send the bill to Mr. Bush by the end of the week for a signing ceremony that could help them kick off the home stretch of the campaign with a message that Republicans were taking strong steps to protect the nation from terror attacks."

[...]

Beltway Democrats and many of their supporters seem incapable of understanding that their central flaw has not been that they are "too liberal" on national security, but that they are perceived as standing for nothing. They appear weak and unprincipled not when it comes to standing up to the terrorists, but when it comes to standing up to the president for what they actually believe. Support for the torture bill is unconscionable; that ought to go without saying. But it is also politically self-destructive, because it depresses their base (who wants to vote for a party that supports the president's torture bill?) and inflames the perception that they are unwilling to fight for their convictions unless doing so is politically expedient.

The principal difference between Republicans and Democrats in 2004 was that Republicans stood firm on their principles while Democrats were perceived not to have any. In 2004, Bush's policies were already unpopular, including the war in Iraq, yet this was the defining line from his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention: "In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. (Applause.)" If Democrats vote for the torture bill in significant numbers, how could the same be said for them?

As I've tried to document previously, there are ample reasons to hope for a Democratic takeover of Congress notwithstanding the unprincipled capitulation of many Democrats on what may be the most profoundly important bill of the Bush presidency. But Democrats who support the torture bill are doing very little to help that cause.

Balkin:

I am puzzled by and ashamed of the Democrats' moral cowardice on this bill. The latest version of the bill blesses detainee abuse and looks the other way on forms of detainee torture; it immunizes terrible acts; it abridges the writ of habeas corpus-- in the last, most egregious draft, it strips the writ for alleged enemy combatants whether proved to be so or not, whether citizens or not, and whether found in the U.S. or overseas.

This bill is simply outrageous. I doubt whether many Democratic Senators or staffs have read the bill or understand what is in it. Instead, they seem to be scrambling over themselves to vote for it out of a fear that the American public will think them weak and soft on terror.

The reason why the Democrats have not been doing very well on these issues, however, is that the public does not believe that they stand for anything other than echoing what the Republicans have been doing with a bit less conviction. If the Republicans are now the Party of Torture, the Democrats are now the Party of "Torture? Yeah, I guess so." Not exactly the moral high ground from which to seek office.

[...]

If the Democrats do not stand up to the President on this bill, if they refuse to filibuster it or even threaten to filibuster it, they do not deserve to win any additional seats in the House or in the Senate. They will have delivered a grievous blow to our system of checks and balances, stained America's reputation around the world, and allowed an obscenity to disfigure the American system of law and justice. Far worse than a misguided zealot is the moral coward who says nothing and allows that zealotry to do real harm.