Republians, not Democrats, Responsible for Passing Bush's Security Plan

This is very interesting. The media, notably the Washington Post and Huffington Post, on their websites portrayed the Democrats as responsible for passing the "Protect America Act". The problem with this portrayal is that it is misleading and totally lets the Republicans off the hook.

In the House 41 Democrats voted with the Republicans to pass the Protect America Act. That is only 17% of the Democratic Congressional delegation. In the Senate 16 Senators joined with the Republicans. There the percentage is greater, 33%, but again less than 50% of the Democratic Senators. In both Houses the majority of the votes necessary to pass this legislation came from the Republicans. It was because Republicans voted nearly in unison that this legislation passed, especially in the House of Representatives.

Now it is true that if the Democrats had voted entirely against the Act in both Houses it wouldn't have passed. How realistic, though, is it to assume that all 285 Democratic members of both Houses were going to vote as a block on this legislation? Given the diversity of the United States, and the diversity of opinions inside the Democratic caucuses of both Houses, not very likely.

As much Democratic activists may want it, the Democratic Party is not nearly as homogeneous as the Republican Party. Sometimes this works for us, as in it is easier for Democrats to attract new people and groups to the party, and sometimes it works against us, as in the recent vote over the Protect America Act.

Why are Democrats being portrayed as responsible for passing this legislation when, in both Houses, a substantial majority of Democrats voted against this act? The reasons probably vary but one reason may be, at least as far as editorial staffs like the Post are concerned, with weakening the Democratic opposition to Bush by dividing activist Democrats from their elected Democratic officials.

None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't be upset with the passage of this bill. It is very risky to give this particular administration any more power to spy on Americans, especially without getting the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales in return. Putting Gonzales partly in charge of deciding whether surveillance should be undertaken is much, much worse than putting the proverbial fox in charge of the proverbial hen house. Foxes only eat chickens when they have a reason, but Gonzales seems to want to spy on Americans even when he has no reason.

What I am saying, though, is that spreading the idea that Democrats and only Democrats are responsible for the passage of this legislation is playing into the hands of those who support Bush and his war, especially media supporters like the Washington Post.