Not enough Dems stand up to the Republicans. That's why we should VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Perhaps my least favorite left-leaning site right now is the one I call Think Progressive Purist. From an objective standpoint, this site must be considered a Republican party propaganda organ. Today's vote on the REWRITTEN Kyl-Liberman bill elicited the kind hysterical responses that must give Karl Rove an erection:

Well…it was good while it lasted. 230 years is a good run.

now we get bush waving this thing in our faces when he nukes them…dum de dum dum

Who represents us? No one! We have no representation.

I will no longer support the Democrats.

Ok, that’s it. I’m done with the Democratic party. Today I will be re-registering as an Independent. I suggest anyone who is as disgusted with the Democrats as I am do the same. When the registration in the Democratic party goes down to nothing, then maybe they will get the message.

And so on. Not one of these inarticulate ninnies has noted the fact that the sections of the bill which aroused such anger -- and which prompted me to post a call to action (scroll down) -- were stricken.

Progressive purists are, in their own ways, every bit as imbecilic as are the conservative purists who still support Dubya. When purists fasten onto a scenario, nothing can dissuade them from their fixed idea, even when the facts change.

That said, I still think the reformed bill -- a non-binding resolution -- was a pointless exercise in "get tough" talk. The Dems who voted for it (about half) are probably correct to suspect that much of the citizenry bought into the Limbaugh/Fox "spin" on Ahmadinejad's speech. So they have decided to share the hallucination that Iran arms terrorists in Iraq, and they've turned a blind eye to what the Saudis are up to.

The rewritten bill is, in short, mere theater.

Labeling a foreign army a "terrorist" force is ridiculous. The State Department, not Congress, compiles the official list of "terrorist" organizations.

The bill's designation could -- just conceivably -- play into the Bushite love for abstruse legal justification for action. But, as experience has taught us, those lawyerly shennanigans cease the moment everyone decides to laugh at them. Remember the argument that Cheney does not belong to the executive branch?

If war with Iran comes -- and I suspect it will, regardless of what Congress or the citizenry wish -- this bill will have nothing to do with the cause. Bush will do whatever he wants to do. Always has.

Regarding attempts to de-fund the Iraq war: The fact may surprise many of you, but those awful, awful Dems (and a few Republicans) did vote for a bill that would have begun a pullout on October 1. Purists pretend that this vote never happened, but it did. You cannot explain to purists -- most of whom are as ignorant of civics as they are of English grammar -- that simple majorities are not enough, that the President has a thing called a veto.

Similarly, I'm sure that the Think Progress crowd would be surprised to learn that those awful, awful Dems (and a few Republicans) voted to restore Habeus Corpus. You cannot explain to purists that simple majorities are not enough, that the minority party has a thing called a filibuster.

I have suggested forcing the Republicans to mount an actual filibuster. The image of forcing sweaty, shaking old men to stand up on the Senate floor while reading from the telephone book has a certain appeal. But that tactic could well backfire, since it might arouse public sympathy; we all remember Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Last night, Rachel Maddow had a guest who patiently explained how government operates and why Congress cannot simply cut off funding for Iraq in the face of both the filibuster and a presidential veto. Maddow's maddening response: They must do something. Did she have a workable suggestion as to what should be done? No, she did not. At least Randi Rhodes has a keener understanding of the practical difficulties.