Nancy & Harry: Bringing Down the House (and Senate)

[partylessinOhio]

COMMENTARY:
Nancy & Harry: Bringing Down the House (and Senate)
by Dave Lindorff



...When Democrats won the 2006 mid-term election, and when they assumed control of the 110th Congress, there was big talk about pressing ahead with investigations of administration wrongdoing and bungling, and of pushing forward a progressive Democratic agenda. There was talk of investigating the president’s assault on civil liberties, of ending the Iraq War, of dealing with a national health care crisis that now leaves 45 million Americans with no insurance and no access to decent medical care, of funding a gutted educational system, of passing legislation to begin cutting back on America’s prodigious and unconscionable production of global warming gasses, and of fixing an electoral system that is a national embarrassment and an invitation to theft and manipulation.

And what have they actually done? Unfortunately, the answer here is not “nothing,” which might have been better.

No. Instead, they funded the Iraq war for months to come, in full with no strings attached, and passed a minimum wage hike that is so minimal most workers won’t even know it happened, because their own states already have higher pay mandates.

Little wonder that support for Democrats in Congress has cratered, plunging from a euphoric 65 percent right after the last election to 23 percent today. The Democratic Congress, incredibly, has managed in five short months of inaction and diddling around to become less popular than this most loathed and ridiculed of presidents!

Like Laurel and Hardy near the end of a disaster skit, in which their antics have caused nothing but mounting chaos and ruin, the only challenge left for the great leadership team of Speaker Nancy “Impeachment’s-off-the-table” Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to see if they can succeed in driving Democratic support numbers down below even the 9 percent level enjoyed by Vice President Cheney. ...

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/062607Lindorff.shtml


Two pieces of toast.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., left, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., speak to reporters on the 'greening of the Capitol' at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, June 21, 2007.

[rodeodance]

1. not ready to diss them, yet...............

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Whoa! Tough commentary

but can't say there's anything I disagree with. One day it seems like they don't have a backbone to do what the people who elected them want, and the next day it seems like they don't have a clue what the people who elected them want.

His line of "Speaker Nancy “Impeachment’s-off-the-table” Pelosi" hits it on the head! Pssst, Nancy! NEVER take your options off the table. NEVER!

[CreekDog]

36. Nancy's too smart to take it off the table and she's not

She's just not going to get behind it to have it lose.

You can bet if it could go through quickly, she'd back it. She's not exactly stupid or feeble as this San Franciscan has watched her whip many people that stood in her way.

[AtomicKitten]

3. I believe they deserve a bit more time to undo the last 6-1/2 years.

Impatience fosters unreasonable expectations.

[puebloknot]

6. "...a bit more time..." for skyrocketing levels of death...

...for both our troops and the Iraqi people.

Unless the American people wake up and get *really* impatient, Harry and Nancy will continue their dancing around the issues. Nancy Pelosi clearly announced her intentions regarding funding the war and avoiding impeachment *before* she was actually elected as Speaker. Speaking of hubris...

I believe they deserve nothing. I believe the American people deserve a return to the rule of law. The House has the power of the purse. They are not using that power. They are therefore complicit in the crimes of Bush/Cheney.

[AtomicKitten]

10. turn your displeasure into action

... field and run candidates that reflect your POV.

It is a work in progress, maddening and frustrating because it can never move fast enough to sate the need for change.

[Maven]

16. Right...

So Rahm Emanuel et al can simply starve your campaign of funding to favor more "friendly" candidates. Or so that fellow Democrats can brand you "unelectable."

This is another retort I'm tired of hearing.

[puebloknot]

19. Case in point: The "unelectable" Dennis Kucinich!

He has a solid portfolio of practical ways to turn this country around. He's not a corporate shill.

But...(the big but)...He's a weird guy, a vegan, not married (that was in 2004), married (in 2006 to a much younger "hot chick"), he's short, he's funny-looking, he has no charisma, he's not Hollywood material in front of the camera. (Elizabeth must be blind and completely desperate to marry such a man, wouldn't you think? Although, she's got a few credentials of her own.)

I've been in the man's presence: He's witty, articulate, tall enough to suit my tastes (but then I'm only five feet tall), turns from a fairly nondescript guy on first glance to a fiery orator when he's in the right mood. And he's straight to the point about ending the war and starting to rebuild America, and its relationship to the world community.

Churchill wasn't in the same league with, say, Robert Redford, either. He was weird. He was always chewing on a stogie, was rather rotund. How the hell could a guy like that ispire a nation under attack???

May lightning strike us from above! I'm losing my faith in anything we've depended on since the inception of our country to bring us good and honest governance.

[AtomicKitten]

23. "electability" means much, much more than funding

although certainly one cannot exist without the other; I just don't agree with the abject doomsday scenario lamented here at DU on a regular basis.

[Maven]

38. Sorry, I meant to suggest each scenario in the alternative

not in correlation. Although, in practice, the most "electable" candidate is usually the one with the most funding.

My broader point was that while the Republican machine actively promotes candidates who are corporatist, pro-war and right-wing, the Democratic machine more quietly stifles candidates who threaten to rock the boat too much in any direction.

[puebloknot]

17. Thanks for responding. I do what I can. I've worked for...

...Kucinich, am watching Edwards, wonder if Gore will run.

Of course, working at the local level is most important. The frustration is that it seems that no matter how well-intentioned good candidates are, they either can't get elected or, once in office, they succumb to corporate control and "the way things are done on the Hill."

I actually am basically an optimist, but my country is dying, and the paramedics are stuck in traffic!

[AtomicKitten]

24. all we can do is keep trying

IMO we can't throw in the towel because acquiescing to the power structure on both sides of the aisle isn't an option.

Paul Wellstone instilled hope in me a long time ago and keeping even a modicum of hope alive is as much a tribute to his legacy as it is to our wellbeing as a nation.

[puebloknot]

46. Would that Paul Wellstone were here with us! nt

[calimary]

42. Nominated for a DUzy Award, puebloknot:

"I actually am basically an optimist, but my country is dying, and the paramedics are stuck in traffic!"

What a way to put it!

:toast:

[puebloknot]

43. I'll put it on the mantle with...

...my "Kidney Stone Formers of America" award. Seems like the two are first cousins! :)

Might as well take time out for a laugh, huh?

[calimary]

51. LOL!

Yep, might as well. At the moment, it seems like that's about all we've got.

[Morgana LaFey]

11. It'll take a generation or two to UNDUE the last 6-1/2 yrs, What's

needed is for someone to STOP THE MANIACS in this administration and start holding them accountable.

[AtomicKitten]

12. it is clear that some Dems in Congress

think running out the clock on this administration is effectively stopping them albeit passively; they just haven't figured in the further damage this administration can and will inflict on the nation in the interim.

un·do (ŭn-dū') pronunciation

v., -did (-dĭd'), -done (-dŭn'), -do·ing (-dū'ĭng), -does (-dŭz').

v.tr.

1. To reverse or erase; annul: impossible to undo the suffering caused by the war.
2. To untie, disassemble, or loosen: undo a shoelace.
3. To open (a parcel, for example); unwrap.
4.
1. To cause the ruin or downfall of; destroy.
2. To throw into confusion; unsettle.
5. Obsolete. To solve or interpret; unravel.

[Toots]

14. Just what would you consider reasonable expectations?

On Health Care?...On Ending this insane "war"? On holding this Administration accountable? On restoring our credibility throughout the world? On halting or at least slowing Global Warming? On National Security? Heavens knows since the Bush* Cabal our National Security has been ravished. It has been almost a half a year or one quarter of a Congressman's term. When are they going to work on what I consider the Important issue?..What is reasonable a full year? maybe a year and a half or even as much as two years but everyone knows Congressmen are running for office that last six months or so. When exactly is all this good work supposed to take place?

[AtomicKitten]

25. perhaps standing back a bit

and taking survey of the pile of felonies that have transpired might make you understand the magnitude of the mess at hand. There is much going on under the radar that has yet to reach fruition, but to state the Dems are doing nothing is a gross exaggeration. They just are not attacking the two fronts thrust upon them in the election - impeachment and ending the war - one inextricably intertwined with the other.

I'm afraid the Dems in Congress consider running out the clock on this administration the end of the nightmare rather than intervening to make it happen quicker. However, with Cheney's assault on reason regarding his rogue status, I think sooner will have much more appeal than later.

It is what it is and it would presumptuous and wrong of you to think the majority of people here at DU including me don't favor impeachment. They so deserve it.

[CreekDog]

32. At the moment, they only have the power to run out the clock

If they keep investigating, there might be movement on impeachment, but for now there aren't the votes.

If they keep trying to peel off some Republicans to end the Iraq debacle and manage to get some, they might be able to get that through, but for now there aren't the votes.

It's sort of like you running a race on your bicycle against people on Kawasaki's and when you lose, I say, "well, you just didn't try, why didn't you go faster?" Because you couldn't dummy. Now, maybe you can go faster, but some things have to happen to make that possible.

You don't mantra this into existence.

[AtomicKitten]

35. I have always stated it's investigations that will open this thing up.

No question about it. Unearth the ugly details and air them for America to get a good look at.

I also agree the Dem strategy is to peel off GOP votes to pass legislation with teeth to effectively end the war.

It is the grinding frustration that leads some to overestimate what exactly the Dems are capable of doing now. The Dems just need to be aggressive in their investigations of this administration and to continue to expose the absurdity and moral bankruptcy of continuing this administration's failed foreign policy.

One foot in front of the other.

[CreekDog]

26. They need more time and more votes

Some people forget that:

Reid has 49 Democratic votes at the moment (takes 60 to stop a filibuster and 67 to override)
-AND...he doesn't have Tim Johnson's vote and he can usually count on Lieberman to vote against the party

Pelosi has 233 Democratic votes at the moment (takes 291 to override a veto)
-of these votes, a critical handful of blue dogs will not vote to pass a bill that takes away funding from Iraq...they might vote for a timetable, but the president will veto that
-ERGO you cannot pass a bill that ends the war and makes it into law

Democrats are short 18 votes in the Senate on any impeachment vote (they couldn't impeach Gonzales if they tried)

Meanwhile the Republicans have:
Senate: 49 Republican votes (and Lieberman's on any Iraq issue and the VP to break a tie)
They have 49 Republican votes to keep a filibuster going and stop any Democratic issue from passing
They have the president to veto anything that doesn't get 67 votes overall (and anything that gets 67 votes overriding a veto may not be a very Democratic bill after all)

House: 202 Republican votes at the moment (but they have blue dog Democratic votes amounting to a majority for votes on funding the Iraq war).

Republicans have a surplus of 15 votes when it comes to stopping impeachment.

SO QUIT RUNNING DOWN THE DEMOCRATS. OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN'T WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND DO THE THINGS MANY HERE THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE ALREADY. THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES. IF THE FOLKS THAT WANT TO DISOWN PELOSI AND REID WOULD EVEN ADMIT THAT THE DEMS DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO DO THESE THINGS, I WOULD RESPECT THAT OPINION A LITTLE MORE --BUT FEW THAT ENTERTAIN THAT OPINION ACTUALLY HAVE ANY PATIENCE FOR THE FACT THAT THE VOTES MIGHT NOT BE THERE.

[AtomicKitten]

31. question

SO QUIT RUNNING DOWN THE DEMOCRATS. OBVIOUSLY THEY CAN'T WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND DO THE THINGS MANY HERE THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE ALREADY. THEY DON'T HAVE THE VOTES. IF THE FOLKS THAT WANT TO DISOWN PELOSI AND REID WOULD EVEN ADMIT THAT THE DEMS DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO DO THESE THINGS, I WOULD RESPECT THAT OPINION A LITTLE MORE --BUT FEW THAT ENTERTAIN THAT OPINION ACTUALLY HAVE ANY PATIENCE FOR THE FACT THAT THE VOTES MIGHT NOT BE THERE.

I can only assume your admonition above was erroneously made in response to my post advocating more time for this slim Dem majority in Congress. I am also fully behind facilitating a Dem in the WH and a veto-proof Democratic majority in Congress in 2008 because I, in fact, can count.

[CreekDog]

33. Atomic I largely agree with your posts here

That comment was reserved for others --the ones that are running down the Democrats unfairly.

[AtomicKitten]

37. thanks

No worries. Sometimes it's tough to square the crushing anxiety over the status quo with the reality of what actually can be done currently to change things.

I will never give up. Never. And that annoys the crap out of some people that want nothing more than to burn the Democratic Party to the ground. Just know that that is the byproduct largely of the environment and that people are feeling angry and hopeless.

I envision out of the ashes of our despair will rise hope in the form of Al Gore throwing his hat in the ring. He is the harbinger of a better America IMHO.

[CreekDog]

39. Remember how long FDR's new Deal took?

He was elected in 1932 with big, big majorities and it still took years, and part of that was fighting an entrenched Supreme Court that was stymeing everything they tried to pass.

It took years with supermajorities in Congress and the Presidency.

How long is it supposed to take Democrats to fix things now, when they have bare majorities and they lack the Presidency and the Supreme Court?

6 months some say? Get real.

Senate 1933 59D 36R House 313D 117R
Senate 1935 69D 25D House 322D 103R (Social Security passes)
Senate 1937 76D 16D House 334D 88R
Senate 1939 69D 23R House 262D 169R

Think it was easy to pass things, even with those supermajorities? Of course not.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Let's get a clue

1. As long as Bush/Cheney are in power, progressive legislation will be blocked.

2. As long as Bush/Cheney are in power, the war in Iraq will be prosecuted and perhaps widened to Iran.

3. As long as Bush/Cheney are in power, they will abuse that power and justify that abuse with ridiculous arguments, like the one about the Vice President not bein an entity of the executive branch or the one about Congress having no oversight over the White House.

4. As long as Bush/Cheney are in power, investigations will be stonewalled with defiance of subpoenas, witnesses' convenient memory lapses, and simply absurd and outrageous statements ("I wasn't surprised that Mr. Iglesias' name was on the list").

5. Impeachment is the only remedy available to this kind of abuse and hubris. It is ridiculous to say it is off the table. It is the white elephant in the room.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I absolutely agree we must pursue impeachment.

There is no way Dems can look themselves in the mirror and not move to impeach. The egregious nature of this administration's multitude of crimes cannot be left unanswered. It is also glaringly apparent that the war will not end otherwise.

[puebloknot]

20. So what's takiing them so long. Six months is adequate to the task. nt

[AtomicKitten]

21. investigations

they are up to their armpits in investigations

[puebloknot]

44. As has been eloquently stated here by better researchers...

...than I...

There is already enough evidence to start impeachment proceedings just any day.

I'm afraid they're going to investigate until the cows come home (with an eye on the 2008 election), and fade into the sunset, a la the Iran Contra affair.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong. I doubt it, though.

[sendero]

50. I had high hopes for investigations..

.... but since they CAUGHT Gonzo lying his ass off and there is no consequence whatsoever, I'm less optimistic that investigations are going to do much.

[CreekDog]

30. All the time in the world isn't enough when they only have 49 in the Senate and 233 in the House

Get a freakin clue. Egads.

[puebloknot]

45. Get a freakin' spine is more like it!

Not that you personally having a spine would do much. But we've heard that "We don't have the votes" mantra ad nauseum.

It's not about a guaranteed conviction in the Senate. It's about pointing the national finger at our rogue government and saying a collective "J'accuse"! It's way past time for that. The way things are now, it's almost impossible that impeachment proceedings would lead to a "loss." Having a public *indictment* would get things on the record and stir the waters so that Congresspersons would have to take a stand. You know..."You're either for criminals in the White House, or you're against it."

I hope you've enjoyed my "freakin' clue."

[CreekDog]

52. I have a spine and a clue thanks very much

I have a spine because I took you and others to task because you have mischaracterized what has been happening in Congress and essentially attributing it to lack of spine. It's not.

And I have a freakin clue also because I explained why there are no proceedings at the moment, how they might occur and then how they might succeed.

But you don't seem to acknowledge any details.

The spineless thing to do here would be to hold back on bursting your bubble about how much power the Democrats in Congress really have in our government, spine or not. Yes, they can be more powerful by 'showing' or getting covered by the media as having more spine, but that will not suddenly make their initiatives, investigations or impeachments go anywhere.

[realbluesky]

7. Stop making excuses

The democrats are the ones who had the power to not fund the war...but they did...

The democrats have the power to bring impeachment...but they took it off the table.

Can you imagine a prosecutor running for re-election who says he is not going to prosecute known criminals because it is not politically expedient?

Come on...give me a break...dems have the power...they just won't use it...

They are afraid of being called names....poor little cowards....

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Who's making excuses?

Not I.

Unless they impeach, any worthwhile act passed can be vetoed and probably will be.

Unless they impeach, investigations will be stonewalled (which is an impeachable offense in itself) and subpoenas defied (ditto).

Until they impeach, we will get these absurd constitutional arguments that basically claim dictatorial powers for the President and Vice President.

We may think that if Congress doesn't appropriate funds for the war, then they won't be able to keep holding the troops hostage in Iraq. Can we be so sure with this crowd? If Congress does not appropriate funds, never mind any constitutional prohibition against drawing unappropriated money from the treasury for the Bush/Cheney private war against Iraq. They will just say that the prohibition is superseded by the President's power as commander-in-chief to prosecute a war and thus an implied power to appropriate funds himself. Utter nonsense? You bet, but no more so than other constitutional arguments they've set forward.

These people will go further than Nixon did. When the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon and the smoking gun tape was made public, the jig was up. There was nothing else to do but resign. These bastards have made things up as they've gone along up to now, so why should we expect it to change? Even if they are impeached and convicted, don't be surprised if Bush and friends have to be escorted out of the White House by the Marines.

Impeachment is the only solution. It's on the table. It is taking up the table. Congressional leader need to get out of denial and realize that.

[CreekDog]

29. You need the votes to make impeachment an OPTION

It may be the solution, but it is also not an OPTION at the moment.

And that's making all the difference.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. And to do that, the process must be started

Investigations.

Hearings.

All aimed at the specific goal of the impeachment and removal of these tyrants.

While theoretically, the case must be proved only to a clear and convincing standard, we know it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to get 17 or 18 GOP senators to vote to convict.

I submit that it can be proved that Mr. Cheney manipulated intelligence with the intent of building a false case for war against Iraq; that Mr. Cheney directed his subordinate to unmask a covert agent as part of a political vendetta; that Mr. Bush knew of and approved of Mr. Cheney's actions in these case cases; that Mr. Bush knew of an approved the political firings of US attorneys who balked at initiating partisan prosecutions; that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were aware of and approved the use of torture in Guantánmo and other outlets in Mr. Bush's network of offshore gulags.

I submit that this can be proves so thoroughly that any Republican congressman who votes against impeachment or any Republican senator (or a senator elected as a member of the Lieberman for Lieberman Party, or whatever it was) will be risking his political future to stand with a couple of war criminals.

I think it is certainly proved beyond a reasonable doubt at this point the Mr. Cheney knows less about US civics than the average eighth grade student, to the point that such a ignoramus has no business being Vice President of the United States.

Let's get this ball rolling. NOW.

[CreekDog]

41. You start with investigations and hearings, not impeachment

Impeachment articles comes after there is sufficient evidence to proceed on that.

The Democrats are having hearings and investigations everywhere. If there is a smoking gun, they are certainly looking for it. And by smoking gun, I mean that thing you say will get even the Republicans to vote to impeach. But nobody has found that thing yet, who knows if it even exists. Remember that when Nixon was at his lowest, he still had some support --not everyone was voting for impeachment yet, but he did the math and bailed because of the numbers.

But the idea that Dems aren't doing anything yet is silly, Waxman is having hearings, Conyers is having hearings, Leahy is having hearings. Few politicians are actually changing their mind on this as of yet.

So, here's what you look for...impeachment of Gonzales, that's your bellweather if impeachment is going to fly in any way.

They didn't have the votes to impeach Gonzales, then they tried for no-confidence and didn't have the votes to stop the filibuster (means they didn't have 60 --they had a little over 50). If they go after him and succeed, you will see movement on the other stuff- until then, there isn't support for anything but hearings. Even impeachment votes at this point will not garner a majority based on what is out there now.

[CreekDog]

27. Don't blame the whole party for a dozen or two blue dogs

Those are the ones that stopped the effort to defund the war when the timetable approach failed because of a threatened presidential veto.

I frankly think that your post should be removed because of its innacuracy and venom towards Democrats (venom that is not based in facts). First you paint all the Democrats with the same brush when it's clear that your criticism applies to the ones who stopped it.

Pelosi and Reid brought a timetable bill and surprising everyone, passed it with majority support
(but that wasn't enough because Bush was going to veto it)

Pelosi and Reid upped the ante by bringing a bill to defund the war beyond a specific date. This had the most trouble in the house where the Blue Dogs were against it. Unfortunately, without our Blue Dogs, we didn't have enough votes to pass that bill.

So Pelosi and Reid both tried mightily to bring those bills, even taking great political risk on the last one to get it through, but they were stymied because they didn't have the votes --plain and simple.

You want to complain, go line up the votes that weren't there when they voted these first times. You will have to change the minds of those Blue Dog democrats and the mind of Republicans and the mind of the President.

If you think they failed because they didn't try, you frankly are literally TOTALLY UNINFORMED.

(And your post didn't contain any actual factual basis to know that your assertion was true, by the way)

[AndyA]

8. The Democrats in Congress had better get off their fat asses and DO SOMETHING

about the criminals running this country.

And yes, until Pelosi and Reid prove to me otherwise, I lump them in the same category as Bush and Cheney. They are standing by allowing CRIMINALS to run rampant over our rights and our Constitution. Pelosi and Reid are supposed to perform oversight of the Executive Branch. To date, they have chosen to not do so.

What the f*ck are they waiting for?

Honestly, I think Bush could rape 9 year old children on the White House lawn, and then Cheney could douse them with gas and set them on fire, and NO ONE WOULD DO ANYTHING TO STOP THEM. PROVE ME WRONG, CONGRESS!

[realbluesky]

9. I totally agree

You make the case! Thanks.

[CreekDog]

28. Then #8 and #9, if Reid and Pelosi are the same as Bush/Cheney

That is simply untrue. You are spreading falsehoods plain and simple.

Nevermind that there are investigations and subpoena's up the ying-yang.

But don't let the facts stand in your way --just have your tantrum.

[opihimoimoi]

15. Hey...I back the Dems.....not too happy with results in 1/2 year but hey, they got a lot of fixing

to do...

What we gonna do if we don't back our Dem Leaders? Vote RED? Give it back to the Pubs? Let them continue the F/Us they been doing for 16 fking years?

Our only hope is to give the Dems more time....

And if we talk about SPINE...where is the spines of them PUBs who backed the Loser for 6 fking years?? Bush got a free pass on everything...Its thos SPINELESS PUB ENABLERS who got us in this fking MESS...NOT the DEMS

[hvn_nbr_2]

18. Talk big and carry a small stick. nt

[zulchzulu]

22. So they didn't end the war in five months... gee whiz...

Isn't there a switch there in Congress where you hit "Change All" and poof!!!

:sarcasm:

[CreekDog]

34. Let me quote a Republican to all of you:

"A man's got to know his limitations!"

[puebloknot]

47. Said the spider to the fly! nt

[Perry Logan]

48. This proves that liberals are geniuses

Quick reminder: The U.S. news media has been owned by the Right for at least 15 years. It exists entirely to weaken and demoralize the Left.

So we find that Congress' numbers have dropped. Quel surprise!

And of course, what better response than to publicly attack your own party when it needs your support? That Lindorff is a genius.

[salin]

49. am I mistaken? Or is the Baltimore Chronicle a rw publication ala

the NYSun? If my memory is correct, then I would take any screed from the source with huge grains of sea salt.