It Really Is a Democratic Congress

By David Swanson

Should it go without saying that the current Congress is Democratic? The Democrats have the majority, control the agenda, and chair and hold a majority on every committee. But does that make the Congress Democratic?

Liberal commentators averse to criticizing Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun flailing around for a reasonable explanation for the behavior of her Congress. Matt Stoller has latched onto the idea that, even though there are more Democrats in the House than Republicans, the Republicans secretly have a majority. This is an appealing proposition, since all of us on the left view the Republicans as worse than the Democrats. We'd like to be able to blame them for everything, not just most things. And, as an added bonus, this theory transports us into the enjoyable realm so often inhabited by those on the right, the realm of thoughtless belief in utter nonsense.

Stoller's argument is basically that the conservative, or "blue dog" Democrats insist on voting with the Republicans. True enough. But that's not the whole story. Stoller also acknowledges in passing a couple of other problems:

"Democratic leaders aren't able to out of a mixture of fear, incompetence, and insufficient liberal voting strength."

There's the blame for the blue dogs, but it's preceded by two other items: fear and incompetence on the part of the Democratic leaders. Stoller leaves it at that and does not add any additional sentences to these two themes. Stoller's not doing a detailed analysis here. He doesn’t actually know whether the problem is fear or incompetence or a combination of the two or some third factor. All he is doing here is acknowledging that the Democratic leaders are human agents, capable of completely caving into the blue dogs or not.

Does Pelosi have a tough job trying to enforce party discipline on the blue dogs? Of course she does. But it's made harder every day she refrains from even trying. How did it come about that this Congress, elected to end the occupation of Iraq, dumped another $100 billion into it? This happened because Pelosi showed she was very good at enforcing party discipline. She badgered the rest of her party into doing what the blue dogs (except Congressman Michaud) wanted. She and her colleagues in the Democratic leadership, pleaded, cajoled, threatened, bribed, and harassed progressive Democrats to vote for more war. As a result, the blue dogs were almost completely hidden from the public, and the public's anger is now directed at the progressives who betrayed them and above all at Pelosi.

What alternative did Pelosi have? She could have badgered the blue dogs into voting to end the occupation of Iraq. Or at the very least she could have tried. To assume that such a project would be impossible is to refuse to break out of playing all defense all the time. Going on the offense can change your perspective. It may be that the progressives only have a mild inclination toward peace whereas the blue dogs really really want war badly, but at the very least going on the offensive would expose the blue dogs' unpopular position and party disloyalty to public view. Currently they look like the essence of loyalty. (And with 69 progressive Democrats and one Republican having announced that they will only fund a withdrawal, the progressives' position may now be as decisively intractable as anybody's.) If Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats push a progressive position, and the blue dogs block it, she'll isolate them, and they'll take the heat. Pelosi has thus far preferred to cover for them, which makes them her party, which makes the Congress both Democratic and guaranteed to behave like Republicans.

Now, if Pelosi had managed to push through a bill to end the occupation by winning over enough blue dogs, the effort might have died in the Senate or on the President's desk. Or if she had failed to win over blue dogs, the effort would have died in the House. Either way, Pelosi would have had the opportunity to announce the end of the occupation of Iraq. In fact, all that is needed to end the occupation of Iraq, and the only way Congress can end it, given the readiness of Bush's veto pen, is for Pelosi to announce that there will be no more bills to fund the occupation. The only downside to jumping straight to that announcement is that it would not isolate the blue dogs and pressure them to represent the public demand for peace.

On other issues, Pelosi has exactly as little to lose. She can obey the blue dogs and the Republicans and send Bush destructive and unconstitutional bills that he will sign, such as the recent Fourth Amendment Elimination Act granting the presidency dictatorial Big Brother powers. Or Pelosi can pass bills that would do some good for someone but that Bush will veto. If these bills are killed by blue dogs prior to reaching Bush's desk, that will identify for the public which Congress Members need to be sent packing. We already know how bad Bush and Cheney are. They are the least popular people ever to hold their offices. Most of the blue dogs are names nobody's ever heard of.

But passing bills or failing to pass bills, either way, is just for show as long as Bush is there prepared to veto or signing statement or simply not comply with the law. What is the point, for example, of trying to ban permanent bases in Iraq again and again, as if they were ever legal, while Bush just goes right on building them? The point is show, spectacle, theater. The point is to accept the idea that reality doesn't matter, television is more important. The point is that Congress does not exist to govern the country but to serve as a sideshow to the eternal presidential election campaign.

If Congress were a real part of our government serious about the task of governing, Pelosi would do two things on September 4th. The first would be to announce that there will be no more bills to fund the occupation of Iraq. Bush has already been given far more money than he needs to bring every troop, contractor, and mercenary home. He can simply be told to do so. And can you imagine the size of the party the citizens of the nation would throw for Nancy Pelosi? Can you imagine the strength of the Party she would begin to build?

But Pelosi wants to pass bills, any bills, at any cost. Is it fear? Incompetence? Campaign contributions from weapons makers and war profiteers? Who knows. Who cares. The point is that she intends to put on a show for another year and a half of pretending to try to pass good bills and actually passing bad bills, and the one thing that cannot be mentioned in polite company is that she could do what she pretends to want to do (get us out of Iraq) by announcing that there will be no bills.

Another liberal pundit who (out of fear or incompetence or insufficient liberal voting strength within his head) will never question Pelosi is David Sirota. His new plan is for Pelosi to push a bill that combines bringing 14% of U.S. troops home from Iraq with something the Republicans and their base of voters really want. That way, supposedly, either the Republicans (and blue dogs?) will go along with a bill that can be advertised as "anti-war," or the Democrats will get to run television commercials before the next election attacking the Republicans for not doing something that Democratic voters actually don't want done. This is a new height in self-defeating defensiveness. Ultimately, the worst defense is a lack of offense, and that's what we've got.

The second thing Pelosi should do on September 4th is announce that impeachment is on the table. Voters know that bills will be vetoed and that impeachment cannot be. There are no guarantees that Pelosi could badger the blue dogs into impeachment, but one thing is certain: attempting to do so would make Pelosi a national hero among Democrats and Independents. And this approach would, again, show the public who is with them and who is not. Pelosi's current approach of promoting the policies of the Republican National Committee (impeachment and cutting off the war funding both off the table) will never persuade anyone that the Congress is Republican, only that the Democrats and Republicans are the same.

and feel free to post anything of mine there

Even if Pelosi could muster the courage to do what you suggest, she'd be laughed off the floor by the Rethugs and the blue dogs. You can't cave in as much and as often as she has and retain any shred of authority.

The greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing Dem idealists that Republicans don't exist. (Apologies to "The Usual Suspects"...) We can never eradicate Republican power completely, because as soon as the chemo starts to work, some Dem idealists (and Republican agent provocateurs, no doubt) start attacking the healthy tissue, the Democrats.

Give the medicine time to work. Give Dem leaders more support. If you are going to chastise them, do it in a way that can actually help them or motivate them. Chastise them, but stay on their side. Anyone who ever puts the words "Democrats and Republicans are the same" in any form in any syntactic construct goes on my ignore list from now on. That phrase is a litmus test for idiocy.

On edit: I take it back. I'm not going to use the ignore list all the time. I would miss too many closet GOPers or "good spelling, bad thinking" progressives.

I'm hoping you have more to say.

guilty in my opinion of enabling
Bush/Cheney in their attack upon the Constitution
and the rights of Americans.

I can only conclude that Pelosi is 'in the boat'
with the Bush/Cheney agenda.

If a mugger knocks me into a brick wall, breaks
my teeth, takes my money and runs away, I don't
stop to think about his homelife or his issues.
Similarly, I look at Pelosi's behavior and say
'what you see is what you get.' She's clearly
complicit.

Perhaps we should call the legislation the: Fourth Amendment Inoperability Legislation

I'm going to writing a thread on this soon. Consider this structure:

On the surface, we see clearly how the Blue Dogs voted. But, dig a little deeper, and we understand that ultimately it was Pelosi and Reid who allowed this to happen. But, and here's the kicker, dig a little deeper still.

Sitting way back in the shadows are Mrs. and Mr. Frontrunners themselves. If you were the ultimate triangulator, what posture on terrorism legislation would you want to defend in the general election? Ask yourself that. The Blue Dogs may be just Blue Dogs but the party's power structure is starting to have a distinct Clintonian odor.

The more confident Clinton becomes of winning the nomination, the further to the right you'll see the party move. We're already seeing this with increasingly compromised positions on Iraq.

Dem and a repug would be that both would kick you in the nuts but the Dem would say, "Sorry."

is not pass any funding bills. They don't have to fund the war or the return home, they just have to stop any funding bills. The President must then bring the troops home. So Pelosi is so weak she can't even prevent her own party from passing a bad funding bill. Time for a new leader.

And fund the war on a "limited" budget, possibly further depriving the troops of things that they should have. But I agree that Pelosi and Reid aren't doing much of anything to keep the pressure on Bush. There are more options than just funding and not funding the war.

When the Dems took over in Jan. the poll ratings for Congress went up a bit. After this session it is back down. That should tell the Dems on the Hill that people are not happy with what is being done in their name.

I highly recommend printing out the poll results and handing it to your Congress Member in person. They're home in their districts until September 3rd.

"Pelosi's current approach of promoting the policies of the Republican National Committee (impeachment and cutting off the war funding both off the table) will never persuade anyone that the Congress is Republican, only that the Democrats and Republicans are the same."

Democrats and Republicans aren't the same. If they were, you'd pester both parties instead of singling out Democrats for your targets.

That's the vital current running through the critical issues that we face.

"The Money Party" is bipartisan and of there are ever more than two political parties sharing power,
the money party will go multi-partisan quickly.

The Money Party explains why there is NO action on the following grave concerns:

1) ending the Iraq war;
2) recognizing and acting on climate change
3) providing full health benefits for all Americans
4) swapping public financing for corporate contributions (aka "legalized bribery")

etc. etc.

I dearly hope that Pelosi takes you wise advise.

But consider this. Bush is at 25% approval, the public has spoken its strong disapproval of
domestic surveillance. What did that add up to - 41 neo Democrats defecting to the other side and
no leadership fight. It was worse in the Senate with 33% of the Democrats defecting to tyranny.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of the excuses offered by the leadership. We've had seven years of it.
It's always, "we just can do it now."

Lets give them a real reason to do it. I mentioned a general strike on DU several months ago and
was ridiculed. Well, now it's a viral event. This is short term, less than a month away.



http://www.strike911.org/

They won't count our votes. Let's vote (or not) with our dollars. We can all survive camping out, eating C-rations (I know, that dates me -- my dad ate them in the Ardennes), doing without, walking or bicycling, going awol from work, not showing up in ways that will be noticed.

Viral is a wonderful word!

:evilgrin: It's a bargain, come on;)

...it's pronounced *VI-EENA* sausage, don't you?

Deal! :woohoo:

heresy! somebody alert the moderators.

sarcasm.

would not (unlike Diane Feinstein who is a member in good standing) be invited into the coveted neocon Tr!lateral commission who's stated aim is a new world order governed by the rich and to which war is an inevitable part.....and guess who the cannon fodder and financial backer is.

It's not like she's do her cajoling front in center for the media to record. Do we have confirmation that she's not even trying from sources that know her or stories about how she's operating.

they must be - or else the whole argument falls flat on it's face.

Now wouldn't THAT be ironic. Heh.

I presume? Seems a tad ironic that "progressives" who helped bring us Bush are bitching so loudly about what he has done. Too bad they didn't listen to us Democrats back then huh?

"Or at least she could have tried..."

How do you know what Pelosi has tried or not?

Pelosi's current approach of promoting the policies of the Republican National Committee (impeachment and cutting off the war funding both off the table) will never persuade anyone that the Congress is Republican, only that the Democrats and Republicans are the same.

What bullshit. Your assertion that Pelosi is promoting the policies of the RNC is absurd, but not surprising considering you were a "Gore = Bush" promoter in 2000. Haven't you learned anything in the past seven years David?

was a word I did not think needed to be added.

But if anyone is fantasizing that prior to publicly pushing for $100 billion for the occupation Pelosi super-secretly tried to (somehow) pressure her colleagues to end it, that is to do what she has sworn is off the table, well far be it from me to wake you up.

But if anyone is fantasizing that prior to publicaly pushing to end the war and set a deadline, that Pelosi super-secretly enjoys the carnage/supports Bush, far be it for me to wake you up.

I tried to wake people like yourself up in 2000, when I told you "don't vote for Nader, Gore is not akin to Bush." You didn't listen then, and I don't expect you'll listen now.

... won in 2000, Republican fraud notwithstanding. And now we're seeing that Nader has been spot on in ways too numerous to count. (No, I didn't vote for Nader. I voted for the winning candidate -- and that wasn't George Bush.)

Pelosi put on a very public show by way of declaring, before she was even sworn in as speaker, that impeachment was off the table, and that there would be no withholding of funds for the Iraq war. She's an honest lady. She said that right out in public, and by golly she's stuck by her word.

I sincerely hope she gets to eat those words, and in public for all the world to see. She has done nothing to end the war, and has served as an obstructionist to that end since her first moments in office. If she *is* working privately, her efforts are totally ineffectual. We don't have a lot of time left to try to save our country.

As to Pelosi, she has put forth a deadline twice to END THE WAR, both times that deadline was vetoed. Apparently that's "nothing" in some circles?

1. The American public is greatly opposed to cutting funds at this point.
2. Bush would continue the war "bare bones" and blame every soldiers death on Democrats.

Pelosi would be an reckless idiot to cut funds at this point.

...were greatly opposed to direction from the Feds which said they couldn't hang people from trees, and which directed them to educate everyone, regardless of skin color, equally. We know it never worked out to perfection, but the leadership of the Kennedys made great inroads into the desecration that passed for law in that region back then. They didn't do a poll and decide to back off because it might have a very negative impact on the Dems in future elections. They stood for a principle.

I'm waiting for Ms. Pelosi to do that -- show some leadership. She can unilaterally declare impeachment null and void in this country. She didn't ask for public input before making that declaration, but several polls have shown that more than half the country favors impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.

Bush will do a lot of things, and we need to stop cowering before all the possibilities that he might pull out of his rear end. Our leaders, and WE the People, need to finally stand for what is right, and legal, and moral. Pelosi, et al. were not elected to engage in "finger-in-the-wind" politics.

Never gets old. ;)

I do think we have to consider the funding option, but we must be do so when we've exhausted other efforts. And, we must have the will of the people behind us. I believe most people in the US in the 1960's supported civil rights and did not support lynching?

I hear your cry for leadership, Democrats need a solid leader on the war, and I think Murtha will step up to that plate this fall? He does hold the purse strings after all.

...who don't have a personal stake in the war, as in someone fighting and dying over there.

This fall is soon upon us, and I hope you're right about Murtha.

Further, I doubt military families would be comforted at the thought of pulling funds/protection from their loved ones? Again, I do not feel that now is the time to cut funds. Nor do I think doing so is guaranteed to end the war given who the President is.

...money in the pipeline to safely bring troops home, and to maintain a force in Iraq until an international peacekeeping force can take over. It's good on paper. I think there is no intention to pull out of Iraq, now or in the future, on the part of either Dems or Republicans. I don't think they want to invite an international force into the region. I think there is too much money being made by our presence in that region, and I think that privately there is fear of peak oil and our having to change our whole way of living. If there's only so much oil left, well, Americans should have it!

It is sad that in spite of the funding that has taken place, military families do *not* have the comfort of knowing their loved ones are being protected. They're buying equipment privately (if they are allowed to do so), and hoping for the best. My father suffered the cold through the winter of 1944, with too little clothing and toolittle food, in Belgium at the Battle of the Bulge. That was because of unforeseen circumstances. What our young people are enduring now is a national disgrace.

I have no wish to cut funds which are actually going toward the protection of our troops. Unfortunately, corruption rules, as ever.

I'm an army brat from way back, so I have concern for our troops. I do have major concerns over the atrocities our military personnel seem to fall into so easily, but then, this isn't the good guys (that would be us) fighting the Nazis or the Japanese. Things are less defined, and there's no sense of a definite, morally correct mission.

I'm sorry that you've suffered a personal loss over this war. I haven't, but my daughter has a 25-year-old friend, Sarah, who is over there now. She's supposed to be back by Labor Day. But she was just here on a short leave, and they sent her back, even though she only has six week to stay before her time is up. That's making me very, very nervous.

Thanks for talking with me.

Iraq. And, I don't trust Bush to pull the troops if we do cut funding unfortunately.

Thanks for the respectful disagreement, I will think about your daughters friend Sarah, and say a prayer for her in the process.



My family friend is pictured above.

I remember him as a small quiet, cute little boy. He "supported" the war effort from what I gather? And, his family was a military family - but that is of little consolation to his Mother who looked half dead herself when I saw her over the weekend. She had no light left in her eyes.

Peace to you puebloknot, thanks for talking with me as well and doing so respectfully.

...looked at the photo of your lost young friend. War sounds so exciting, it takes kids out of the boredom of their family situations, and it's repesented by recruiters as noble and life-enhancing. No one should have to learn a lesson through dying and leaving grieving family members.

As to the U.N., it's not hard to see why the rest of the world doesn't want to commit troops to mop up after our illegal folly. All the rules have changed!

Yes, I'm glad we're having a broader discussion here!

and afraid. This makes her a poor leader. The vast majority of people want someone to take a stand and not back down. This is just basic mob behavior. Often time the leader who is the loudest and angriest is the strongest gets their way--aka "squeaky wheel gets the grease". Where's the grease Nancy?

WHAT THE FUCK DOES PELOSI STAND FOR?!?! Can anyone point to anything other than a small increase in the minimum wage?

Impeachment? OFF THE FUCKING TABLE!

Iraq withdrawl? OFF THE FUCKING TABLE!

Funds for mercenaries and Halliburton? UNLIMITED FUNDS!

We need leaders who lead. Strong principled leaders willing to bring the largest criminal enterprise in the history of the world known as "the Bush administration" to a screeching halt.

And the same to you Harry Reid. You week kneed, pansy assed, enabler.