Pelosi the traitor? Complicity, corruption, cowardice? I say contradiction!

[jpgray]

Let's start with the basic fact: we have failed to effectively oppose this administration or roll-back its most offensive policies, despite being in majority. This no one disputes. Why has this happened? That's the big question. DUers mostly believe that Pelosi/Reid and whomever else in leadership could put a stop to this spineless behavior if they wanted to. But is that the case?

They are complicit and/or corrupt: In these cases, the assumption is that leadership has -decided- to surreptitiously aid and abet these conservative policies, while providing a facade of opposition. This explains the behavior in Congress fully and very simply, but it falls apart under examination if you posit that the leadership has made a -choice- to engage in complicit behavior. Why? Because there is no discernible benefit to the behavior. Ask yourself:

What is the benefit?

The mealy-mouthed retreats we've seen from the Democrats in Iraq war funding, investigations, et al are popular to -no one-. Neither opponents of the war/administration, nor rah-rah fans of same are impressed by such behavior. Both condemn it. The base hates the behavior because it represents weakness and a failure to hold fast to our closely held values. The GOP is not at all mollified by each surrender, but rather continues to push and maintain the same level of antagonism towards the Democrats. Those in the middle do not much care for vacillating weakness no matter which side of the aisle it comes from. So what is the gain to the Democrats? If all they care about is reelection, then they would never make this choice. If all they care about is influence, they will receive less of it than the GOP, which has already staked out the biggest sell-out stance possible with regard to the influence and power centers in this country. So is there a benefit to this mealy-mouthed stance? What is it? If there is no benefit, why choose to engage in the behavior?

They are not choosing this behavior, but are cowards: In this case, the assumption is that leadership lacks the will or inclination to effectively oppose the administration. This also explains the behavior in Congress fully and simply, but it also falls apart under examination. Why? Because assuming the Democrats have the ability in terms of votes, one must assume that fear is causing them to stop short of action. So ask yourself:

What are they afraid of?

Losing in 2008? Blackmail? Having family members killed? All sorts of explanations have been offered on DU. If the fear is losing in the election, then the leadership must be very stupid, as such mealy-mouthed vacillations are popular with exactly no one. Various popularity polls on Congress appear to bear this out. And again, the premiere sell-out position to win over the money and influence centers is already staked out by the GOP. So the leadership must be quite stupid if it believes selling-out halfway will give them comparative or compensatory advantage in influence. As for the other options, disproving the existence of a blackmail scenario or some similar shadowy lever is almost impossible, but assuming their existence without evidence isn't exactly reasonable unless it is the only explanation for the observed behavior. In this case the scope of the scheme makes it unlikely--if the GOP held such strong levers of compulsion over the Democrats' heads, why stop at forcing ineffective opposition? Why would all members of Congress keep quiet about it, even such people as Conyers, Kucinich, Feingold, etc.?

To my mind it's basically lack of -ability- to fix these problems that's the root cause. There is evidence for this in the opinions experts (Conyers, Sanders, Gore, et al) who all say the votes aren't there for something like impeachment, and agree that failed impeachment carries risk. Given a disunited, small majority, a united minority backed by the power of veto is a powerful legislative block on progress. If you posit 20% blue dogs in the delegation (not even mentioning skittish freshmen), that alone is enough to cripple the majority if it is small (and ours is). Since 47 Democratic reps identify as blue dogs, that is a factual, objective obstacle that can explain some of the lack of progress without assumptions or blind guesses. Take away 47 votes from our majority on a controversial issue the GOP will hold fast on (impeachment, Iraq, etc.) and forming a veto-proof majority will be exceedingly difficult.

The question is, given the above: Is there any way to counteract these obstacles or surmount them?

Often people will cite this disunity as a lack of leadership, but what can be done at the leadership level? Given the risk of losing representatives to the GOP or alienating them from their districts/states, simple coercion is not as simple an option as it would seem.

But of course we can't really know for sure, and while my explanations may be reasonable (or not :P) they are far from proofs. If you reject my theory, what are your answers as to why this is happening? What are your answers to the above questions in italics? I want to know -why- DUers believe this ineffective Democratic behavior is happening, and what evidence led them to that conclusion.

[jpgray]

1. Yeah--words, words, words, I know.

Eventually I'll shut up about it. Really. :D

[EFerrari]

2. Pelosi has been shunning the progressive community in her district

for nearly two years now.

I don't care if it's complicity, corruption or cowardice. Whatever it is, it's not working for this district. And, surprise, it doesn't matter that it's not working for this district. We have been effectively gagged.

That's what we get when we let corporations fund the campaigns of the wealthy. Welcome to Out of the Loop.

[jpgray]

3. But if we don't know -why- it's happening, how do we fix it?

If she -is- complict, corrupt or a coward, that necessitates a different response than if she is just putting the best face on an inextricably crappy situation.

[EFerrari]

4. What kind of crappy situation would require you to shun

your own people? To wish you could just have them arrested just as poor people are arrested for littering up the sidewalk?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_elizabet_071016_nancy_2c_i_am_your_nei.htm

Nancy Pelosi feels she doesn't have to answer to her constituents. She feels she can abuse them to the press. That's who your Speaker is right now.

This is certainly in part her sense of privilege -- which the homeless in her district do not share. And it is in part the no support for cleaning up our corrupt elections process.

Do not attempt to tell me I am responsible for her fucked up behavior. She is responsible for that. And, the progressive community in her district has gone from being her phonebankers to being her critics after a long, painful process of disalusionment.

There is no amount of lipstick she can put on this pig without making us feel as though, our's is wearing too much make-up. I'm sorry. That's just the truth.

[jpgray]

6. If she doesn't have the votes to impeach or stop the administration, what should she do?

Try anyway? All previous attempts to hold this admin accountable that have failed due to a lack of unity were met with howls of outrage here--on Iraq, on investigation, on all fronts. If she tried impeachment or defunding the war and failed due to a lack of votes, DU would not be -grateful- for such behavior. It is unlikely they would even target their rage at the Democrats who failed to hold the party line--more likely they would just blast "Democrats" in general and forget those who actually stood for what is right.

[EFerrari]

8. I wonder why you'd side with a Congress critter that is ignoring

her constituency. I wonder why you'd go out of your way to find legalistic justifications for that?

If our Founders did that, we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen".

If Nancy Pelosi can't do better than to buckle to Bush as she shuns her own district, I'm sorry. She doesn't merit my support.

[jpgray]

10. I make no claims about her fidelity to constituents. But let's talk: will she lose in '08?

If you think so, do you have any evidence of that? If you think she will be reelected, is it possible her constituents don't think as you believe they do (excepting yourself)? Or perhaps they don't write her off completely based on a few issues of contention?

[EFerrari]

16. There go the goal posts.

And, nice trying to marginalize me. Man, how petty is THAT?

I have no idea if she can be re-elected. The progressive community here is furious. It may be that conservatives won't want to throw away the position of Speaker. But, Nancy is not (let's put it this way) appreciated here except for the influence she has in D.C. In other words, they love her ability to bring pork home.

Now, there's an accolade!

[walldude]

12. The Republicans didn't have the votes for Impeachment either

I notice that didn't stop them.

[jpgray]

13. They had the votes to initiate the process. We lack even that

And while the two situations are not directly comparable in terms of the "crimes" involved, would you say their failed impeachment helped them in any significant way?

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Well, there is the small difference between an impeachment based

on lies and false charges - which everyone KNEW to be a politically motivated fraud - and an impeachment based on PROSECUTABLE CRIMES.

Nifong was hurt by bringing false charges against the Duke boys. But every day, in every city, prosecuters are applauded for bringing legitimate rape charges against real criminals. Should we stop prosecuting rapes because of Nifong?

Get a grip.

[jpgray]

27. And prosecutors that fail to convict the obviously guilty? How are they viewed?

Keep in mind the jury in impeachment is hardly an unbiased group. Not to mention the danger of getting to the senate and having a full acquittal on more or less party lines (add in Joe for their side). So now any time malfeasance or investigation thereof is brought up, they have a "not guilty" verdict to wave around for the media. Not a risk, that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

101. And in a criminal trial, the jury votes and goes home.

In an impeachment, the jury votes and goes home to face the electorate. THAT is what cost the repukes after the Clinton impeachment - facing the electorate that saw millions squandered on a political vendetta. With the electorate getting the full story behind all the Bush/Cheney crimes during the hearings, the repukes are NOT going to let them off because they know they will face the electorate. THAT is why they pressured Nixon into resigning, because they didn't want to 1) go through impeachment and expose those crimes, and then 2) have to explain why they let a criminal off, because if they did let him off they'd lose congress and the WH for the next 30 years.

Clinton impeachment and B/C impeachment are apples and lug nuts. An honest comparison would show that.

[jpgray]

103. The crimes of Nixon were exposed prior to a single impeachment hearing

All the heavy lifting of destroying the administration was done through regular investigation, not impeachment. The final SCOTUS nail in the coffin arrived just after the articles were voted on by the JC, I believe. So the question is, if we can't even effectively -investigate-, why should we expect to be able to impeach effectively?

You raise a good point in that the Bush/Clinton situations more firmly resist an easy comparison, true. It's not like this is about a blowjob, and the airing of -this- evidence is not going to seem trivial and voyeuristic, but deadly serious. The problem there is, if you fail to convict, you give the guilty party a "not guilty" formality to wave around in order to discourage investigation or accountability for the crimes in the articles. That's a serious risk. The other risk is that the crimes seem so obvious to the base, that if the initial vote on the articles fails or the Senate fails to convict, the base is going to be upset at the Democrats for failing to impeach one of most deserving administrations in history. "There was so much evidence! How did they fuck this up?" is a question I'd expect to hear a lot on DU in the aftermath of such an event.

[RaleighNCDUer]

107. As I said, there is virtually no chance that there would be a failure

to convict, because all those senators who vote on it face re-election, and with the electorate having the truth in hand, no one who votes for aquittal is going to be re-elected except in the reddest of the red states. Think about it - 65% of the American public thinks the war was a mistake, and that's with the MSM controlling all the information - most people know nothing about the corruption, the war crimes, the lies, the naked politics that killed 4000 so far, and a million Iraqis.

People talk about 'counting the votes'. Well, they're counting the wrong votes. 65% against the war. THAT's the votes that we should be counting, because you know damn well that every senator that would vote on impeachment is watching that number too.

[walldude]

25. It most certainly did.. it "exposed" Clintons "crimes".

Gee we wouldn't want to expose Bush's "crimes" now would we.

[Occam Bandage]

29. And the public thought that despite the fact that he had clearly lied,

it was a politically-driven circus, and Democratic approval ratings spiked upwards while Republican approval ratings spiked downwards. Yeah, that'll be great.

Bush's crimes have already been exposed. By delivering a "not guilty" verdict--which it would--impeachment would in effect pardon his crimes.

[walldude]

38. Bush's crimes have not been exposed at all.. Most Americans

are clueless as to the extent of what Bush has done. The impeachment of Clinton was a circus, the impeachment of Bush is a Constitutional necessity.

[Occam Bandage]

43. And they would remain clueless despite impeachment. Take a look at this.

Look closely. Follow the arrows, back and forth. Try to place faces with all the names, try to imagine what happened here. Play it out in your head. Think about the motivations of each person, why they did what they did, and who told who to say what when.

This graph shows what happened with the leaking of Valerie Plame's name to the media. And this is just one small part of one small scandal in the Bush administration. Do you really think that people will be able to follow the whole affair, arrow by arrow, document by document? Of course not, they'll only be able to understand general ideas and principles. We'll throw our spin out there, and they'll throw their spin out there, and when all's said and done, Bush will be holding a Not Guilty verdict, justifying the RW spin to both the media and the public. Nobody will be convinced who isn't already convinced.

[Truth2Tell]

63. OMFG

It's just toooooooooo complicated! People will never understand!

Hell, let's just forget about it then. We can never win! Why try?

You even found a nice pretty graphic to support your meme. Well done.

With enemies like you the RW spin machine doesn't need friends.

[Occam Bandage]

102. We can't win, we shouldn't try, and it's complicated to the extent where you won't get

any sort of public mandate. That's not a "nice pretty graphic," that's the media-leak aspect of the Plame Affair, as presented in Congress. Check the byline.

Consider the RW spin machine to be a Judo master. Which is more likely to beat him--the person who acknowledges that certain attacks are going to fail, or the person who charges in and puts their weight behind each punch?

[immoderate]

26. It takes a majority to impeach -- we have that.

The party that impeaches always takes the presidency.

--IMM

[jpgray]

30. Superficially yes, but would all Democrat reps vote "aye" on articles of impeachment?

I recall that Conyers says no. Do you have any evidence to gainsay him? The picture in the Senate is even less rosy, given Joe. What sort of reputation does a prosecutor have with the people when an obviously guilty party is -not- convicted after a trial?

[immoderate]

39. You mean if the jury is bought?

First you have to have the evidence brought out in hearings. Then with the evidence, the representatives have to vote. They are responsible to the Constitution and their constituents.

Conyers is being influenced by the leadership. I think their actions are suspect. How can you have a democracy if the government operates in secret?

--IMM

[onenote]

86. so you think the repubs actually won the presidency in 2000?

And weren't handed it to them by the S Ct? Do you think that they won the popular vote too?

There have been two presidential impeachments. The party that impeached Andrew Johnson (but failed to convict him) won the presidency. But guess what. They would've won it anyway. Not every situation is the same and the post Civil War era in the United States is unique.

As for the second impeachment, that of Bill Clinton, the party that impeached "won" the presidency, but only becuase of the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, they lost seats in the House and Senate, defying historical expectations. But, again, comparisons are superficial. Each situation needs to be analyzed individually.

And, no, just because the Democrats have a majority in the House doesn't mean that there are sufficient votes to impeach or even to authorize the Judiciary Committee to commence an impeachment inquiry. I wish it were otherwise, but given the number of Democratic members of Congress from red-leaning, conservative districts, and the fact that none of these members made impeachment an issue during their 2006 campaigns (and indeed, virtually no member of Congress made impeachment an issue during their campaigns), and further given the absence of any bipartisan support for the impeachment effort (which distinguishes the situation further from the Clinton and Nixon impeachment efforts, both of which started with at least some bi-partisan support), there is no way that a resolution to impeach is going to succeed at the present time.

Indeed, even some of the most ardent supporters of impeachment in the House conceded as much when they chose not to put the issue to a vote when Kucinich tried his privileged resolution maneuver. Instead, most of DK's sponsors supported the motion to refer DK's impeachment resolution to committee rather than have it face an immediate up/down vote -- and certain defeat.

Should there be hearings/investigations? Absolutely. But any attempt to push forward with the impeachment process before there is more public support and some bipartisan backing will fail. Don't shoot the messenger. Its reality and sometimes reality sucks.

[immoderate]

121. Don't forget Nixon....

Articles had been voted out of committee.

I'm for hearings. Let's get the ball rolling. Nixon's defenders looked like fools and some were turned out by the next election.

--IMM

[tom_paine]

97. OMG! You really cannot see how The Phony Clinton Impeachment helped the Bushies?

1) Selection of Lieberman to counteract "Clinton Fatigue" as 2000 Veep candidate

(that alone has delivered enough concrete benefits such as Liebermann's trole in lettingthe Bushies stuff military ballots without postmarks which wee solicited post-election by the Rovians, let alone speculative benefits such as the constant Lieberman whispering "Give up, Al. Give it up, Al. For the good of the coutnry, give it up, Al," during the 2000 fight)

2) Forcing Gore (yes, Mr. Gore is responsible for his poor judgement in these matters, but that does not lessen the role the Phony Clinton Impeachment had in pushing into these bad judgements) to distance himself from Bill Clinton during the campaign.

3) Cementing the pathways of the New Bushie Propaganda Machine and Lie Laundry while acting as a focusing lens, if you will, for all the disparate elements and forging them into the Might Wurlitzer they are today. Increasing the camoflauge of this hideous creation of the world's most sophisticted propaganda machine by hiding in the "push/pull tug-of-war" overlaying impeachment, thus slowing realization of it's creation until it was too late.

You see the basic self-evident truth in these three points, do you not? These are only the uppermost three benefits of The Phony Clinton Impeachment. There are others.

I would say that The Phony Clinton Impeachment was the most successful failure in recent history, maybe second only to Old Buhsfriend Adolf Hitler's "failed" Putsch of 1923, and the subsequent trialwhich gave him a platform to spew from and from which he, like Grandpa Prescott Bush, also got a slap on the wrist for High Treason.

[jpgray]

98. It lost them two house seats, four senate seats, a ton of approval, and the presidential race

Unfortunately, the SCOTUS obviated that last one. Whatever you say about the misguided Gore response (shunning Clinton, choosing Lieberman), the public was pretty clear about what they thought of the whole mess. Both in approval polls and elections. Gore's response was mostly due to extremely bad advice from incompetent advisers, who rode to positions of influence not due to ability but solely due to connection to a smart and charismatic pol like Clinton.

As far as GOP media supremacy for throwing smears around, even their vast advantage was not enough to sell a failed impeachment as a success.

[tom_paine]

108. You are missing the forest for the trees. Those "setbacks" were MINOR

compared to the benefits I have outlined above. I mean you no disrespect, jpgray, but you are assessing the situation as if we were not ruled by arch-criminals and frightened enablers, in a nation that has just about had it's Constitutional framework utterly destroyed (but for the remaining window-dressing left specifically to keep you examining your navel with pointless and anachronistic analyses based on a sitaution that no longer exists)

THAT is why America has been losing to the Bushies now for more than a decade, if not four decades. If we do not understand the advertising/marketing/Goebbels mentality, then we will be continually outmaneuvered and beaten, even when 2/3s or 3/4s of the public is on our side.

Please read Defying Hitler by Sebastian Haffner. Please click on my YouTube link below and the Naomi Wolf presentation. You continue to bring boxing gloves to a gunfight, as do most of our clueless Democratic Leadership to this day, and that is why America is at the precipice of extinction as a free nation.

By using your upside-down analysis method, so akin to trying to analyze Nazi Germany through the political lens of the Weimar Republic, you and our Democratic Leadership guarantee asskickings and humiliations and insults to our intelligence without end, just as we have absorbed since we supposedly became the "majority party" in 2006.

And before you dismiss me as over-the-top hyperbole, you might want to read/listen to these, as well.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000651

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

This is nothing new, nothing at all. People are ALWAYS, it seems, paralyzed by pure evil when it gains power. "No, they wouldn't do that. No, it's not possible. No, it's beyond the pale." and so forth.

I am sorry if this offends you or if you interpret this as a personal attack, but the time has long past for euphemisms and "holding back".

Your analysis would have been right twenty years and possibly even as recently as a decade ago, but today it is not just naive but dangerously so.

There is more explanation of why your view is dangerously anachronistic and naive for this time and place, such as how the Bushies, with the situation fully reversed, dragged the nation into impeachment over nonsense, even though 2/3rds disapproved of it, in the late 90s, while we from the same position (politically and majority-wise) can do less than nothing and do not dare to start impeachemnt even though at least 1/2 approve right now, before the serial-felonies are exposed. Further, this impeachment, far from being some nonsense over a blowjob, would be for multiple crimes ranging from felonies to High Treason.

I can say nothing more. Read Harper's. Listen to the BBC. Watch Naomi Wolf. Read Haffner, speaking of a time which, minus the brutal violence, so thoroughly mirrors our own.

[jpgray]

109. I'm certainly willing to accept that I may be totally wrong, but I'm trying to present my best case

And I don't see it as a personal attack. I've carefully weighed multiple angles of high criminality and massive corruption, and I'm just not yet convinced. There are many aspects of Congressional behavior that I can't fully explain, however. Thanks for the in-depth post. :hi:

[Occam Bandage]

20. And that worked very well for them, didn't it?

:eyes:

[electropop]

74. Damn right she should try anyway.

The way to win respect and more power is by showing voters that you will fight for them, even if you can't always win. Show them you are strong at heart, and they will make you strong in votes. Show them you are weak, and they will ignore you.

[jpgray]

77. Do you have a positive view of recent Congressional attempts and failures?

Such as timetables on Iraq, habeas corpus, investigation subpoenas, etc.? Or do you heap criticism on the Democrats for failing to follow through? Why would impeachment be different?

[LittleClarkie]

46. If the progressive community was parked on my lawn, I might shun them too

.

[Occam Bandage]

5. That's a very well-thought out, very observant post. I worry

that those who need to read it most will be those least inclined to.

67, 60, 51.

[EFerrari]

7. It bears no resemblance to reality on the ground in her district.

But, if you liked it, it served some purpose. :eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

9. So the issue has now switched from "She is a complicit/traitorous leader" to "She isn't nice

to her constituents?" Those are two completely different issues. The first is addressed by this post, not the second. Stay on target.

[EFerrari]

11. No. The hyperbole in the OP has a direct relation to what is happening here.

And, you might want to take your own advice.

I don't need a "nice" representative. I need a representative who hasn't forgotten how she got to D.C.

Nice, my granny's @ss.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Her failure to represent her constituents (and her failure to do so politely) is a different issue

from the issues raised in the OP. The only places in which they intersect are places which are covered in the OP.

[EFerrari]

18. . . .

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

21. :rofl: - Internet shorthand for "I got nothin'."

[EFerrari]

28. No. That's shorthand for, "You don't understand the stakes here

and, if her constituents aren't worth attending to, why are you? And, more, what the fuck are you defending?"

I'll be happy to keep translating for the reading impaired.

[Occam Bandage]

31. Heh. You're shocked that the Speaker of the House

becomes much more moderate, and starts acting cautiously, representing the party as a whole--and not her particular district--upon assuming the office, and you tell me I don't understand political reality? Hahaha.

[EFerrari]

32. Personal attacks don't trump actual argument. Try again. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

33. I've yet to see one from you. 'OMG I WAS BETRAYED' doesn't hack it. Congressional leaders

have responsibility to their caucus: to each of their Representatives, and, in turn, their constituents. That's the tradeoff you get. Your district gets more influence, more leverage, and more power, but on the other hand, a tempering of both rhetoric and action.

The reasons for that tempering are in the OP.

[EFerrari]

34. I'm going to just let this response sit there. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

35. Let me know when you think of a response.

[EFerrari]

36. Here:

October 16, 2007

Nancy, I AM your neighbor.

By Elizabeth Ferrari

Pelosi’s district demands an end to the sacking of Iraq, impeachment.


"You can just imagine my neighbors' reaction to all this. If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering. But because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment. ... So I'm well aware of the unhappiness of the base." – Nancy Pelosi “has candid talk with reporters” 10-10-07




Nancy Pelosi needs an intervention. She is responding to her constituents in a manner that starkly resembles the behavior of an addict denying her family’s distress.



When, after being denied an audience with our elected representative, her constituents were forced to take their protest to her home, Nancy’s response was denial: “You aren’t my constituents.” But, we are, Nancy. We are. And denying that fact won’t move this discussion forward.



More recently, Pelosi makes an appeal to authority in response to popular voices in her district:”We are leaders, they are advocates” – an authoritarian response that may be aimed to quash dissent but which merely illustrates the growing disconnect between Pelosi and the electorate that sent her to Washington in the first place. I suppose that makes those of us who elected her and supported her a group of enablers.



The latest, the capper (I hope this is the capper because how much worse can this dysfunctional dialogue get without requiring court-ordered rehab) was her recent statement, wishing that she could have anti-war and pro-impeachment protesters arrested just like homeless people are arrested in San Francisco



San Francisco is a small town and that makes me Pelosi’s neighbor although I live in the Sunset District, not in Pacific Heights. In my immediate neighborhood, we keep track of our homeless neighbors. We look out for them, we don’t have them arrested to “clean up” our streets. My neighbor Keith is in a wheelchair. {He is also your constituent, Nancy.) My neighbor Charles does yard work for us because he’s clean now and because he wants to work. My neighbor Dave is having a hard time getting off drugs, but we don’t give up on him. Gavin Newsom’s window dressing that passes for a homelessness policy has never reached out to him a single bit. But here, my neighbors are looking out for Dave. He has bad days and good days. And I believe at the moment, he’s trying rehab again. We are so proud of him.



Why does it surprise me that the Speaker who is bent on continuing to fund the sacking of Iraq has no visible empathy for the homeless of her district? I must be an idiot.



There is a very simple way to save the people Pelosi manages to recognize as “neighbors” -- several of whom supported the vigils outside her home -- the inconvenience of those protests. And, that would be the town hall meeting which she has avoided for over a year now. If her neighbors are inconvenienced, the blame lies with Pelosi, not with her constituents who have the right to seek redress from their government and not with the voters that her willful myopia renames as “not my constituents”.



No outside agitator (Pelosi’s term, not mine) in their right mind would wade into this district at this moment. As it is, those of us who are here on the ground find Pelosi’s shunning a bitter lesson. Misplaced Trust 1A. So be it.



Nancy, we want you to end the sacking of Iraq. We want you to impeach the felons in the White House. And we will tend to our homeless neighbors as best we can without the help of Corporati like you and Gavin Newsom. Your massive disregard for your district will be redressed. Save yourself and the people you recognize as “neighbors” that shame and resign.


http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_elizabet_071016_nancy_2c_i_am_your_nei.htm

[Occam Bandage]

37. Please see post #33, and then OP for arguments addressing this.

"OMG WE WERE BETRAYED" is not an argument against "She has additional responsibilities besides your district," but rather it is the argument being addressed by my post.

"SHE IS FUNDING THE WAR" is not an argument against the OP, but is the argument being addressed by the OP.

[EFerrari]

40. Pelosi has no more pressing responsibilites than the voters

who sent her to Washington in the first place. That argument is just laughable.

Obviously, there is something about representative democracy that is not clear to you.

I'm very clear on that score. I defended Pelosi until I couldn't. She chose her own adventure.

[Occam Bandage]

44. "That argument is just laughable."

And true. I'm sorry if Congressional politics is new and horrifying to you.

[EFerrari]

50. You keep using hyperbole to distort this argument.

I hope that works for you!

lol

[Occam Bandage]

56. What's hyperbole? For that matter, what have I said that's incorrect? You haven't actually

taken issue with a single one of my statements, other than the ol' "lol-copout."

[EFerrari]

66. I believe that this board, reading our conversation, will disagree with you.

[Occam Bandage]

104. What a convincing argument.

I was expecting fallacious appeal to consensus, but this is even weaker than that. Is appeal to possible consensus even a recognized fallacy?

[jpgray]

45. I'm sorry, but GOP domination of all three branches is more important a worry than just SF

The scale of harm such a situation can create just vastly outweighs that caused by compromise on important constituent issues. Now, I can't prove that's the literal trade-off (and you can't prove it isn't :P), but do you see how I disagree that there aren't any more pressing responsibilities? That seems a pretty obvious one right there. Three branches under GOP control for even two more years could result in irreparable damage. In a perfect world no compromise would be necessary, but if it is necessary, then it's the right one to make, in my view. As leader she -is- responsible for more than just San Fran.

[EFerrari]

49. Sure, because our representative shouldn't represent us.

Okay.

[jpgray]

54. If it is a tradeoff, what would you take? Unilateral SF focus, or denying the GOP dominance?

It seems obvious to me. Obviously it's not so black and white, but can you see where that tradeoff would come into play? Pelosi the SF representative is capable of taking stances Pelosi the House Speaker cannot, since the caucus would fracture and weaken the Democrats' position.

[EFerrari]

60. What utter cr@p!

What binary thinking. Pelosi didn't have to shun her progressive constituency to arrive at her considered position.

Please.

Were those her choices? No. What would you do if your rep refused to hold a town hall for two years?

San Francisco focus, my ass. You mean, a focus on Bush's lying us into war? On his torture policy? Like his illegal spying on American citizens? Like his sacking of all our social programs while he gives tax cuts to his cronies? Ooooo -- we're so RADICAL! LOL!

How far will you bend over to defend the indefensible?

[jpgray]

62. Pelosi's SF seat is safe if she chooses a controversial policy. The same isn't true of all Dems

Yes or no? Since she is speaker, she needs to put those Democrats into consideration, or risk losing the majority. Yes or no? I don't see how you can deny that being speaker limits her option to just represent San Francisco.

[EFerrari]

65. Yes. You are correct. Her seat is safe because it relies on corporate money

and not on the actual voters in her district.

Sleep well.

[jpgray]

67. Are you even reading what I say?

Pelosi could take a far harder line as SF rep than she can as Speaker. Her constituents would support a brave stance to defund the Iraq war, whereas if that were her official stance as Speaker, it would put Democrats in conservative areas at risk. Can't you see that?

[EFerrari]

71. The idea that progressives should yield in advance because

someone somewhere disagreed with them is a LOSING strategy.

On the other hand, since the DLC assigned themselves to ascendancy, maybe that's exactly what Democrats should expect.

[warren pease]

118. That doesn't work for me...

And I think the name "Newt Gingrich" applies here. Newtie and his contract on America simply waltzed in, demonstrated unanimity, rallied round the flag and began the process of kicking ass and taking names.

Like most egomaniacs, he was eventually victimized by his own inflated opinion of himself, notably when he shut down Congress because Clinton made him ride in the back of the bus. But for a few years there, Newt was The Man in DC and everybody -- everybody -- lined up to kiss his ass.

He's the main reason Clinton embarked on his ludicrous "triangulation" strategy, which was just code for total capitulation to the GOP machine. Clinton won by losing, and we all lost in the process. The 1996 Telecom bill was perhaps the worst outcome of Clinton's triangulation, but there are plenty of other examples of Newt's ability to get Clinton to jump through GOP hoops.

So back to Pelosi. Yes, a hard line against Bush/Cheney would probably harm dems in conservative areas. But so what? What's the use of protecting a blue dog's seat? Yes you need numbers for committee chairmanships, and look how well that's working out. Conyers won't bring HR 333 to the full committee; occupation funding continues apace; every single piece of anti-Constitutional power grabbing legislation Bush/Cheney floats get through committee and passes in the full House and on and on and on...

On the other hand, a hard line should result in denying war funding just by refusing to allow appropriations bills to come up for a vote. Sure she'll get a lot of heat from the white house and its media spokespeople. So what? It's lonely at the top and, since she actively sought the job, is it too much to ask that she actually do that job?

Also, about 65 percent of the public wants an end to the Iraq disaster. Would they support the woman who caused that end, or would they rush to Bush/Cheney's rescue? I think the grand infatuation with all things Bush is mercifully over and I seriously doubt that she would take much flak from the public for opposing another white house failure.

So it all comes back to who's pulling whose strings and what are they using to control the situation. As I intoned in a previous post far down the thread, I think it's just a rigged game and that it's corporate money uber alles. Keep in mind that war is great for business and for the banks the fund those businesses. I think her inability to act decisively against Bush/Cheney is a ruse, and that her complicity is bought and paid for by the same people who pay the GOP to weep and wail about the sorry plight of the rich and powerful and how their lives would be immeasurably improved if only the corporate gains and "death" taxes would go away.

Now why somebody worth about $54 million (2005 FEC filing statement) would still feel the need to suck up to corporate money is beyond me. In sociology, there's this phenomenon called internalizing the norms of the dominant group. It's how the oppressed invariably identify with their oppressors -- like when a poor man votes republican because they've convinced him that his problem is illegal immigrants or gays or lefties or terrorists or gun grabbers or welfare queens... or anything but the truth.

So as a filthy rich comrade in arms, maybe she has accepted the theme that there's no such thing as an immoral corporation, or one that isn't constantly beset by regulators, competitors and circumstances beyond its control. At least, that's the big con our "business leaders" rely on to keep their tax rates low and their government oversight nonexistent. And then they have Fortune Magazine to spew garbage about how the US economy is suffering because people don't work enough hours, as a recent article claimed.

Anyway, before I write another novel, I just wanted to chime in on the cross-talk and inflict my POV on everyone else.


wp


On edit: I misplaced this post; it should have been a response to post # 67. Sorry for the confusion.

[onenote]

91. The actual voters in her district are the one's that elected her

and if she's reelected, it will be because she gets more votes from "actual voters" than any opponent she might have.

Or are you saying that a majority of the actual constituents in her district dont' agree with her but vote for her anyway because of corporate money? How exactly does that work?

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. If it is the blue dogs that are the impediment, then it is the leadership's

job to say to those blue dogs "you WILL back us up on this or we WILL run someone in your district/state who WILL take your seat away from you."

That's how the repukes got their majority, and their cohesion. It's the one thing I would like to see the Democrats emulate.

[Occam Bandage]

17. That would be an empty threat.

The blue dogs know that we don't have a majority without them, and they know that a progressive candidate would lose in their district.

[Dr Fate]

47. Then Pelosi needs to say "We dont have the DEMOCRATIC votes" instead of lying.

These excuses make sense- but the problem is we are reading them on a message board instead of having Pelosi & Redi tell us.

Instead of saying "WE DONT HAVE THE VOTES"- lets have the vote, then we can see which DLC/Blue DOg traitors are voting pro Bush.

The problem is Pelosi et all are either COVERING for them or they secretly agree with them- either way, they wont let things go up for a vote so that we cant see which DEMS agree with us.

If what you are saying is true (And I think it is)- then instead of lying and saying "we dont have the votes-the Republicans wont let us do it" they need to say "We dont have the votes- the DLCers and Bluedogs will vote pro Bush if this goes forward"

At this point-how can we be so sure that EVERY Blue Dog & DLCer will be rewarded by thw=eir districts for going along with an unpopular war & un popular president?

[Occam Bandage]

52. Actually putting it to a vote would be a political embarrassment that would be seen (and rightly so)

by the media and the Republicans as a Congressional endorsement of the last seven years. No thanks. I think that first we should get the Republicans out of office, and then worry about getting the Blue Dogs out. They may be wrong on impeachment and wrong on the war, but they're usually right on domestic issues. Flipping a Republican seat is worth far more than flipping a Blue Dog seat.

[Dr Fate]

59. So the alternative is to LIE to the DEM base- while covering for Pro-Bush DEMS?

And you say we have to "wait" until we vote out the Blue Dogs?

Who is to say the leadership will not continue to cover for them and support them (See Joe Lieberman) unless they are exposed for how they really feel?

Sounds like your solution is to let them keep doing what they are doing.

If Blue Dogs want to vote Pro-Bush, then let them. Dont lie to me and tell suggest to me that it is all the GOP's fault.

Either their districts and base will let them slide, or they wont.

Besides, who is to say that they cant be pressured to vote AGAINST Bush if we actaully put it up to a vote?

What it boils down to (asuming DEM leadership honeslty agrees with its base) is we are letting the DEMS cover for would-be pro-Bush DEMS instead of forcing their hands.

You ignored the last sentence - here it is again:

"At this point-how can we be so sure that EVERY Blue Dog & DLCer will be rewarded by their districts for going along with an unpopular war & un popular president?"

[jpgray]

95. The strategic idea is this--if the blue dogs can't be replaced, you can't let the GOP defeat them

To keep the GOP from defeating them, causing the base to get even more pissed off than they already are is not acceptable. Pelosi can reasonably shoulder the blame, as her seat is safe, whereas outing the blue dogs as the real sticks in the mud would cause them to lose support, and in a close race that could be fatal.

That's the strategic situation, if the blue dogs are the limiting factor.

I don't think that the blue dogs are rewarded for "going along" so much as they are rewarded for not taking controversial stands in general, and thus muck up the caucus unity such that no real controversial stands are taken.

[Dr Fate]

127. But who says they will lose their seats for opposing the such an unpoular president?

Who in the world are these Red-State Democrats, moderates and Bush fatigued swing-voters who are going to vote Republican just because a DEM finally opposed Bush once or twice in their lives?

I disagree that it is a forgone conclusion that you cant fight for and win your seat if you oppose Bush- a very unpopular person right now.

And in case you have not noticed- the base is already getting wise to this charade- and the entire party is getting blamed instead of the DLC traitors. It's not fair to the good guys to allow and make excuses for the cover up as it is.

The base is already pissed off- if Leadership would force the hands of the DLCers- or coerce them into doing the right thing and vote anti-Bush for a change, I think that would be a better strategy.

But we know that wont happen- because key members of the leadership AGREES with the DLC or are members.

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. I believe that if every 2 blue dogs were replaced by one progressive

democrat and one republican, we would be the better for it. Even if we were to lose the majority, those who remained would actually be an opposition to the repukes, and would STOP them from continuing their criminal seizure of the government.

Of course, with the DLC running things that would never happen, since they are responsible for most of those blue dogs to begin with.

And make no mistake, there are some VERY liberal democrats holding seats in VERY red states. Committment and clarity of purpose and message means a lot more to people than mealy-mouthed apologietics. Give a republican a choice between a conservative republican and a conservative democrat, and they'll choose the republican every time. But a real opposition just might get their attention.

[Dr Fate]

132. But why even assume that a DEM would lose a seat for opposing Bush?

I think we might even be operating under a false assumption to assume that opposing Bush would cause us to lose all these seats.

As you know, plenty of Red States have to have dyed in the wool DEMS, moderates and swing voters not to mention Liberals, progressives, Libertarians, etc) for these Blue Dogs to beat Republicans in the 1st place.

We have not even been shown that these DEMS, moderates and Bush-fatigued Red-Staters would actually punish DEMS for opposing Bush for a change.

In fact, if you think about it, the claim is suspect at this point.

[jpgray]

53. The trick is, we've been able to stop a lot of bad new policies due to our majority

"Outing" blue dogs in this way would finally put their skittishness and avoidance of controversy in the limelight (which would be very satisfying!) but it could threaten the majority. Simply because the base would be pissed off at their actions, and no one else would be impressed with them. Therefore they lose votes. So the situation gets really sticky--to point out the problem members of the caucus, you risk replacing them with GOP stooges, which removes our ability to investigate or hold back bad legislation. Hopefully at this point we'd have the veto power back, but do you see how complicated it can get?

[Dr Fate]

72. Who says they wont cave and vote anti-Bush once they are forced into the limelight?

After all, the war and Bush are unpopular with moderates & swing-voters even in coservative districts.

And who says Pelosi and Reid cant use their leadership skills to make that happen?

Are we finally admitting that this really is the fault of the leadership?

Sounds like the DLC traitors gave Pelosi and Reid ultimatums long ago- and that the leadership either AGREES with them or doesnt have the skills to lead them in the right direction.

[jpgray]

75. I'm not excusing the leadership by any means. A disunited caucus -is- a leadership failure

But the challenges against unity might be pretty extreme, no? How extreme they really are is difficult to quantify. But assuming they are extreme, what should the leadership be doing?

[Dr Fate]

79. I reject the notion that it is "difficult" to oppose the most unpopular President in recent history.

What should the leadership be doing?

Putting things up for a vote instead of lying about why they are not.

The leadership can EASILY rally the base and most moderates behind them- and pull committee positions from DEMS who still remain traitors.

And why are we operating under the false notion that moderate Republicans, true moderates and Bush fatigued swing voters will AGREE with Pro Bush DEM votes on the war and accountability?

Seems like those Pro-Bush DEM votes would not be as popular with all circles as these excuses are making them out to be.

[jpgray]

23. Is that practicable in conservative states/districts? Look what happened in CT

It's not a perfect comparison due to the weakness of the GOP contender, but CT was solidly Democratic--it should have been a good place to find a progressive challenger and efficiently replace a blue dog. What happened? The primary worked out well, but the general election caused the plan to fall apart. Quite apart from the wild card of the GOP being a non-contender, Democratic party figures split on who to support in a most frustrating way. How do you ensure that doesn't happen? Also, once you add the obstacles to finding good replacements in conservative areas, and the likelihood of stronger GOP opposition in those areas, is it a practical solution? What if the heretofore Democrat switches affiliation and becomes a favorite of conservative Dem and moderate GOP voters?

Plus you have to define the terms of an acceptable replacement. A moderate populist like Webb? Or a more liberal progressive candidate such as Lamont? Are both okay?

But yes, in general I think this can be an acceptable solution. Why doesn't the leadership opt for it, do you think?

[Dr Fate]

55. The DLC traitors funded Joe in CT. Plus, I need to hear Pelosi and Reid explain this to their party.

For one thing, it didnt work in CT because the very "Blue Dogs" and DLCers that you seem to be making excuses for helped Joe in CT instead of backing the DEM.

Again, it boils down to pro-Bush DEMS in our party who hold too much sway, and are given too much cover by the rest of the elected leaders.

I need to hear Pelosi & Reid exaplain to us that it is DEMOCRATS who will be voting pro-Bush and that is why they dont move certain things forward.

If the excuses you offer here are the reality, then let the DEM leadership tell us so on television, rather than on an anonymous message board.

Better yet- let these controversial votes move forward so we can SEE which DEMS agree with and vote in our interests and which ones do not. So long as their districts agree with them- what is the harm in doing so?

[jpgray]

58. Then you risk majority status, since all that will do is piss off the base with regard to those Dems

It will not endear GOP voters to them (as the behavior is weak), and it will not endear middle-ground voters to them. So this puts these conservative Democrats at electoral risk. That's totally fair, as their actions deserve punishment. Yet the result of that punishment is an empowered GOP, which is an unacceptable risk. That would deny us the ability to block -new- dangerous legislation, whereas now we just lack the ability to roll back the extant bad legislation. How do you minimize that risk? By having a good alternative primary candidate? Are such available in all blue dog areas that we would target?

I like the primary solution myself, but do you see where concerns as to practicality and risk come in?

[Dr Fate]

69. Why cant DLCer traitors just vote anti-Bush for once? How will being anti-Bush turn off moderates???

Are their really THAT many people in their districts who still want to stay in the war, and who think Bush should face ZERO accountability?

Is it really THAT hard to frame this and then do the right thing?

Opposing the war and being for accountability will not endear middle ground voters? Says who? Hell, even a sizable amount of CONSERVATIVE voters now oppose the war and know Bush is a crook.

Maybe the problem is that the Blue Dogs & DLCers just plain agree with Bush- despite the shift, and have given various ultimatiums to the rest of the party.

[Perry Logan]

19. So the Democrats on Congress didn't do what they couldn't do? The bastards.

[EFerrari]

24. Yeah! They repudiated their constituency because their arms

were being twisted! @ssholes, to give in to torture!

:sarcasm:

I try to be as reasonable as I can. But you know, it's a very unique experience when the person you worked long and hard for disowns you. Makes you think.

[Dr Fate]

133. The conservatives wont let us fight the conservatives. Yeah- that's it!

As soon as those conservatives agree to let us fight them- WATCH OUT!!!

[treestar]

41. The Decider will veto anything

So impeachment is really all they could accomplish.

But don't forget that they stand in the way of the Decider also. What could he have gotten out of a Republican Congress in the past year? It's hard to think of things that don't happen, but there would have been.

The government is set up in three branches, the Democratic Congress can prevent the Decider's worst excesses, but it can't do anything to reverse things where he can veto.

[jpgray]

48. All very true. But with the Senate split and Joe in the mix, impeachment carries risk

I'm not decided on whether a balls-out attempt would be better than inaction (my heart says yes, head says "dunno"), but a lack of conviction in the Senate is serious. It could basically result in a very party-line vote (and Joe) for "not guilty," which essentially is a free media tool for the admin to wave away any investigation of past malfeasance or criminal activity. And that needs to be taken seriously, in my view. Unquestionably if anyone -deserves- impeaching, it's this crew.

[EFerrari]

51. Impeachment has historically carried no risk for the moving party.

Come on.

[jpgray]

57. Clinton's impeachment carried no risk for the GOP? Seriously?

Why did the Democrats destroy Nixon without a single impeachment hearing, if it carried no risk? Why did they thoroughly investigate and produce all evidence publicly through ordinary investigation? It's simple--you need the votes to convict before you go in. Otherwise you risk a "not guilty" verdict freeing a guilty party from any further accountability. You don't bring something to trial if the gathered evidence won't convince a jury. Is the GOP half (plus Lieberman) convinced at this point?

[EFerrari]

61. No, it didn't. Do your own search for pete's sake.

And, the Democrats didn't destroy Nixon. The Republicans did.

[jpgray]

64. Your evidence for this is...?

[EFerrari]

68. I'm sorry, jpgray.

Is your arm broken?

[jpgray]

70. I can find editorials from all sorts of people that say Clinton impeachment was a disaster

I can relate the fact that his credibility soared to 60+% and that for the GOP congress sank, and likely cost them their sizable majority. Even -Tom Delay- cites this as the reason for the halt in GOP ascendancy. So what's your evidence?

[EFerrari]

73. Go try to find the numbers that prove it hurt the GOP.

Try.

It didn't happen.

[jpgray]

76. Here you go. If I were feeling snarky, I would ask "is your arm broken?"

But I've tried to behave reasonably to you. :shrug:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/14/poll.01/

Again, where is your evidence?

[EFerrari]

78. No, that's cr@p. How did this failed impeachment hurt the Republics?

Thank you in advance.

[jpgray]

80. What's crap? A scientific poll? Lower approval doesn't hurt politicians, in your view?

Please be specific, as you're really confusing me here. Why is that "crap?"

[EFerrari]

82. Because the argument is that a "failed" impeachment will hurt the Democrats.

None of you can show that a failed impeachment hurt the Republics because it didn't. That's how.

[jpgray]

84. Lower approval for them? High approval for Clinton? Doesn't hurt them?

Can you explain how such would have no effect?

[EFerrari]

85. Is your arm still broken?

There was no significant fall out for the Republics after their failed impeachment effort. And that is consistent with the history of impeachment efforts.

[jpgray]

87. Again, what is your evidence? Do you have none?

I supported my claim with approval polls that directly concerned the impeachment effort. Where is your evidence?

[EFerrari]

90. So, your arm really IS still broken.

How did the GOP suffer after their failed impeachment attempt?

[jpgray]

93. What do you want as evidence? The GOP lost four senate seats, and two house seats in 2000

They would not have won the presidency, if not for the SCOTUS.

[Yukari Yakumo]

114. AND...

Those losses in '98 caused the end of Gingrich's political career.

[treestar]

112. There was a different reason, though

We would have to account for that. It was over Clinton and his Monica-scandal (Repukes always say it was about lying about it, but it was a lie about a personal matter about which a lot of men would lie). As the saying is, when Clinton lied, nobody died. The Decider's impeachment would be decidely more serious in nature - it's not about his personal life, but what he's done to the country.

[jpgray]

117. That's true--the two situations have many differences, but she spoke generally of failed impeachment

Seeing as there are only two historical cases to speak of, it's difficult to view the process generally. The two extant examples were highly dependent on their specific characteristics. And so does this case. But imagine a failed impeachment scenario here--since the base believes these crimes to be self-evident, would an attempt and failure -also- bring cries of "complicity," "incompetence," etc., since the evidence is so obvious in our eyes? Or would Pelosi bear no blame if she tried impeachment and failed?

[Dr Fate]

130. And why are you so 100% sure impeachment will fail? Oh that-s right- DLC traitors again.

Their existence and the key leadership members who agree with them makes it certain- we both know that.

The DLC & Blue Dog traitors would make impeachment a JOKE- either through incompetence or siding with Bush- or a little of both. Unless the leadership opposed them, that is. Oh, wait...

[onenote]

92. pursuing Clinton cost the repubs.

Based on historical precedent, the repubs should've picked up seats in the House in 1998, but they not only failed to do so, they lost five seats. And in 2000, despite "winning" the presidency (which they only did because the SCOTUS intervened and notwithstanding getting losing the popular vote), they lost ground in the Senate.

[Dr Fate]

129. The glaring difference is it was about SEX. Plus Clinton was uber popular. Not so currently.

Plus, I'm not so sure that the perception of Clinton's "corruption" did not play into ROve/media's hands costing Gore enough votes. If that is the case, then impeachment did indeed benefit the GOP.

[Dr Fate]

131. Clinton was a million times more popular than Bush- and all Clinton did was lie about sex.

And arguably he didnt even do that.

Comparing the two is so many apples and oranges and anyone can see that- another poor excuse.

[Dr Fate]

42. Maybe they really just dont know what they are doing.

Anyone ever think of that one?

Or maybe the final decision makers actually AGREE with the Blue Dogs and monied DLCers who control things?

Assuming they dont-just because someone doesnt get the results they want doesnt mean they didnt have certain motivations/fears to begin with.

Bottom line is the GOP finds ways to keep their Moderate leaning reps in line- I expect our leaders to do the same- to keep pro-Bush DEMS IN LINE. BUT- perhaps the leaders who have the final say honestly agree with the pro-Bush DEMS. So hard to tell.

You say they might lose their seats if they dont suck up to Bush- yet Bush is probably the most unpopular president in history- and is more unpopular than ever with his own party- so I'm not accepting that excuse either.

Excuses for why DEMS have to cave into the Blue Dogs/DLCers/Republicans/media are great for some people- but I'd rather have WAYS to fight them than 8 years worth of excuses for not doing so.

No sale.

[Zodiak]

81. It is clear that they do not know what they are doing

I seem to remember when a congressperson's office had to have "inherent comtempt" explained to them because they were not aware of it.

We are led by professional electioneers....not professional governors.

And they even suck at getting elected...they had to wait for everyone to hate the other side first.

But all the excuse people can relax now, because they have excused the Democrats during the critical year in which impeachment could have begun. It's too late now...and as usual, party loyalty independent of ideology or issues has enabled this. We weren't even allowed square one to be offered as a compromise.

This is why so many people do not want to be Democrats...who wants to ally themselves with cowards and enablers?

[jpgray]

83. Incompetence seems far more reasonable than complicity or corruption, in my view

But can they really be -that- stupid? If it were as easy as some on DU would claim, why not do it? Why not do it, especially when not doing it only hurts you?

[Dr Fate]

88. That should impress moderates & swing-voters. Incompetency is not "reasonable" either.

They are either incompetent, stuborn to the point of hubris ("...if the base says to do it, it MUST be crazy-never mind that moderates now agree with all those internet nuts...") or they actually AGREE with Bush.

Poor strategy is POOR strategy- we can make excuses for it all day.

I fail to see how any of these excuses for opposing the Democratic base is supposed to inspire me to support weak-kneed DEM strategy, or to get people who oppose Bush (AKA THE MAJORITY) to do the same.

[jpgray]

99. Would knowing who the intransigent blue dogs were discourage you from voting for them?

If Pelosi were to say "I can't oppose the admin due to (list of blue dogs)," that would hurt them, no? And if there are no progressive alternatives, what happens in '08? So yeah it's insulting if Pelosi is trying to put a little PR shield around their misbehavior, but the results of outing them aren't entirely without risk, no? Now you can argue that's a totally weak and ineffectual strategy, and that pushing ahead with unity would be worth the momentary chaos, but two more years of two solid GOP branches (judicial and legislative) is a very scary thought.

[Dr Fate]

128. If she threatened to expose them- wouldnt some of them cave and vote with DEMS?

Is Bush and the war REALLY that popular where DEMS would risk voting with the GOP or switching parties? Are these DLC types in question REALLY that low down and traitorous?

Wouldnt they risk losing party support And money) in their states and districts if they blatantly disregarded a mandate from DEM leadership?

Oh wait- I forgot- I am arguing against excuses-probably not what is really happening.


The reality is that key members of the DEM leadership would never get behind issuing such a mandate-much less punishing pro-Bush DEMS for violating a party mandate-in that they actually AGREE with said Blue Dogs. See Joe Lieberman and the DLC/Bluedog support for him- even after he threatened to run as a 3rd party.

I know, I know, going along with all that was "strategy" too, wasnt it?

[Zodiak]

89. Well, my take is yes, they can be that stupid.

The only thing that we can be sure of with our reps is that they are competent at running a campaign, but they rely almost entirely on staffers and consultants once they get to the Hill. Rolling Stone had a great article on how ineffective Democratic consultants are....and they are NEVER fired for their incompetence, either.

But people need to realize when things are not working for them and make some changes...we have not done that.

If it is the Blue Dogs, then there is no discipline in the party, and THAT needs to be exposed.

[jpgray]

94. Is the lack of leadership the problem, or is the problem blue dog intransigence?

In other words, are the Blue Dogs just in need of some old-fashioned LBJ or Tip O'Neill leaning, or are they resistant to the available techniques? How do we figure that out?

[Zodiak]

106. Well, the first thing that would allow that to happen

...is to stop giving thm cover. Stop answering our concern with "we don't have the votes", which is a substanceless talking point. We don't get clear answers, and therefore we do not truly know.

That also is lack of leadership.

The way it is now, we are in the dark, and the Bush agenda goes through. We get nothing but weak-kneed excuses for our efforts.

They created this condition, not us.....and unfortunately they are the only ones who can do anything because of their insistence in keeping everyone in the dark as to the reasons for their inadequacy.

Sucks, but that is what they are doing, and their is no excuse for it. I applaud your efforts in trying to be logical about this, but I am afraid that their actions defy logic no matter which whay you slice it.

But I do know that continuing to make excuses for them and working hard to keep our bad representatives in Congress no matter how they stab us in the back is a losing strategy. We've been doing it for years, and it has only made matters worse.

Look at the news now (or lack of it, actually), by tomorrow we could have immunity for telecom companies that spied on us long before Sept. 11th and the FCC is about to make media consolidation even less regulated. The Bush agenda continues....on our watch.

Our side is compromised to the hilt, and many of us are no longer going to carry their water. Pelosi is the biggest Democratic disappointment in my lifetime. Reid was already a DLC snake in the grass, so it comes to no surpise to me that he acts the way he does...what surprises me is that so many experienced DUers are still trying to see the silver lining in our leadership after all of this time.

[warren pease]

100. All three Cs, plus...

I've thought long and hard about this and here's what I've come up with.

Complicity/Corruption -- These days, largely due to the corrupting influence of giant sums of corporate campaign money, the old Chomsky analysis is becoming more obvious each election cycle. He says there is only one political party in the US, it's called (or should be) The Business Party and it has two factions called Democrats and Republicans.

Their agendas are nearly identical, although their methods differ. Where Republicans are completely open and shameless about their love for the rich and powerful, Democrats pander to the working and middle classes when running for election, then adopt the complete GOP program once in office.

These factions, and the roles they play in the big con, are best understood if you compare them with the Globetrotters and the Washington Generals. They both appear to be playing the same game. They play their scripted roles to perfection, but the outcome is always predetermined. The Generals are never, ever going to win. And neither are the working and middle classes.

In US politics, that means the outcome of all significant legislative and regulatory measures is defined by and must conform to the needs of those corporations who bought the parties and their candidates dozens of times over.

When you stop searching for logic or intelligence behind the Dem's complicity and understand that they're just playing their appointed roles, you can abandon the unproductive, ulcer-causing search for logic and reason and spine in the Dems. Then you can get onto a more productive line of inquiry, albeit an extremely nauseating one. But at least you'll be sick at the right things.


Cowardice -- We can discuss whether it's Stockholm Syndrome, battered women's syndrome or good old-fashioned wimpiness when faced with the GOP's endless roster of blowhard bullies. Whatever the reason, it's not good enough. They've sold out their history, their constituents, their personal honor and dignity, their country, their conscience, their political roots and, incidentally, the Constitution and the entire body of precedent and case law that has grown up around it.

It probably took just a small push to drive them into affiliating with the opposing camp. I mean, once you've co-opted your political soul and sold out the people who voted you into office, there's not much left to sell. When corruption is the norm, complicity is just a survival mechanism.


The Results -- As progressives, I think all this means we have no horses in the race. We could pool all our spare change and try to buy a senator or two, but absent serious power and the money to buy it, our leverage is very limited.

So when I see Pelosi floating yet another excuse for the inexcusable, or Reid caving once again to the white house, or Hoyer trying to kill Kucinich's articles of impeachment, or Conyers burying HR 333 under a pile of paper, or Clinton parroting the business party line taught to her by the $90 million in corporate bribes she's taken since the first of the year...

You watch this stuff from the context you learned in civics class -- competing parties, different agendas, different constituencies -- and shake your head in disbelief. But you watch the same stuff through Chomsky's eyes, analyze their behavior from his perspective, and everything makes perfect sense. Perfect sense.

And this is why I detest this particular pack of compromised democratic "leaders" above all their predecessors. They're obvious collaborators; simple as that. As a party badly in need of credibility, they had nothing to lose and much to gain by impeaching, sitting on war funding bills, cutting BushCo off at the wallet, contesting every single thing the bastards pulled and then shouting their reasons at the top of their lungs.

Instead, we get telecom immunity, no accountability for any of BushCo's made men, near unanimous passage of every single domestic repression bill that slithers its way from the white house, and a bottomless treasure chest of borrowed money to support BushCo's imperialist blood lust.

All this only makes sense if they're all in it together, if they're all members of the same exclusive club and if they've all been completely corrupted by corporate bribery. I suggest the evidence for that view is pretty strong. Like all great cons, you'll never be able to actually prove it. But what's been happening doesn't pass the smell test unless you expand the parameters of acceptable analysis.

As Sherlock Holmes said, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."


wp

[jpgray]

105. Thanks for the thought-out post. I get Chomsky's take, but what's the benefit for the Democrats?

They don't get corporate influence as the Republicans do, as they only sell out halfway. These mealy-mouthed positions on free trade and regulation don't endear voters (either misguided or informed), nor do these positions win support from the power and money centers of the nation because they've already thrown in with the GOP. If there's no benefit, why do it?

In addition, the -only- party that votes for anti-corporate policies in any numbers is the Democratic party, so if the corruption angle were true, wouldn't we see more united behavior from the Democrats in selling out? Or in your mind is the halfway approach all carefully planned to create the illusion of a struggle between values and political expediency?

[warren pease]

110. The halfway approach...

As you ask, "...is the halfway approach all carefully planned to create the illusion of a struggle between values and political expediency?"

Without wishing to sound like a raving paranoid loon, I'm leaning in that direction, yeah. If the Globetrotters/Generals analogy applies, then that's exactly what's going on. The con only works if everybody stays conned. Not that the Generals are conning anybody into thinking they're ever going to win a game against the Globetrotters, but you see what I'm saying. When evaluating Congress' performance, it's the script that's important, not the outcome of the game itself, which is already a foregone conclusion and will inevitably benefit the people who employ and control our alleged representatives via campaign "donations."

And who benefits? Obviously, corporations benefit from legislation that positions them favorably against the competition, such as refusing to invoke the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to put the brakes on all these insane mergers and acquisitions that always result in massive layoffs, eliminating competitors and creating vertical monopolies.

They also benefit from a favorable regulatory environment that allows the most obscene breaches of the public trust to masquerade as prudent business practices. This was never more apparent than in the recent case of contaminated beef, when the head of the FDA said something to the effect that she didn't want any more inspectors, any increase in administrative staffing and that things were just hunky dory as they were.

But the pols benefit too. They get to lead lives of privilege and status amid the trappings of power. They get the private cell phone numbers of important people. They get rides on corporate jets. They get decent salaries and the potential for serious money once they make enough contacts to leave office and become lobbyists or get hired as execs as a reward for their unflagging corporate loyalty.

And in most cases, that seems to be enough to sell out their principles, their constituents, their heritage and their Constitution. In all too few cases, that's obviously not enough. So you see people like Feingold, Sanders, Kucinich, Lee, Woolsey and maybe a couple of dozen others taking their jobs seriously and standing up for the people who elected them.

But that's getting more unusual all the time as the pervasive influence of corporate money pollutes everything and everyone it touches. We can thank Buckley v Valeo, the "money equals free speech" ruling, for that marvelous development.

So by the time corporate interests carve up the pie, all we're left with is an empty plate and the illusion of a representative democracy without the messy reality. I wish it weren't so, but the evidence is getting pretty compelling.


wp

[jpgray]

111. Watch out, I'm about to drop a big flawed Nazi analogy here

In general the true fascists are always worse than the social fascists, given the choice (social fascists being a corporate-owned party with a facade of socialism). In my opinion, we have a case of social-fascism with a large section of the Democrats, and true fascism with a large section of the GOP. In Weimar Germany, the Communists had to deal with a lot more extreme reactionary tactics from the Social Democrats (such as the killing in the streets of party leaders by Social Democratic Freikorps) than our Democratic Party doles out, and -still- considered a "united front" approach to deal with the fascists. Ernst Thalmann, a Communist party leader and presidential candidate, ultimately subscribed to the Comintern theory that the Social Democrats were the real threat, and believed once they were removed a true socialist/communist party could emerge. Unfortunately the threat of combating social-fascism from the left first is that the fascists may gain power in the chaos. Thalmann viewed this as an advantage, since he believed Germany would throw out the fascists quite quickly (I believe one KPD slogan of the time was "after Hitler, our turn!"), but he didn't reckon with the irreparable damage a fascist-controlled government could wreak upon a society's freedoms in a short period of time. He later died in Buchenwald.

So unquestionably the danger of internecine war on the left/center is that the right can take total control, whatever the state of corruption is within the social-fascists (Germany being a very extreme case). However, that still doesn't answer the question of what to do when a mostly or somewhat corrupt party "represents" the socialist alternative to fascism; rather it points out the danger of open electoral warfare with the corrupt party. What would be an appropriate response that takes that danger into account? I've been struggling with that, as challenges at the primary level require a lot of organization and may still fail due to party divisions (a unique but still depressing case would be CT, where the CT Democrats did their job but were largely betrayed by conservative Democrats and undermined by a weak GOP opponent).

[warren pease]

137. "What would be an appropriate response ..."

An appropriate response would probably involve taking the worst offenders out back and shooting them. However, since that action is reserved for black ops professionals and mercenaries, we'll have to find a better way.

And I know it's tough to imagine what possible benefit the Vichy wing of the democratic party has to gain by playing along with the script. In a previous post, I noted that it's possible -- for some anyway -- that the lives of privilege, status and borderline celebrity they lead might be a good enough incentive to sell out their convictions and their constituents.

For others, the rewards after life in Congress might do the trick -- making boatloads of money from high-profile lobbying firms, or being given one of those exec positions that includes a high salary and massive stock options (granted at a $1 buy-in and now trading at $57 per share), without requiring an hour of actual work in return. This is a favorite way for Corporation A to reward congressional members who sat on oversight committees that regulate Corporation A's very industry -- and which produced no constraints whatsoever on Corporation A or its industry, allowing them to poison ecosystems or, say, wiretap their customers with complete impunity.

I would also guess that there is a certain percentage of them who are completely invested in the wingnut world view -- invested financially, emotionally and philosophically -- and they're only running as democrats because they're in blue states. Feinstein comes to mind, as does Lieberman (before his timely conversion to independence).

And I think there are many others who are just plain mediocre, don't really know much about anything except how to collect corporate bribes, hire staffers who don't read things like the Patriot Act before the floor vote, but can give a speech without sounding like Bush, look good in a tux, have great hair and just slid into their seats because the party needed a warm body and they just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

So there are four possible ways to account for this collaborative behavior. I've no idea if one or all are correct or just ridiculous theoretical hogwash. Maybe I'll get smarter later today and come up with something a little more cogent. Or maybe it's an impossible problem to solve and suggests a level of corruption so entrenched that it would require another 1776-style uprising to break the political strangle-hold corporations how enjoy.


wp

[Warren Stupidity]

115. They don't get corporate influence as the Republicans do?

Of course they do. If they are the majority in congress the lobbiest, the corporate lobbiests, are knocking on their doors first and putting their campaign contributions at the top of the list. Our party leadership is fine with trading places with the other party for head of the table. That is a game they are very comfortable with and that has minimal risks. Were they to actually be a progressive working class labor party, a real oppositoin party, all the perks of power would vanish overnight.

"In addition, the -only- party that votes for anti-corporate policies" what anti-coporate policies? When was the last time a truly progressive piece of legislation passed through congress? How is the Kucinich single payer healthcare bill doing? When was the last time corporate taxes were raised?

Don't bother with the pathetic minimum wage bill tacked onto the war funding. That crap didn't even manage to keep up with inflation, and once again was not COLA'd so that it can be endlessly spun in successive sessions as proof of our party's working class roots.

We are being gamed. Until we all start accepting that, until there is a general consensus in the Democratic base that the party leadership is the problem, nothing is going to change.

[jpgray]

116. Are those who consistently vote progressive "part of the act?"

I mean Feingold, Sanders, Kucinich, Conyers, Dodd, etc. Do they have knowledge of this grand scheme, and simply refuse to relate it? If not, wouldn't they be curious as to -why- the leadership is making such bland and ineffectual strategic decisions? If they do know, what's their payoff for doing so? How do they get elected? Do the shadowy manipulators of our political system decide "hmm, we can let that one get by to maintain the illusion?" Or is it a genuine victory?

As far as perks, would you say there is media bias in favor of the Democrats? Business bias? Unless the Democrat is polling significantly ahead or about to decide major policy, energy, defense and media concerns tend to be heavily biased towards the GOP. Why would the media and the GOP headhunt Bill Clinton for seven years if he was part of the act? Or was that too part of the elaborate scheme?

Do you see how this strains belief?

[Warren Stupidity]

119. No, there are progressive democrats.

None of what I said or what the other Warren said requires some grand secret conspiracy. It is all pretty much out in the open. And there are, in that list of yours, at least two who pretty regularly talk about the problems of pervasive corruption. It isn't a secret. The corruption and pandering doesn't even bother to hide itself. You don't think that Feingold is more than a bit pissed off over the way that Reid has been running things? Did you notice that Dodd had to push things to an open confrontation? Kucinich hardly talks about anything else. Quite frankly I don't know what happened to Conyers. Back when he was holding rump impeachment hearings in a basement utliity room, he seemed to be willing to speak up. Now that he is sitting in a real committee room with a gavel in his hand he seems to have lost his voice. In the Senate we seem to have 20-25 honest progressive Democrats, and another 25 who are more or less bought and paid for by the duopoly.

"Do the shadowy manipulators..." that is your invention. It is all out in the open. The corruption and mechanisms of control are obvious but, as in The Emperor's Clothes, we refuse to admit what we are looking at. That said, there are of course shadowy manipulators. Does the name Jack Abromoff ring a bell? Do you think for a minute that those sort of operators care one iota if a Senator or Congressman has an R or a D? Do you think that Jack was the only one plying the halls of Congress? All better now that he is out of the way?

The corruption in washington is simply stunning in its pervasiveness. Arguments that deny its existence or influence are almost as astounding to me as the corruption itself.

[jpgray]

122. I'm not denying its existence or influence. To do so would be ignorant or fanciful

But as far as its scope with regard to policy decisions: if Feingold, Dodd and Kucinich are aware of this corruption, why not expose it? Do you believe they make the same "strategic" tradeoff? Why would such politicians bother at all with the Democratic party if they are aware such a tradeoff takes place? Has Conyers been "subverted" or has he been faced with an intransigent obstacle now that he didn't have to acknowledge previously, now that he is at least nominally free to impeach? In my view that obstacle could take two forms--a caucus resistant to wrangling or a leadership unwilling to wrangle for controversial issues. Each (or a mixture of both) could explain the behavior we've seen.
Given 47 acknowledged blue dogs, and a few more skittish freshmen unwilling to take a controversial stance, isn't that a valid obstacle? Might that be a factor in addition to or in place of corruption as a major cause of our caucus's behavior?

I don't intend that you go down the list of questions one by one and answer them, and I certainly don't demand that. But I feel like the complexity of the problem gets short shrift once somebody comes up with a pleasingly simple model that seems to fit the behavior. To take your model to the real breaking point: What are Pelosi and Reid -getting- in return for their weakness? What? If they're getting nothing, why do it?

[Warren Stupidity]

113. A warren of warrens agrees with warren.

Too bad I can't rec your post here. You said it.

[OzarkDem]

120. Peter Principle

Definition: "Anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it causes a disaster."

These people are the cockroaches of Dem leadership. They thrived in a hostile environment by learning how to make the best of their ability to raise money for campaigns and getting re-elected. Any candidate who has those two traits as the primary leadership style are not good leaders, just survivors. They're people who've learned to keep their careers alive by keeping a low profile, doing as they're told, and appeasing those who fund them - corporations.

Their ability to survive ended up getting them finally promoted to their level of incompetence.

Time to let them go.

[jpgray]

123. Public financing for campaigns is an absolute must, as your post would indicate

Campaigns are increasingly about trivial image marketing and general PR. This triviality is maximized by the scope of the office, since more and more money is needed to promote a candidate, and less and less of it can be wasted on in-depth policy explorations, which the media never report on anyway. When the media story of the Gore-Bush debate is that Gore sighed, after Bush had told outright lies about his own tax plan, then you know you have a serious problem with coverage of image over substance.

[OzarkDem]

124. Oh, yeah, agree

A secondary problem is the ability of those of dubious skills and principle to use their fundraising skills to help others get elected, thereby buying a power base. You'll never get rid of that completely, but public funding of campaigns would make it more difficult to do and would free more members to vote the way of their constituents and not the way some other Democrat's donors want them to.

[jpgray]

125. Yep. The current money system practically ensures progressives are at a disadvantage

You can't go to the lobbyist and the conglomerate branch office and say "I hate your guts, and I'm going to regulate the pants off you" and expect to be competitive. Of course, with strict media ownership regulation, public financing, and perhaps a pony, this would all be fixed. O8)

To make any of those changes we need a majority of like-minded folks in Washington. Who will get there as the result of the current corrupt system. :crazy:

And as you say, it's endemic to the system, this problem. It elevates the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and punishes the right people.

[mzmolly]

126. Well thought out thanks Jgraz. I've recommended your post and hope there are more to come?

I've heard another hypothesis, and that is - we are waiting for direction in the form of a nominee? Whatever the hell we are doing, we have to find a way to "fight" these !@# with some unity and nerve.

I'm disgusted with the Dems political ability, if nothing else and I am a partisan Democrat.

[leftofthedial]

134. your logic is unassailable. I am now convinced that

the Washington Generals NEVER lost to the Harlem Globetrotters.

[Enrique]

135. I think thoughtful posts like the OP's are necessary

sports metaphors and snappy comebacks only take us so far.

[Didereaux]

136. Pelosi is none of those...merely in over her abilities! (quite Republican-like)

[lame54]

138. "failed impeachment takes risk""

which takes us back to cowardly if they are not willing to take risk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fCutvXccFlA