What Have Congressional Democrats Been Doing?
People are fixated on Iraq and are frustrated that even though Democrats now control Congress and 2/3 of Americans want to get out of Iraq, we are still mired in the quagmire and, in fact, the McCain/Bush/Lieberman escalation is getting us mired DEEPER in the quagmire.
Well, I believe I predicted that the fact that the Senate is evenly divided between Dems (counting Sanders) and Reps. (counting Lieberman), that there was no way we can get out of Iraq unless some Republicans start defecting. And, keep in mind, divisions among Democrats don't help. For example, Murtha and Nadler were competing to be the ones to have the best formula for getting out.
So people are frustrated because of this one issue. And given that the war in Iraq has almost completely failed, that it costs us trillions of dollars, that it costs us the lives of our brave soldiers, and it has completely ruined our war against al-Qaeda, I don't blame people for this frustration. Our government, despite the dramatic and hopeful change in control of the House, STILL is failing to get us out of the Republican war based on lies.
But I am afraid that lots of really important changes are getting ignored. The Iraq quagmire is a prime priority, but it is not our only priority. The economy under Bush has been awful, and Republican led policies have been making things worse and worse for working class Americans. We all have felt the malaise of this economy, unless you work for Halliburton, Bechtel or Exxon or the like. In this, the change in Congress has been a BIG help thanks to Democratic policies. When it comes to this, even the Senate has been improved since some moderate Republicans and Lieberman realize that the right wing extremism of Bush and most Republicans has been hurting America.
I want to use this opportunity to pass on something sent to me by the Democratic Party of Iowa that highlights the changes that I had been hoping for (and predicting) when the Democrats took control of Congress. The bottom line is that to the best of their ability (given the half-half split in the Senate) and far more than politicians mostly do, the Congressional Democrats have been keeping the promises they were elected on. From the Iowa Democratic Party:
This year's Fourth of July recess marked six months of strong leadership from Iowa's Democratic Congressional delegation. Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Bruce Braley, Leonard Boswell and Dave Loebsack have done more to advance the agenda of America's working families than President Bush and Republicans did in the last six years.
Despite constant obstructionism from Republicans, Democrats have worked hard to keep their promises to the American people. Both houses of Congress have passed energy legislation that strengthens our economy and national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Democrats have made our communities safer by passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and provided the American people with honest leadership and accountability by passing the toughest, most sweeping ethics reform in a generation.
The Democratic Congress also raised the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, passed a balanced budget that includes tax cuts for the middle class, and kept our promises to the brave men and women who have served our country by passing the largest increase in veteran's health care in more than 80 years. Our congressional delegation is also ensuring Iowa's children have health insurance by fighting to reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
In the Senate, Tom Harkin has also focused his efforts on leading the fight to lift President Bush's arbitrary restrictions on stem cell research and provide thousands of Iowans hope for new cures. He has worked everyday to set a timetable for re-deploying our brave soldiers out of Iraq and introduced legislation to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay that is ruining American's reputation abroad.
"Democrats have accomplished more in the last six months than Republicans did in six years," said Iowa Democratic Party Chair Scott Brennan. "Senator Harkin and Representatives Braley, Boswell and Loebsack are keeping their promises to Iowa's working families and making our communities safer and stronger in the process. While Republicans continue to stand in the way, Democrats are working to make America safer and stronger, expand access to health care, fight for a new direction in Iraq and end the culture of corruption that Republicans brought to Washington. On the heels of this Independence Day recess, Iowa's working families can be proud that they finally have a Democratic Congress that is independent of the Bush Republicans and their special interest friends."
This statement can be expanded to include many other states that sent new faces to Congress and have reason to be proud of those new Congressional Reps. and Senators. Since I often focus on Iowa, I am particularly happy with Iowa's delegation. But the freshmen Congressmen elected in 2006 have been particularly dedicated to keeping their promises and to serving their communities. I am no fan of term limits (since I believe the will of the people should dominate in voting in each election, not arbitrary legal term limits) but this does show the value of new blood, in large quantities, for keeping Congress active and honest.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Congress | Democrats | Iowa
Well
Submitted by mole333 on 22 July 2007 - 11:44am.
Single issue thinking is not unusual, but often is not productive.
I am sure that the farmers who benefit from incentives to biofuels and wind generation disagree with you, because they now have a better living.
I am sure minimum wage workers will disagree with you because now they will make a better living.
As to gas prices, the government doesn't set those, unless you want them to elminate all taxes on gas, something I am NOT in favor of. Oil companies are setting the prices and Congress has been working to cut subsidies to oil companies that are gouging consumers while raking in profits.
I am very sympathetic to those who oppose Bush's fiasco in Iraq. But I am not sympathetic to people who judge everything based on a single issue. The result will be a return to MORE war AND worse conditions for working class Americans. I, for one, am more than willing to complement the Democrats for making life better for working class Americans even as I criticize them for not taking a stronger stand on Iraq. I also specifically was thanking the freshmen Congressional reps who by and large have been STRONGLY in favor of withdrawal. Failing to support them on that will weaken their positions. So I am happy to voice my thanks.
I do not believe in Republican and Green "either you are for us or you are against us" rhetoric. I am in favor of working with people and thanking them when I agree with them, and criticizing when I disagree.
One glimmer of hope LOL
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 21 July 2007 - 10:47pm.
The president is back in office! What if HR333 would be declared null and void because Cheney was no longer VP? Seriously, callins to C-Span's morning talk show mentions HR333. I haven't heard anything about the sins of Vitter. It's funny that the man who replaced Bob Livingston in the House is indispensable to the Republicans now since the numbers are so tight in the Senate. They could do better if they would entice a few more Democratic Senators to run for the White House. It seems to be a good way to keep the impeachment question off the Senate floor. I'm with Bruce Fein on that. Thank goodness for the likes of Harkin. What we need is for a few more major Republicans to declare themselves sinful.
I am not too hard on the Democrats yet. I think they know people are angry at them. And if they don't know, they may find out after the demonstrations coming up this week.
History reminds me that Nixon's impeachment was off=topic until the end of March 1973, which is when the Wall Street Journal quoted the Chicago Tribune's editorial. Since print and television are mostly stuck in a rut and the cyber-crowd is waging a confrontation analogous to a high school football game, we need something really dramatic. It's time to be innovative. Any suggestions?
Agreed
Submitted by mole333 on 22 July 2007 - 11:52am.
I have been urging letter writing/phone calls on Iraq and impeachment. This is still, long term, the best way of influencing government AND corporations: personal calls and letter writing, not the form letters you can just click a button to send.
Letters to the editor sometimes are even more effective than lobbying Congress. Congress gets its pulse of public opinion from the media. That may not be logical, but often it is true. The more letters and opnion pieces in the media, the better.
I also urge donating to those Congressional Reps who HAVE been taking solidly progressive stands, particularly vulnerable freshmen who have been in many ways leading the changes in Congress. If taking the strong progressive stand leads to good fundraising numbers, it sends a very clear message. On the other hand, when DCCC or DSCC calls, I tell them I am not donating except specifically to those people who have taken strong stands against IRaq and for impeachment.
And, of course, there is just plain talking with our friends, family and co-workers about our opinions. Liberals have been too shy about being liberal. Given the fact that liberalism has been behind every moment of progress in our nation's history, from independence to ending slavery to civil rights, etc, we should be proud to be liberals and progressives.
Sometimes it is a long slog to progress. People want instant solutions and they will seldom get them. I am in it for the long haul, of course.
Good morning and let's think Progress
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 22 July 2007 - 12:34pm.
What's Congressman Jerry thinking this morning? Politicalcortex comes in with articles. Bob Parry posted yesterday. Impeachment is on bradblog.
If blogdom is alert, please let me know what it is saying. Thank you.
Impeachment
Submitted by mole333 on 22 July 2007 - 12:55pm.
Of course Culture Kitchen has been pushing impeachment as well:
June Article (maybe should have pushed more between Feb and June)
And, of course, your article today.
Perhaps I should repost a couple of these to keep it on the kitchen table...momentum means it is hard to change direction. You have to keep pushing. And pushing. As a blogger it too often feels like I have done my job once I have posted on an issue. I sometimes forget that it takes time for ideas to spread.
Reality on the ground
Submitted by NanceConfer on 22 July 2007 - 12:47pm.
Seventy cents an hour. That's the increase in the minimum wage that's supposed to result in a "better living?"
Farmers are making more money already because of legislation the Congress passed?
I'm tired of rah-rah puff pieces from Dems who want to be able to say they did something when they go back home for a month's vacation. If we are still in Iraq, we are still spending billions that could well be spent on the many good ideas you support. But we don't have those billions because we are pissing them away in Iraq.
I'd rather have less smoke blown up my skirt and see more tough action on the war issue. Yes, it's one issue but it is the elephant in the room that is minimizing how effective any of these other plans can be.
We're squabbling over how to pay for health care for children!
Nance
And where will impatience get you?
Submitted by mole333 on 22 July 2007 - 1:01pm.
No where.
No one EVER said stop agitating on Iraq. Never. At least not around here.
Since January, the debate has shifted dramatically. That is a first and necessary step to a policy change. Particularly given the situation in the Senate. Let me be absolutely clear: NOTHING can be done on Iraq as long as the Senate is 50-50, because it will ALWAYS fail in the Senate even if Democrats (plus Sanders) are 100% united.
That is the reality on the ground. And that is the situation Democrats have to work within. The only way to do that is to keep pushing. And for us, we have to push BOTH Democrats AND Republicans because without some Republican Senators backing withdrawal (or some big victories in November 2008) we WILL NOT be able to withdraw. Cheney's tie breaking vote and the filibuster will prevent that.
In the mean time progress is being made on other fronts. Ignoring that progress is to indicate that voters don't care about minimum wage, energy policy, etc. I think that is a damned lousy message to be sending.
Blowing smoke? No. It's called fighting a multi-front campaign. And single issue people would get my attention better if they stopped the "your with us 100% or to hell with you" attitude.
Meanwhile on this side of the world
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 22 July 2007 - 1:34pm.
We've got a lot of problems besides Iraq. A bad war gone worse gave Democrats impetus to settle "Iraq" first. But it is not the issue. The real issue is our government.
Iraq needs to have resolution, clarity, direction--I feel sorry for them.
But here at home our main problem is coming to grips with the hot issues which could combust or kindle into a flame of governance. What sayest y'all to that problem?
I cruised to a few online newspapers and found such critical problems as the end of a Harry Potter era. Detroit is worried about the car industry. Chicago could give you a rundown on Obama. MSNBC (through the Olbermann YouTube) records six more minutes of Bush and his war.
It's our war and our administration and our job to figure out more than just where hurt feelings in Washington DC will produce counterproductive results. It's simply time for all citizens to speak their minds. "I am for" and "I am against" are good beginnings to each person's use of free speech.
Nothing?
Submitted by NanceConfer on 23 July 2007 - 5:37pm.
Why do you say nothing can be done? It seems to me that is precisely what Congress has been incapable of doing. If they had done nothing -- not bring up votes on continuing to fund the war -- that would have been something. But no. They have to appear to be doing something. So they continue to fund death.
It's all very well to be happy about small bits that help our individual states, to say the anti-war people shouldn't be so rude and stubborn and negative. But it's just talk about small actions. Actions being dwarfed by this war.
And it's not really about whether anyone here thinks anyone is listening to me. They aren't. 
The point is that my "attitude" reflects a pretty common point of view. We know all the rest of it is hogwash, that 70 cents is a giant victory some pol can raise funds on, that without a major shakeup in administrations nothing is going to really be done about health care, the environment, education, etc. If then. It's all window dressing and Americans know it.
We don't expect these things to be solved by pols. Not really. It is beyond them.
But we do know that they could stop writing checks to fund this war. That's one thing they could do.
So there's a reason for the bad attitude. And, like it or not, it's how a lot of people feel. People who generally vote Dem but now with a large dollop of "well, who else is there?" with a receding expectation that it makes any difference in real life for most people.
Nance
Bull
Submitted by mole333 on 24 July 2007 - 7:54pm.
Who else is there? 95% of the time there are REpublicans.
You tell me Bull.
You didn't tell me you were happy for the sea change in Congressional focus but you still think it critical we pressure Congress on Iraq and impeachment. I would have been with you had you said that.
You didn't tell me that you would still be watching the Democrats to make sure that the sea change in the focus of Congress continued. I would have been with you there.
You didn't tell me it's a good start but we need to go further. I would have been with you all the way if that had been your stand.
You said "Bull."
Some of us worked DAMNED hard and sunk a good deal of money to enact a major change in Congress. I worked hard dividing my time among family, work and making our country better. So I am looking for a return on my investment of time and money.
What did I get? A shift from a Congress focused on protecting polluters, making abortion illegal, cutting taxes for the top 2% of incomes, raises subsidies to oil, and drowning Katrina, to a Congress that raises the minimum wage, cuts subsidies to oil, tries to fund life saving stem cell research, and finally, after YEARS of Congress blocking ANY debate on Iraq, agrees to discuss withdrawal and refuses to stop discussing it.
Fine...discussing it isn't withdrawal, but this sea change in the focus of Congress makes me proud that I put all that effort in.
And you say "Bull."
No. It's not Bull. It's change. Change takes time and lots, lots of work. I haven't stopped working just because Democrats took Congress. I am working to stop corruption within the Democratic Party in Brooklyn. I am working to make the Democratic Party more progressive. And I am working towards a bigger victory in 2008 that will allow the sea change in the focus of Congress to be veto-proof and not have to rely on a 50-50 split in Congress.
And you say "Bull."
You don't expect things to be solved by pols, but you know, most politicians I know are pretty good people. Like my friends Norman Seigel (former head of the NY Civil Liberties Union, now running for NYC Public Advocate...for the third time), Bill Batson (failed run for Assembly) and Chris Owens (failed run for Congress). Had more people who say solutions won't come from pols worked hard for these three gentlemen, we woulds see some sparks flying. There is my friend Devin Cohen (who was a high school friend of my wife's), who wanted to run for judge. No one but the local machine was interested in the race, so he had to bow out for lack of support. Had all those who say they don't expect change to come from pols noticed him, the problematic judicial system in Brooklyn would have one more honest judge come this November. How about...well, I could go on. But all of these fantastic people are just "pols" trying to change things. And I wasted time and/or money on each and every one of them.
And you say "Bull" to the efforts of all of these loyal, dedicated Democrats who are just "pols."
Sorry. To me that is part of the problem, not the solution. When I see those I succeeded in helping elect do some good things, and many of them even take PRECISELY the stand you want on Iraq, I am going to goddamed cheer them on. Rah rah! BEcause they DID something and will keep working to do more.
You undercut them. You undercut me. Or at least that is what I feel when your reaction to a massive change in how Congress does business is "Bull."
The message you send is working class Americans don't matter, stem cells don't matter, the 9/11 commission recommendations (FINALLY enacted) don't matter. All that matters is Iraq.
Fine. That is your choice. Don't expect the rest of us to feel the same.
"Democrats Pushing to Avoid a ‘Do-Nothing’ Label"
Submitted by NanceConfer on 25 July 2007 - 12:14pm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25cong.html
Mole, you're doing a swell job of pushing the latest Dem line. If that's what really mattered, all would be right with the world.
And, fwiw, I don't expect the rest of you to feel the same. I was explaining how I feel when I hear the kind of report this threat started with and when I read the exact same party line in the article above.
But I think you should know, in all your party work, that there are voters who feel the way I do and just telling us over and over and louder that the Dems are too doing stuff isn't changing any minds or hearts.
I, too, voted for these people. I voted for them to end the war, as they said they would.
Nance
See, here's the problem
Submitted by mole333 on 25 July 2007 - 2:03pm.
You assume I am not thinking for myself and speaking MY OWN mind and heart. I am NOT speaking the party line. If I was, I would have a far easier time in local Brooklyn politics. What I speak is my OWN feelings and thoughts. And I do kind of resent your assuming otherwise...or perhaps my writing appears unthought out and dispassionate to you. In which case it is flaw in my writing.
Your point that Dems need to APPEAR to be doing more (as I point out, they ARE doing things) is a good marketing point and one that I agree with. And had you started with that point, again, we would have agreed. Dems aren't great at marketing, and that has to change. It is a pity that marketing is so important, but it really is. And I see this defect at all levels of the party, though there are exceptions. Republicans spend far more time on marketing and far less time on governing and that is why their policies are such failures (from Iraq to Katrina and everything in between) and yet why they keep winning.
Of course I spend much more time exploring the world of how people govern: what policies are actually happening, what the effect is, what it means to working and middle class Americans. Marketing has always been something I have not liked to worry about. I assume that good governance would be its own reward...but from Reagan on, Republicans have proven otherwise. And I now realize that marketing can turn any defect into an asset and any asset into a defect. So the hardest working Congress in my lifetime (literally...they are working longer hours, spending more time talking in person to constituents, taking fewer vacations and generating more legislation than any other Congressional session in recent history) is being seen as "do-nothing." Gotta say, it seems as surreal to me as the Our Children Left Behind Act and the Polluted Skies Initiative of the Republican Congress.
Two things and then I'm driving kids around. . .
Submitted by NanceConfer on 25 July 2007 - 4:10pm.
"You assume I am not thinking for myself and speaking MY OWN mind and heart. I am NOT speaking the party line. If I was, I would have a far easier time in local Brooklyn politics. What I speak is my OWN feelings and thoughts. And I do kind of resent your assuming otherwise...or perhaps my writing appears unthought out and dispassionate to you. In which case it is flaw in my writing."
I assume that because what you are saying is an echo of the line the Dem leaders are putting out now. If you and the Dem leadership have simultaneously had these thoughts, my apologies.
"Your point that Dems need to APPEAR to be doing more (as I point out, they ARE doing things) is a good marketing point and one that I agree with. And had you started with that point, again, we would have agreed."
My point was that voters get that this entire push to appear to be doing something is marketing. We don't want more marketing. We have been spun to death. We do not want a bit of this and a bit of that to be touted as terrific progress. No matter how long it took. Because it took place instead of the thing that the Dems were sent to do.
And, fwiw, I do not feel the need to agree. We are having a conversation. It's OK if we don't agree.
Nance
Sadly
Submitted by mole333 on 25 July 2007 - 4:38pm.
Sadly I think marketing has far more of an effect that you realize...and good marketing tends to be somewhat below the radar.
If you keep up on what I write, I have been saying it since before the Dems had time to take a breath after their initial legislative push. And if you see what really is a major change in focus as "a bit of this and a bit of that," well so be it.
As to agreeing, I don't mind disagreement. I just resent being told I haven't thought these things out and that it is "Bull" that I am happy that Democrats have reversed the direction we have been going. They haven't solved all our problems, but I never claimed they did. They sure have more work to do, but I said that as well.
Perhaps if you don't tell other people their opinions and hard work are "bull" we might have an easier time agreeing to disagree. Because whatever I write has a fair amount of consideration behind it and is seldom outright bull. Well, occasionally, but it's rare.
May I butt in?
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 25 July 2007 - 5:22pm.
I'm so happy with you two. Talking to friends and thinking things through is what I like. From my perspective Democrats are so busy keeping impeachment off the front burner that it's remarkable how much other stuff they get done.
I'm having a hard time staying focused on impeachment, and I did declare I would try to study it. So do me a favor. If you go to a meeting, read a news article, hear an appropriate joke which seem to put impeachment in the popular limelight, let me know. I will do the same for you.
Impeachment
Submitted by mole333 on 25 July 2007 - 8:20pm.
I still should repost some of my impeachment articles, but I also asked Bouldin if he would put the Impeach banner we have at Daily Gotham on Culture Kitchen.
And by all means keep posting on it. I would if I wasn't being pulled a dozen different ways.
That would be good
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 25 July 2007 - 8:53pm.
What's going on at places like Washington Square or in the Wall Street area in way of spontaneous discussions? Or did ya'all get sophisticated with your Democratic/Republican/Independent mayor? I don't put much faith in the Times anymore and don't have time to investigate other papers.
Wouldn't know
Submitted by mole333 on 26 July 2007 - 7:18am.
Never hand out at Wall Street and now that my lab has moved to the NYU Medical Center (where I used to work before getting laid off from my last job!) I am not around Washington Sq.
Around the NYU Medical Center people either avoid politics or despise Bush with a passion and would love impeachment.
But New Yorkers are an apathetic lot by and large. People have large "don't bother me" auras to compensate for the lack of personal space.
Marketing vs. bull
Submitted by NanceConfer on 27 July 2007 - 2:45pm.
I can't get signed on under my actual name here -- whether it's the site
or the thunderstorms passing over now, who knows. . . and there, I can get in. . . and who cares!
OK, where were we?
Mole, yes, I know. Marketing is important. Marketing works. Terrific.
But if the content of what is being marketed is lacking, spinning will
no longer sell. Not after this many years of seeing what really good
spinning looks like. I think we all get it now. We actually look behind
the curtain. We want to know what it means when the pol says something.
We are not so easily distracted by the next sparkler.
So, if you are going to market something, make it something worthwhile.
Make it what we want to hear -- that the Dems have been doing what they
were sent to DC to do, get us out of Iraq -- or about how they are
working in that direction or how they can't accomplish that -- whatever
the actual truth is. Not some line about the other stuff they have been
doing.
Which are all fine things and right in line with what I would expect
from my Dems. But not the main item on the agenda.
I am happy that you are happy that the things you are working on are
seeing some success. You do not, hopefully, need me to pat you on the
back in order to feel you are doing the right things.
So when you post about these right things and I reply with a "Harumph,
but what about the big issue?" I expect you to suck it up and not spend
any time being offended by my tone or worrying about how we might more
amicably disagree. If all you wanted was applause for the home team,
well, I guess this is too open a forum for that.
Some of us love the home team but still feel free to criticize when
called for. Like when we vote for them to get us out of a war and they
can't figure out how to do what they said they would do and, instead,
spend valuable time marketing whatever else it is they did.
I don't expect you to take this personally as I do not take your
comments personally. What I do hope you do is take this message back to
the other hard-working people you campaign with and let them understand
that some of us are not impressed so far. We live in hope but we are not
happy.
Nance
Except
Submitted by mole333 on 27 July 2007 - 3:32pm.
You did not say any of that...you said "bull." That implies what I said wasn't true. If there is one thing I do my best to do is make sure I am accurate. So when someone say's something I post is "bull" they better be ready to show my that what I said isn't true.
I am fine with disagreement. I am not fine being told that nukes are peacekeepers, Gore and Bush are the same or that the current Congress hasn't accomplished some pretty damned kick ass things.
I also know that impeachment and withdrawal have NOT been accomplished yet and I am ALSO disappointed. But I also know governments' wheels turn slowly. I just hope they are turning the right way on these two issues. I think they ARE on IRaq, no matter how slowly. I am less convinced that the wheels are turning the right way on impeachment.
But I am convinced that America is far better off with the Congress we have now than what we had before January. And that is no bull!
No
Submitted by NanceConfer on 28 July 2007 - 6:16pm.
It implies that what you are focusing on is not important.
That it is bull.
That it is the sparkly stuff to distract us from the big issue.
You disagree.
You are unhappy with the rate of progress on withdrawal but happy enough with other things to post a press release about them.
And, otoh, some of the progress you posted about is less wonderful that you suggested. The minimum wage increase of 70 cents is not going to change anyone's life. The 9-11 legislation? Seems to me I read something about it passing one house but not the other yet. The SCHIP legislation? Similarly not passed. Etc.
But none of that was originally why I used the word "bull." As you have read along, you will have noticed that I was not concerned with you personally and whether or not you personally were trying to be misleading. What I am concerned about is the insistence from the Democratic Party that the work touted in your post shows satisfactory, or any, progress on the main important issue of our time.
But feel free to continue wasting time being offended by my choice of words. By all means.
Nance
Well
Submitted by mole333 on 28 July 2007 - 8:57pm.
And I consider your inability to see what a huge (if not sufficient) difference six months have made to be counter productive and likely to hurt those politicians you most would agree with. And blaming the Democrats for passage only in one house again strikes me as counter productive since the fault does not like with the Democrats.
But you are entitled to your opinion of course. But don't be surprised if I defend my opinion as strongly as I feel that opinion.
Did you hear about the contretemps in the Senate?
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 27 July 2007 - 11:59pm.
I think it was almost funny that Reid was attacked by the likes of Vitter, if that's the way it should be characterized. Here's a guy who has relevance only because he can vote the minority ticket, which makes him a majority in the Senate, taking on the Leader. And across blog-waves, Democrats are laying out other Democrats. It's a very nervous time.
I have to look at advertising of our aims/messages/programs as not being as important as keeping a sense of humor. There may be little flies in the ointment like Vitter or bigger ones like Gonzales and Rove, but in the long run, there is a new energy brewing. Someone I read today was waiting for the Network moment. Most are sick and tired. What that does to the beltway makes them leery. I think TV news tonight about voter caging stirs the troops. We don't need to "frame" our message now as much as we need to expose those who are out to steal the next election. The other great movie of "Network" days was "Wall Street." You know, the Greed is Good line. With a reversal of DJIA numbers this week, that will get the corporatists in the White House on edge.
Does anyone know any new songs. I looked at today's news and all that ran through my head was "I don't want to die, I just want to ride my motorcy." Any thoughts of new verses to a classic country song? Maybe to the tune of "Eyes of Texas."
I believe pushing for impeachment discussion in the House will
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 23 July 2007 - 6:12pm.
start momentum toward making a withdrawal policy from Iraq. I hope my energetic support for impeachment doesn't come off as fanatic. I held out from active engagement because of what I considered to be public sentiment. It's turning, in my view, reflected by some recognition in MSM and also by what I read online and hear close to home.
Criticism of the Senate misses a constitutional nicety. The House starts the process and those most anxious for Conyers to unleash his committee to put HR333 on the table are House members. This idea of 3 more signatures to get him started is a big help. After all downingstreetmemo is celebrating (?) it's fifth anniversary today.
Yesterday Feingold wrote a piece in OpEdNews to explain why he introduced censure resolutions against Bush and Cheney. Commenters tore him apart for not wanting impeachment. I commiserated with him because I believe even writers on a venue so progressive as they claim to be, need a little idea of how a surge (shall we say?) of public opinion needs to build.
Perhaps this group could come up with a nice short course in Impeachment 101. Many of the online writers have little knowledge of what has occurred previously except maybe vaguely about Bill Clinton's experience. As Fein and Nichols so carefully laid out in Moyers Journal of the 13th, impeachment is getting a country back on even keel. It should not be considered as gotcha.
You don't
Submitted by NanceConfer on 25 July 2007 - 12:27pm.
sound like a fanatic to me. Small comfort, perhaps.
Is your thought that impeachment proceedings would provide an opportunity for an "airing of grievances," as George Costanza's father would say, about Iraq and be a springboard to real movement out of Iraq?
Nance
My view of impeachment
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 25 July 2007 - 1:32pm.
I've seen impeachment and realize what it has done and what it hasn't. Nixon's case was very specific to life in MY 40's. Kids, including my stepson, were involved. They were marching, complying with draft calls, being killed, going to Canada, burning draft cards, and pilloring LBJ. In the 1972 campaign I tried to promote McGovern's peace effort. He of course realized he had little chance and in the end sent us postcards with his grandson's picture so we could pass them out. They should have arrived in time but the Dept of Defense was holding up mail. I was so adamant to get the cards--not that I thought we had a chance--that I went to the post office on Saturday morning and retrieved them. Reading mail, raiding houses on the pretense of looking for pot, and many other harassments occurred. Remember that NSA existed since Truman's time. It's just more efficient with modern technology. When it was all said and done, Nixon was ousted because people did not like his using the FBI and DOD to control their lives.
That's about where we stand today and one of the attorneys (Bruce Fein) who worked on the committee to impeach Clinton has been writing and testifying for several years that what Bush is doing is wrong. His attitude is that if we don't impeach before the election, we will leave a terrible mess for the new president.
I've been a constant keyboard jockey since Feb 04 largely because I felt in my bones that the country was going to have to come to terms with the SCOTUS decision in Bush v Gore. As a matter of considering constitutional law, in my view, we've been in limbo almost all of the current century.
So how do the people's chances hold up this time in comparison to the Nixon case? Again, I think as good or better. And that has little to do with who is the bigger scalawag. Because impeachment is a citizen's instrument and the citizenry has better tools. If we want to have better government we've got to work for it. You know, the old saying of Jefferson's about vigilance. Well, we're beginning to get a lot of people who act like vigilantes. Some, maybe too much, and they turn off the undecideds. But there is a group of well-organized citizens who are working. Yesterday I met a woman from New Jersey who wrote about how their group was doing very concrete things. I'll get the article if you want. I may have overreached but I explained that there were some very savvy members of Culture Kitchen.
I'm not a fanatic, but some would consider me a political wonk, which does not displease me. I have a degree in political science, which is a small start. I grew up poor but connected to what government is about and that will never leave me. Mostly I just have always believed that government should work for the greatest good of the people, and that the majority must respect the rights of the minority. That's not just class, race, gender, religion, etc., but also political philosophy.
The blog I started was meant to throw more articles at those who want to read how the resolutions of impeachment might be crafted. Then the constitutional lawyers will make the case.
At the moment I watch what happens to Harriet Miers' contempt charge. Today is the day John Conyers, who heads the House Judiciary committee, meets with his committee to see how to proceed. Miers was counsel to Bush as John Dean was to Nixon. What got impeachment going then was that John Dean was willing to testify. It got him a few years in jail and great admiration from the populace in the long run. (Well, not from the neocons.) He writes for findlaw.com as a columnist.
A question to you, Nance. Would you like more information which I have accumulated? Or would you prefer to stay close with the folks who are on this wonderful list? I forgot where you live and am afraid I'd lose this long story if I looked. Please excuse me. I'll look when I post this. It's good talking with you.
Is that my only choice?
Submitted by NanceConfer on 25 July 2007 - 4:03pm.
I could multi-task and read at both places.
I suppose what I was asking was how you see the process of impeachment achieving any shorter-term goals -- like my focus, getting out of Iraq.
From what I can understand, you are looking at a very long-term process, not likely to be completed until long after GWB is gone.
I agree that whichever Dem is in the White House then will have to spend an incredible amount of time undoing the damage this President has done. Is that best handled through impeachment? Is that what you are suggesting?
Nance
First, I now know you are in Florida
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 25 July 2007 - 5:09pm.
This time I do not think it will take as long to come to a case for the Senate to decide as it did for Nixon, nor the Clinton fantasy deal. The internet is on our side and has been for as long as Bush has presided.
The Nixon case came to a popular head in about April 1973 and it was all over but the weeping by the end of July 1974. The reason it took that long was because citizens relied on newspapers and Big Three TV. And there were a lot of facts to be dug into. The Pentagon Papers started the ball rolling, but nothing could be certain until the committee got hold of the tapes made in the oval office. Once John Dean could describe them it was easier, although it took awhile for the Court to allow them to be released, and there were some minutes missing, which makes full employment for historians.
This time a lot of people have the goods on the President. He is so adamant about his right to do what he wants to do because we are at war. Executive privilege is where things started in both cases. There were a number of people who believed that Bush would go into Iraq as soon as 9/11 happened. It's the "Saddam tried to kill my daddy" line. First documented proof was what is known as the downingstreetmemo, which I put in one word because you can google it. John Conyers started working on that 5 years ago when he was the minority leader of the House judiciary committee. Now he is the leader and his committee voted today to charge Harriet Miers with contempt. She was to Bush what Dean was to Nixon. Alberto Gonzales used to be counsel but now he got promoted to Attorney General of the United States. He is not supposed to work for the President but for all of us. (Janet Reno was Attorney General during Clinton's time, you may recall.) The problem with the US Attorneys, of which there are more than 90 for the whole country, is that Gonzales has allowed some of the US Attorneys to be fired, perhaps for political reasons. And that steps on the people's toes. Senator Leahy is head of the Senate Judiciary committe and Allen Spector is minority chairman. Those two guys breathe down Gonzales neck every day, it seems. Bush will not let the AG go because he does have some statuatory duties which could make it harder to impeach people.
Best TV coverage is only with Cspan and CspanII, plus the Newshour on the PBS stations. Best hard copy is almost non-existent, but online venues are very numerous. Some, like salon.com, are oldtimers at this sort of thing and allow you to read, but it's slower if you don't subscribe. I do and can just send you what pertains to impeachment. We could correspond if you care to. Mole takes salon. It's not the only good online spot. I use it because
it reflects the San Francisco crowd. And that's where Nancy Pelosi comes from. Since she is Speaker of the House, she would be, by law, the new president if Bush and Cheney were impeached. That gives you an idea of how touchy her position is to put an impeachment resolution up for a vote in the House. Conyers was roundly criticized yesterday for not entertaining the notion to ask her to put impeachment on the table. He does not have the votes, he explained. I have great respect for John Conyers. He started his public ascendancy at the time of the Detroit race riots 40 years ago. If you haven't done so, I suggest you occasionally google the names of some of the main players in this little drama and get their official webpage. It's an easy way to get a short bio and some idea of what they do in Congress. And inevitably you will see a picture so sharply that you can identify them when you watch the news.
So, I'll come back later, but now 2 questions. Shall we correspond one on one? What are three or four things which seem most important to get a handle on? Good having this little chat.
2 questions
Submitted by NanceConfer on 27 July 2007 - 2:53pm.
Yes, I'm in Florida. Land of the bad driver!
You may always feel free to write me at my email address: marbleface@bellsouth.net.
I'm not sure what 3 or 4 things anyone who wants to work on impeachment should be looking at. Impeachment as a vehicle to ending the war is the important angle to me. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to impeach, however. It's all a big ball of wax when the Justice Department is in the condition it's in, for instance, and Congress is even having a hard time figuring out how to pursue contempt charges.
What does your reading tell you? The 3 or 4 things you would focus on?
Off to drive around in the rain. Wish me luck!
Nance
Well, I think you are right on target
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 28 July 2007 - 12:32am.
You recognize that the president shafted us with this war and you don't aim to take it. Motive is what counts. Righting the wrong.
Then you have learned how treacherous the legal shoals are when the Department of Justice is malfunctioning. Understanding the problem is necessary.
And then you are willing to look for solutions instead of being impatient with those who also are not certain. Finding consensus is the process for the whole nation.
But mostly finding others to talk to. I really enjoy talking to you. Thanks for your address. I am going to send you Don Williams' commentary of the week. He worked for the Knoxville News Sentinel until he parted company over the Bush question. I met him in the 90s when I belonged to a writers group and he talked about a new magazine he was starting, called the New Millennium Writings. Haven't really seen him in person since, but have corresponded by email. And of course I have seen many of his columns. The one he wrote about being a Tennessean and voting for Harold Ford Jr. was a good one. Those are all on OpEdNews. And while I forward his story of today, I will also send my query to him. Be safe.Margaret
Thought what Cheney's hometown paper wrote resonates
Submitted by Margaret Bassett on 24 July 2007 - 10:02am.
http://www.trib.com/articles/2007/06/28/editorial/editorial/8c4e32d954cd...
Wyoming's favorite son
has taken a wrong turn
Star-Tribune Editorial Board
Vice presidents, once upon a time, had little to do beyond waiting for something to happen to the boss. Other than attending foreign funerals and occasionally casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, they rarely got into the game.
All that changed in 2000, when Dick Cheney went looking for George W. Bush's running mate and found that the perfect candidate was (drum roll) Dick Cheney. He resigned from Texas-based Halliburton and rediscovered his Wyoming roots. From that election on, Cheney devoted himself to the task of making the executive branch answerable to no one.
The ironic twist in the latest Cheney controversy is the vice president's contention that his office isn't even part of the executive branch. Cheney certainly was part of the president's team when he invoked executive privilege to hide the names of his secret energy policy advisers. But he apparently becomes a free agent when he's asked to follow an executive order about the storage of classified data.
By declaring that his Senate powers make his office a legislative-executive hybrid, Cheney reasons that he doesn't have to follow the rules for either branch. The backlash was predictable. Outraged Democratic lawmakers have threatened to cut funding for his office.
The effort probably won't succeed. But this incident has inflicted further damage to Cheney's already battered public image and makes us wonder: Whatever happened to the Dick Cheney who represented Wyoming so effectively in the U.S. House for more than a decade?
How could the man praised for his leadership as defense secretary during the first Gulf War become one of the architects of a second Gulf War that has gone horribly wrong?
Comedians used to make us laugh by suggesting Cheney, not Bush, was really running the show. But the joke isn't funny anymore. It seems Bush either turned over many duties to his vice president, or looked the other way when Cheney grabbed them. Either way, the president can't duck responsibility for his subordinate's actions.
A solid reason exists for Cheney's miserably low public approval ratings: His insistence on secrecy creates the impression he has things to hide. The vice president gets to pick most of his battles, and for the past six years they often have been about keeping information from the public.
The executive order Cheney refused to follow, by itself, is a fairly small matter that speaks more to arrogance than any potential security breach. But his laughable excuse struck a nerve with the public. Here is a man who believes he is so untouchable, he doesn't even have to answer to the president.
The old Dick Cheney didn't work exclusively behind the scenes. Republican fundraisers weren't the only events that drew him out in public. Before Cheney became the Bush administration's stealth warrior, most of us were proud that he grew up here and represented us. Even people who disagreed with his politics respected him.
There is still time for Cheney to mend his image before he leaves office in January 2009. But he needs to stop acting as though his decisions mustn't be questioned, and accept that he has made mistakes. No matter how many times Cheney insists Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, it won't change the fact that he wasn't. Too many people regret the Iraq war for anyone to buy Cheney's argument that opponents want to abet terrorism. That's offensive and insults Cheney's own intelligence.
Wyoming people are loyal to their own, but the vice president needs to give his neighbors a better reason to support him. He's running out of time.
Bull
Glad Iowa's happy. Too bad about all those dead people in Iraq.
No, I am not impressed with ethics legislation not worth the paper it's printed on. No, I am not impressed with the SCHIP funding that is on the verge of being vetoed to protect tobacco and insurance companies. At $3.02 a gallon I am not impressed with progress on energy. Etc.
Yes, I'm still unhappy with the Dems. Yes, I hold them responsible.
Yes, I think they could do more. Like not doing anything, not funding any aspect of this damned war or anything else.
Nance