By what logic does ineffective opposition engender blame equal to direct perpetuation or initiation?

[jpgray]

There's plenty of blame to go around for the Democratic delegation in Congress. I get the impression, however, that on DU the obstacles and risks endemic to a tiny, disunited majority are either not considered or willfully ignored. For whatever reason, the Democrats are getting a lot of absolute condemnation and I'm curious as to why.

It may well be that we largely agree here that the GOP is the major culprit, and therefore the issue won't generate as much debate. We are similarly united in disappointment with the lack of effective opposition. If our discussions only went that far, there wouldn't be enough disagreement to cover all major forums with anger towards the Democrats. Yet that is what we have. So at what point does the contention that generates so many threads and replies come in?

It must come down to the reasons behind the lack of effective opposition. First, what -are- the reasons, in your view?

I think the idea of "majority" warrants more careful consideration. Our "majority" contains at least 20% skittish freshmen and blue dogs (47 blue dogs in the House alone). These pols come from red states, and/or benefit from corporate-friendly policies, and/or are generally uninterested in starting any controversial fights. Given our slim majorities in both houses, this is more than enough to take the teeth out of any ambitious plan to undo administration policies, so long as the minority party is united.

And the minority party -is- united, to a far greater extent than the majority party. The GOP delegation has held fast on party line votes concerning some -extremely- unpopular Bush administration stances. While this hasn't always been enough for them to win the actual vote, given Democratic solidarity (cf. Habeas Corpus vote), it is more than enough to hold off any significant opposition when combined with the executive power of veto. Add the vacillating freshmen and blue dogs to the mix, and the challenge to leadership in the face of having such a slim margin that is far from veto-proof becomes a genuinely difficult situation.

It's fun to complain. It's fun to bitch. We all know and agree that the lack of effective opposition is completely wrong. All excuses seem hollow in light of the extreme stakes of war and infringement on fundamental civil liberties. Visible leadership figures such as Pelosi and Reid fairly bear the brunt of the blame for a disunited caucus and a lack of strong clear stances. But so too do those congresspeople who are free to undermine party unity without such visibility--those skittish freshmen and blue dog Democrats.

I can't know the inner workings of Congress, but I take notice when people such as Bernie Sanders, Al Gore or John Conyers say "the votes aren't there," "it would be a distracting failure" or "it'd be a Karl Rove wet dream" concerning something as serious as impeachment. Now, it's easy to read such as mealy-mouthed excuses, but if you give such people a tiny bit of credit (and I do), it's worth considering the problems involved with our disunited tiny majority. Let's consider impeachment.

So you're Nancy Pelosi. You've made the rounds. You don't have 281 votes for impeachment. You don't have enough Democrats who will commit their support, and all the GOP reps naturally laugh in your face. What do you do? You can carry forward anyway, to an embarrassingly impotent failure right out of the gate, or you can do nothing and try to put a good face on it.

Either way you'll be excoriated. The GOP fans will still hate you, and your progressive base will call you a do-nothing enabler or collaborator. There's no magic wand you can wave to convince the blue dogs or the skittish freshmen to hold fast. There's no threat or lever that will move them. You're stuck, impotent, and the most visible figure of blame for -both- sides of the political debate. Failing to stop GOP policies doesn't endear the GOP to your party, and the failure will make the base of your own party hate you even more. Yet if you have a tiny majority that has far too many conservative elements that fear confrontation, and the minority marches in lockstep, what do you do?

So to sum up, what do you think the reasons are for the lack of effective opposition? Are my suppositions about the state of the majority accurate? What would you do if in Pelosi's shoes to make the best of this situation?

[The Magistrate]

Well Said, Sir!

A pleasure to give this its first recommendation for the Greatest listings.

[LoZoccolo]

1. This is the logic.

If you make yourself appear crazy enough to conflate the two, and to get more people to act that crazy, you might scare people into doing what you want.

There you have it.

[bemildred]

6. Precisely.

The fact that the Dems as "less culpable" does not equate to they are "not culpable". And in any case it does not mean we should shut up about it. Politics is not about being quiet about what you want.

[LoZoccolo]

8. Right, and then we can have a whole nation of crazy people.

Awesome.

[bemildred]

9. How would that be different? nt

[MadMaddie]

2. When you are presented time after time with the opportunity

to take down your opposition and you fail to captilize on those moments then you are ineffective.

You don't have to physically win every single time...you have to put up a fight....you don't Kerry out...when the opposition says boo...

You put the war funding on the table and when the Republicans oppose it...you get your political and marketing machine to call each and every one of the Republicans and the few Democratic congress people out...

When * veto's the Chip plan...and other domestic plans....you get your political and marketing machine out and you hit them and hit them.

The Democratic party capitulates every time the Republicans raise their voice...

It's not about the end of the fight....it's about how you fight...it's about conviction....and guts...to save America, to save it's citizens and the Constitution.

[jpgray]

5. That's the basic fact, which all know and condemn. I want people to ask "why?"

What are the reasons behind this behavior? -Why- does our delegation seem vacillating and weak? Such behavior is contemptible to voters from -all- parties. If it's purposed behavior wherein the Democrats are doing exactly what they are told by Pelosi/Reid/other, what's the gain? If it isn't purposed behavior, what's causing it?

[MadMaddie]

10. I honestly think it comes down to the fact that they are too

comfortable....

I think that we as American citizens have been so busy trying to survive life, natural disasters, job loss, health issues....

that we have let them get too comfortable. Especially those of us that consider ourselves liberals or anything but Republican...we want to play by the rules that we have always believed in. Until we can gain control of the country and get it back to honoring the Constitution and the rule of law.....we will have to come out of our comfort zone, we have to change the way we fight...and thus our representatives MUST change the way they fight.

Complacency and too comfortable!

[jpgray]

12. That's possible. Now the question becomes, what can you do?

Say Rep x is fine where he is. He's uninterested in starting any fights, because he's complacent and comfortable. Taking a stand on the Iraq war to the point of refusing to fund the troops scares him, as does any attempt at impeaching Bush. He'll tag along for the symbolic stuff, and sign off on a platform generally critical of the Bush administration, but he won't stand with you on any controversial, polarizing fights. What can be done to convince this person to play ball?

[MadMaddie]

23. Replace him with someone that will....

[jpgray]

25. And if it's a conservative district that will likely only elect a conservative?

Then you have considerations of the good even a weak majority can do, in terms of empowering senior reps in committee, etc. Also if that's the case you have to consider what would happen if a primary battle doesn't succeed. Should the progressive vote split to show displeasure with the conservative Democrat? In that case, in a conservative state/district the most likely outcome is a GOP victory. What will the Democrat or the party learn from the defeat? Who knows, although I'd say (at least in recent times) losing elections hasn't moved the party in a progressive direction. It's a real dilemma.

[MadMaddie]

26. You are really trying to make me think tonight.

These are valid questions....if you decide to vote him out....the plan would have to be well thought out right? An acceptable Democratic replacement would have to be chosen before hand.....the money and the marketing machine would have to be in place....We have the brains, we have the creativity and we could get the money......we the citizens need to make up our minds to do it.

[jpgray]

42. I think that's the closest thing to a solution--lots of fed-up, determined citizens

We have a lot of apathy and distractions in society, but I'm definitely not one of those who would argue we need a good disaster to shake everybody up. Such things don't necessarily end in progressive galvanization (Weimar Germany is an easy example), and they cause a lot of pain in the interim. I'm not sure how to get people to think more actively about the issues and to seek out all sides of a debate before reaching a conclusion. The way the media are currently set up, that's about the last thing the average person is likely to get out of passive news-watching.

[sendero]

32. Your math is faulty..

... why would a "conservative district" elect a pug? A very very clear majority of Americans want this fiasco ended. Where is this huge political risk in ending it?

[jpgray]

35. If I remember, more than a few did just that in 06

[sendero]

39. You know...

.. it really comes down to this.

If you are not going to get what you want, then why play the game?

If the Dems are not going to stop the repugs, why vote for them?

If one is effectively the same as the other, why bother?

You wonder why the overall voter turnout is so low? You should, because it is because the average American who isn't a winger sees that the Dems are no fucking better. They never take a chance. The Repugs may suck ass, but at least they believe in themselves enough to take a stand.

You can't say that about the current crop of Dems, and THAT my friend is why 2008 is not REMOTELY in the bag for us.

[jpgray]

40. Nader made the same argument about non-voters. Did they vote for him?

I get your general point though, and agree. The problem is, what to do about it? Armstead made some of the same arguments below, and if you want to see my ridiculously circular reasoning on this problem, see my reply to him. :)

[sendero]

43. I really......

....didn't read the whole thread. I'm a student of why people do what they do. And I'm telling you flat out, this Dem congress is setting us back like no other recent event.

Perception is reality and the perception, especially among the base but even among the "independents" is that the Dems are sitting on their hands.

Pelosi is a disaster, and early on I was a big defender of hers. I thought she was going to be great. The fact is, in Congress the leaders are incredibly important. Lots of arm-twisting and party-lining make for successful votes.

The Repugs are MASTERS as this and Reid and Pelosi barely qualify as bush league, no pun intended.

I'm very disheartened, as are plenty of people here. I'm a pragmatist, I do not live in a dream world and I don't expect miracles. But I do expect a decent effort, and we are not getting one. I don't see how anybody can argue with that.

[bvar22]

56. You start with targeted campaigns against ....

..."comfortable" Vichy Democrats in BLUE states (or districts), then Lieberman their worthless asses.

For Example: Diane Feinstein.
I will be sending money to her opposition in the Democratic Primary. If the Progressive NetRoots could agree (coordinate) to select a few of the WORST offenders in Blue States and GO NATIONAL with a Primary opponent, we would begin to see some results.
(unfortunately, DiFi isn't UP until 2012, and I don't believe she will run again, but you get the picture.)

I don't totally believe that the Democratic Party NEEDS to run a conservative candidate in Red States. I believe that a raging Populist with Party support running on a platform of Economic Justice for the Working Americans can get elected in ANY state.
Of course, getting the Party leadership to support such a candidate would be a problem. WE may have to do that ourselves.

The "comfortable" Dems SAW what happened to Lieberman, and they are watching. The removal of Lieberman WAS a NATIONAL effort supported and coordinated by the NetRoots OPPOSING the entrenched conservative Party Leadership....AND WE WON. WE have some POWER as long as we can stay coordinated. Eventually, "they" will be forced to listen to us, throw us some crumbs.

First they ignore you.
We were ignored in 2000.

Then they ridicule you
The ridicule began in 2004. "Nut roots", "Fringe Left Wackos", "Looney Left" became popular inside the conservative areas of the Democratic Party.

Then they fight you.
Overt fighting has recently emerged. The Democratic Senate actually passed a resolution condemning a private organization, Move On.

Then you win.
I believe Gandhi


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[jpgray]

66. I actually completely agree with regard to Liberman and Feinstein

So what are the factors that allow this to happen in a district/state? Lots of viable progressive candidates for replacement purposes and a history of support for progressive policies?

I agree with your populist theory as well--would you say someone like Jim Webb fits that mold?

[LWolf]

3. My thoughts:

First of all, is there any evidence to suggest that Pelosi "made the rounds?"

Secondly, when it comes to lives, to the Constitution, to civil liberties, do you have to "have the votes" to keep hammering the issues, and keep them, not only on the table, but on the front page? Does what is ethically correct count for anything? Is being willing to stand up for people, for the constitution, only ok if you "have the votes?"

Third....If she is going to be excoriated no matter what, which is worse? To be denounced by the enemy, or to alienate your base? DUers love to spout rhetoric about "eating our own." Is it ok for congresspeople to betray or abandon their own to avoid engaging the enemy?

[jpgray]

7. If Pelosi tried impeachment, and it failed--to the great crowing of the GOP--would DU cheer her on?

Based on the lackluster responses to failed subpoenas, failed investigations, failed checks on Iraq war escalation, I'd say no. Based on DU criticism, trying, lacking the unity/votes to succeed, and then failing has never been cause for celebration. DU would argue that she didn't try hard enough, wasn't serious, and "caved/capitulated" once again.

The rest of your points I find very fair. I don't know if Pelosi has made the rounds, but I would confidently guess that Conyers at least has explored the options before making his statements.

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. I think you've got it right, jpgray

K&R

[walldude]

11. If I were any member of congress who was asked/told/forced

coerced or whatever you want to call it, to support this president and his policies, I'd fucking quit. Period. I'm tired of all the excuses being made for Dems who value their jobs more than their morals. Gee, my options are enable this president and his murderous policies and attempt to sleep at night, or quit my job and find something useful to do..

[jpgray]

15. Would you say that Sanders, Conyers, Waxman, etc. are coerced and/or amoral?

Can we be general about Congress' failures? The delegation's failures are every member's failures? (Note that would include Kucinich.) Or do we have to get specific? In that case we at least have a leadership failure. But do we also have blame to dole out to individual representatives who refuse to take a strong stance? If they're comfortable and disinterested in doing anything serious before election time, how does one convince them?

[walldude]

19. Obviously one does not convince them. My statement is just

that. My opinion. If I were expected to cover up for Bush I'd quit first. If I worked somewhere where I was expected to discriminate against someone I'd quit. If I were asked to do something I thought was immoral or plain wrong, I'd walk away. Of course that's just me, maybe it's different when you are living high on the hog, working 3 days a week on the taxpayers dime.

I could be general, I could be specific, it won't matter, I'm not the one who should be having trouble sleeping.

[creeksneakers2]

24. Where do you work?

Everywhere I've worked there were problems. If I insisted on working in a perfect place I'd starve. So I draw lines and hush up about the little stuff. That's being a team player.

[walldude]

74. Um.. I'm self employed..

I told you I don't put up with shit. I'm not a "team" player.

[jpgray]

68. So what do you expect from whom, and who gets the blame for failing to meet expectation?

[Hissyspit]

13. There is more than ineffective opposition going on. n/t

[jpgray]

16. What would you argue is going on?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. IMO, The legislative branch has lost its spine

I'm not inherently blaming Pelosi or saying that they are in on some vast conspiracy. The general attitude among the Democrats seems to be to do absolutely nothing big or controversial for the remainder of Bush's term, and let the new President make all of the tough political decisions once he or she is sworn in. What they have demonstrated is that they are not interested in re-asserting legislative power, they're interested in being submissive to a Democratic President once he or she is sworn in.

I think that people are disappointed because this has not historically been the case. After the Democratic victories in 1974 from the Watergate backlash, the legislative branch immediately took steps to re-assert itself and limit executive power by forming the Church Committee and passing FISA. They didn't wait two years for a Democrat to win the White House, and even when Jimmy Carter did get elected, he wasn't really a leader in that particular matter.

Herding the cats isn't easy, but IMO, it's not just a matter of herding the cats. It's a matter of making the cats understand what their role is and how important it is to limit executive power. That's an even tougher job. Nancy Pelosi is obviously not capable of doing that. But I'd add that I'm not sure anybody in congress is capable of that. I think that there is somebody out there who could do it, but that person is probably not in politics, one of the many flaw in our system.

[jpgray]

21. That's fair. But I'd note this is a very different Congressional makeup from 74/72

It's interesting to note that Democrats of that era were able to effectively destroy the Nixon administration before a single impeachment hearing was held. All the hard work was done through vanilla investigation, and we can't even hold together effectively on that. Do we have the same opportunity to do so? In terms of willpower or numbers or both? What's causing the lack of action?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. It is the failure of political parties that seek only power.

George Washington (with the help of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) addressed the dangers of political parties in his farewell address:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

26 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

[jpgray]

18. Is the GOP therefore more able to take controversial united stances?

Since in general their policies benefit the elite power centers in this country? Since most politicians are certainly ambitious and power-hungry, how do you convince the most ambitious and power-hungry politicians in your delegation to take a stance that those same power centers view as threatening?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. By the vote.

Politicians achieve and maintain power because the people elect them to it. If they need the votes to achieve that power, they must seek them from the electorate by promising to fulfill the wishes of the electorate.

If the electorate refuses to give the politician the votes needed then he either has to adjust his stance or convince other voters who agree with him/her to vote for him.

The problem is that the electorate is stuck with between two competing parties both vying to achieve power by appealing to the lowest common denominators of greed, conformity, nationalism, and the reliance on "leaders" rather than community.

Thus we end up with both parties putting loyalty to party above principles with an interest only attaining power and "winning" above anything else.

How do we convince them? By denying them our votes when they abandon the principles of common decency.

[jpgray]

29. It's not entirely "power" or "winning," or at least, not yet.

I say that because the GOP still spends countless billions to promote their policies and denigrate those of the Democrats. Nancy Pelosi is still attacked as a "loony left San Francisco liberal," even though her base would laugh heartily at such a description. Even a mostly establishment Democratic candidate like Clinton (either one) attracts untold vitriol and heavily funded attack campaigns. If selling out completely were the basic fact of both parties, then there wouldn't be so much money and effort spent to degrade the opposing party on the GOP's part.

Now, I'll grant you that most Democrats have sold out to a degree (bankruptcy bill?), but on issues like Habeas Corpus there are still party-line differences for all to see. Is that mostly superficial in your view, or does the halfway sellout simply piss everyone off while pleasing no one--neither voters nor establishment players? And if that's the case, why do it?

[warren pease]

41. So where's the risk?...

If any dem is going to be attacked and vilified by the might right wing Wurlitzer, then why bother going the centrist, sell-out route? If anything, the guarantee that no matter they do is going to be scorned and condemned should be liberating, not the opposite.

Pelosi is a case in point. She's about as aggressive in going after BushCo as was Tom DeLay -- but at least he was an honestly partisan bastard and didn't pretend that he was seeking to build bridges between the parties. And she's still branded as a loony leftist.

So, if she's going to get the label, why not earn it? What the hell has she got to lose -- except the Dem's majorities in the House and Senate, along with the white house, because Americans WILL NOT VOTE FOR DIPSHITS. They'll vote for bastards and thieves and corrupt swine and sociopaths and greedy pigs and for people who embody every single vile character trait the human race has to offer.

But they will not vote for wimps. And Dem "strategists" -- using the term loosely -- had damn well better tumble to that basic fact because failure to acknowledge it may well cost them heavily next November.

And much as I hate going with the less revolting of two hideous choices yet again, I would rather have Democratic corporate bootlicker A or Democratic corporate bootlicker B than another BushCo clone occupying the Oval Office. And I'm afraid that's going to be the only available option in 2008, same as it ever was.


wp

[jpgray]

69. To me that's the really interesting question. Do you believe they behave this way by choice?

Obviously no political party chooses its strategy by choice of the leadership alone--lots of pol wrangling must take place to hash out a platform all can at least pay lip service to. But what I mean is, does this weak-kneed strategy arise from the actual goals of the leadership? From the limitations a disunited caucus places on the leadership? What's the source? That to me is the interesting question. Ineffective opposition remains the basic fact.

[warren pease]

70. I have no idea...

...and that gets to the heart of the mystery, as you point out. I think the usual reasons advanced for their behavior -- cowardice, collaboration, triangulation, election strategy, blackmail and so forth -- are a little simplistic. That doesn't mean they're all incorrect; just that I doubt all of these congresspeople are motivated by or afraid of the same thing. It doesn't seem like a one-size-fits-all issue.

I suppose it's possible that all but a handful are so thoroughly corrupt that they all have some dark secret that would destroy their careers if revealed. But I think it's more likely that some are fearful of GOP revenge and/or media ridicule; some actually believe that an aggressive attempt to take BushCo down would be their undoing next November; some probably think the "D" after their names insulates them from being branded as GOP-lite and allows them to vote like right wingers with impunity; some probably are being blackmailed, either by the RNC or by their campaign contributors; and some probably are collaborators, doing what they can to advance the fascist BushCo agenda.

As to the alleged leadership: Just speculating, since I have no privileged knowledge on this, but I'm fairly certain Pelosi, Reid and other house and senate leaders cut a deal with BushCo before or immediately after the 2006 elections to obstruct any efforts at impeachment in return for... what??? A pledge by Cheney not to start WW III? No more signing statements? No more government by fiat via executive orders and presidential directives?

If that's the case, they've been had again.

Same thing on Iraq funding. It's clear to any observer with half a brain that the 2006 elections were a referendum on Iraq specifically and the Bush administration in general. I think it's likely that Pelosi, Reid et al cut a deal to keep funding the occupation, despite massive public opposition, in return for... what??? A lousy minimum wage hike that doesn't come close to an actual living wage? Health care for kids, which Bush promptly vetoed as he finally got in touch with inner compassionate conservative? Implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations which, since they're based on the Official Coincidence Theory, aren't really all that useful anyway?

Again, if that's the case, they got suckered again. I mean, all Pelosi has to do is "lose" the appropriations bills and keep them from coming to a vote. She doesn't have to go on record as "soft on terror" or "not supporting the troops." She just has to do exactly what she's done with HR 333 and keep them "off the table." And any reasonably competent spinmeister should be able to position her actions favorably, given the overwhelming public opposition to continuing the Iraq occupation.

And here's the thing that keeps driving me nuts. How stupid and/or gullible do you have to be to get snookered time after time by the stupidest man ever to occupy the white house? One with a six-year record as an unapologetic liar and a flaming madman where bloodshed and resource theft is concerned?

And what does it say about the common sense of the democratic leadership that they continue to fall for this nonsense? Do they actually think that, despite Bushie's consistent pattern of complete contempt for the truth, this time he's on the level?

I really don't get that one. However, no matter the reasons, the results remain the same. And, as you write, "ineffective opposition remains the basic fact."

Would that it were otherwise. The history of this period is going to be a particularly interesting read.


wp

[uppityperson]

20. k&r for good questions. Politics is dirty business. Are all politicians political?

I think there are different answers for different people at different times, but if I had answers, I'd be happy.

So I'm kicking and marking to read more lateer.

[jpgray]

22. There is definitely not a "right" answer to this. But hopefully we can ask the right questions

I think all DU is agreed that the lack of effective response is deplorable, and I think a lot of the infighting focuses around the "why," which is a lot harder to determine than the simple fact of our ineffective delegation. I'm very eager to see what people think as well.

[warren pease]

28. Well, if I were in Pelosi's $1,000 shoes...

I'd be cross-dressing, so that's not going to happen.

However, pursuing a strategy that relies on being seen as somewhat less vile than the GOP doesn't cut it. Her progressive base calls her a "do-nothing enabler or collaborator" because they're correct.

Part of the basic job requirement of being speaker, majority leader or whip is setting the agenda, both through legislation and by deciding who to cooperate with and who can go to hell. Reining in your own back-bench rebels so they're down with the program, so to speak, is also a key part of the job.

It's a given that controlling BushCo is so far beyond her capabilities that she'd have better success trying to pole vault over an asteroid. Unfortunately, she can't deal with her own renegade swine either.

She's incapable of controlling the blue dog Dems, who constantly subvert any efforts by House progressives to pass a single piece of useful legislation. Even worse, she can't even muster enough presence and leadership skills to control those "skittish freshmen." If she was doing her job properly, they'd be toast the first time they failed to comply with the expectations of the house leadership -- except that they probably are doing just that by refusing to vote for impeachment or an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Can you imagine Tip O'Neill or Sam Rayburn putting up with any shit from these clowns? They'd simply make sure there was no money for pork projects flowing into their districts until they figured out who was running the show. That's how you control rebels in the House and Senate.

So, to sum up, she can't handle BushCo; she can't control the members of her own party; she has no stomach for impeachment and is therefore probably OK with allowing the regressive blue dogs and the "skittish freshmen" to determine the agenda, then blame them for her lack of leadership qualities; she has no stomach for a fight and therefore will reliably cave to BushCo on all Iraq funding by removing any "strings" that might save a few hundred US troops' lives and those of gawd knows how many Iraqi civilians.

And, you ask, what do you do when you have a tiny majority with too many conservative elements that fear confrontation. Leaders know how to deal with pissants. Leaders either compel obedience with force of personality or they scare the living shit out of those who subvert the leader's objectives. Often a mix of both.

Again, see Rayburn and O'Neill for examples. See LBJ's work in the Senate for another object lesson. When LBJ said "I've got his pecker in my pocket" he wasn't exaggerating too much. He meant that Senator XX was his bitch and would always do as he was told.

Can you imagine Pelosi ever commanding that much fear and respect? Can you imagine her doing anything that required political courage? I mean, fuck the good of the country and fuck the oath of office and fuck doing what's right. We don't have the votes. There's no time to do the right thing because we're so busy deciding which unknown dead white guy to name the next post office after.

And there's an election to win -- an election that her tactics may well lose for the Dems, since the only thing this country seems to hate more than BushCo is the behavior of spineless wimps. But they're getting so good at losing and, as long as they have their salaries and perks for life, who gives a shit?


wp

[Hippo_Tron]

58. I'll admit that those leaders were far more effective than Pelosi

But it's not as easy as you make it out to be. First of all, those guys couldn't always hold the line. Tip O'Neill certainly didn't with Raygun's tax cuts, and the leadership certainly couldn't prevent the mutiny over civil rights.

Secondly, they governed in the pre-polarization era. The blue dogs have a sense that they are entitled to vote with the Republicans as much as they want because their districts SHOULD be voting for Republicans. The national media repeats this sentiment constantly and vindicates the blue dogs as "sensible moderates". In years where Bush was popular, leadership's hands were especially tied because any threats to cut off pork would be met with, "Well Tom DeLay is offering more pork than you anyway, maybe I should just become a Republican." IMO, now that the President is unpopular, they should probably be more assertive.

When Sam Rayburn was in office there were no red states and blue states and there were no red districts and blue districts. It wasn't considered out of the ordinary for Democrats to win in the south and the west and so there wasn't a political orthodoxy in place that some Democrats had to vote like Republicans if they wanted to be re-elected.

I think with the election of people like Jon Tester and to a certain extent Jim Webb, we're seeing the blue dog orthodoxy being challenged. But it's going to take some time before the orthodoxy is broken and Democrats start considering a new formula to win nationally.

On the bright side, it seems as though we pick up more progressives than moderates in each election. I haven't looked at the House but on the Senate side Mark Udall, Tom Udall, and Al Franken (assuming they all win) will all be pretty progressive. Jeanne Shaheen and Tom Allen will be fairly reliable Dem votes if they are elected. Mark Warner will be more moderate as will Mike Moore if he jumps into the Mississippi race and is elected.

[warren pease]

63. Very nuanced reply. Thanks for the comment and the info.

I get nostalgic for the old smoke-filled rooms sometimes, and for leadership that actually led. I still think Pelosi should be replaced asap because the combination of her obstructionism on impeachment and accommodation on Iraq occupation funding is seriously hurting the party's chances in 2008. Witness the mid-teens approval ratings Congress consistently draws.

I suppose that could be the result of wingnut radio and Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS/NYT/WaPo/WSJ propaganda, and I'm sure some of it is. But I'm also sure that all but about 25 percent of the American people -- which is roughly the percentage of religiously insane fundie loons contaminating the country -- are absolutely sick of BushCo, the war economy, the devastation of the middle class, the fear and loathing of the rest of the world, the constant lying, the endless list of GOP scandals and so much more -- all that and beating the war drums for an attack on Iran, too.

People voted in 2006 specifically for candidates who promised (on the record or tacitly) to put an end to the madness. Now, a year later with no real progress made, they're mightily pissed off at the Dem leadership for not doing a single thing to curtail these sociopathic killers and genocidal maniacs. That fury may well come back to bite all Dems in 2008.

Parenthetically, I simply can't see why a body with a mid-teens approval rating would feed politically compromised by considering impeachment of a world-class ghoul whom 91 percent of the American people rate between loathsome and satanic.

I also despise her arrogance, as evinced by her comments when protesters showed up at her house and she claimed that if they weren't politically motivated, but "just homeless," they'd be arrested. I hope a certain woman whose name shall not darken these forums kicks her ass into the Bay for that one alone.

Anyway, thanks again for the background. Very good post.


wp

[Armstead]

30. IMO it's a chicken-and-egg problem

My opinion is that the Democrats decided not to take strong stands on the liberal side, at a time when they still had the power to do so.

Over the years, that lack of a clear position degenerated the role of Democrats as a clear balance to the GOP. The image of Democrats became muddy in contrast to the unity and clarity of the GOP.

As a a result, the Democratic Party lost its glue, and became diluted and more powerless. And that led to increasing weakness, which led to the need for more concessions and a downhill slide.

That led us to the point of where it's been since 2000. There were issues aplenty. But Democrats had nothing coherent to rally around them as a clear opposition party, and that weakness led to even more weakness and ineffectiveness.

The only way, IMO, to rectify that is for the Democratic Party to restore its true role, and start to dig in heels and say Hell No! to the atrocities of the GOP.

[jpgray]

34. Fair enough. Why do voters then reject progressive candidates when they -do- appear?

Some of it goes down to individual candidate traits (Kucinich ain't no matinee idol, much as I love the guy), but not all. Nader preached the Gospel that non-voters were waiting for a true, no-bullshit progressive platform. To his credit, he provided one in two cycles, yet non-voters still did exactly what they were known for in his case. Now one could say that lacking party machinery and media influence, such progressive candidacies are non-starters, but that means that it's about more than simply the platform, but also the system.

I've long been a supporter of public financing for campaigns and media ownership (re)regulation. And I've long thought that Bill Clinton's touted "third way" political stances were far less responsible for his success than his talent as a charismatic politician. (To my mind the dregs of our spokespeople ranks mostly or all resulted from that last misrepresentation.) So do we need a great candidate with right platform and the right connections? If we do, why does it seem that all great candidates avoid a great platform, and all great platforms avoid a great candidate? Or does that simply tie back into money-fueled campaigns and monopolistic media empires? And if that's the case, we need people in office to change such things. Which brings us back to, uh, square one?

I think I just made myself insane. :crazy:

[Armstead]

We need a progressive in Mitt Romney's body

That's a joke, sorta.

I think the reason is complicated. But it boils down to a couple of things.


Inbreeding -- The Media and the "centrist" elements of the Democratic Party look at the world in similar terms. They have an elitist and lazy view of the world that comes from their privileged positions. The Democratic strategists are locked into this circle, and are unwilling and/or afraid to think outside of their cozy little box....They also have a very skewed view of what "the left" and "liberals" are.

The symbiotic relationship between the media and the political elite creates and reinforces a narrow viewpoint, which is regurgitated. They all follow the same story lines, and they impose it on the rest of us through their access to the megaphone.....Thus, deprived of real information or any real choices, the average non-political-junkie person either buys into their narrative or becomes fatalistic and cynical and tunes it all out.

So, in their world, someone like Howard Dean -- who is basically a pragmatic liberal-leaning moderate -- was branded as "too far left" because he dared to challenge the orthodoxy on the war and some other issues. Not only that, he was branded as "crazy" because he didn't limit himself to programmed behavior. He was an actual human being.

In that environment, even candidates who are liberal/progressive in their hearts feel under pressure to conform to the mold if they want to achieve their ambitions. So people like John Kerry -- who in a different environment might be a clearcut liberal -- believe that they have to trim their sails and conform to the "Don;t be scared. I'm not really a liberal."

Some of it's also the "right time right person" factor. Ronald Reagan was the right guy at the right time, because the nation was ready for his message, and he had the political skills to resonate...Frankly, if someone with the same positions but was not a Great Communicator had run in 80, they might not have had the same degree of success. Or if Reagan had been an empty-suit moderate running against a strong Democratic candidate, he might not have had the same degree of success. But both his charisma and the mood of the country coincided.


I also think that the progressive movement has been unlucky in terms of candidates. Ralph Nader had the right message, but he was the wrong messenger. And he wasn't taken seriously because he was running outside the party structure. People knew that there was no way he would win,so his positions were marginilized. Many politicians who should have been allied with his positions also became angry at him for the "spoiler" factor, so he ultimately did more harm than good in terms of advancing liberal/progressive politics.

Dennis Kucinich is working within the party system, but he's out of his league in terms of Presidential political skills. He may be an admirable guy, but he has a weird side and he doesn't project well to people who aren't already predisposed to his views. He is actually a basic meat-and-potatoes traditional Democratic liberal in many ways, but his personality and the constipated political system make him seem too "far out."

However, I do believe that if a capable and charismatic candidate can somehow break through with the basic message the Democratic Party could succeed by actually becoming Democrats again. Someone who were a more accessible candidate than Kucinich could go far with the same message.

America is ready for that, I honestly believe. But the system has not caught up with popular sentiment.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Reagan would have succeeded as an empty suit moderate but not made any long term changes

Carter's loss in 1980 was due to circumstances beyond his control. Had operation Eagle Claw Succeeded he would've been re-elected and the GOP would've told that senile fuck to go back to California. Anybody could've beaten Carter by capitalizing on his perceived failures. Reagan's only really impressive political skill during that campaign came at the end when he dispelled Carter's charges that he was a warmonger by appearing grandfatherly and with his famous "There you go again" in the debate.

But Reagan did more than just win. He changed the political attitudes of many in this country, which is why 1980 is considered by many to be a re-aligning year. People were ready to listen to his bullshit about how Welfare Queens were the cause of all of their economic troubles. It was indeed the right message at the right time. That message wasn't needed to win him the election but it was needed to cause all of the long term damage that he did.

IMO, I'm not entirely sure that things are bad enough that people are quite ready to give a genuine liberal a chance. I'm not saying that a genuine liberal couldn't get elected, but I think that they would have significant trouble governing and have the mandate from the American People that they need to take down their enemies and pass their agenda.

[annabanana]

31. It is because our hearts are broken.

Some of us feel complicit in each unnecessary death. It is OUR country... and we can't stop it. It is a visceral, emotional reaction.

These things are being done in our name.

[jpgray]

38. There is no arguing with the emotional response to this failure

That's totally separate in my mind from being "valid" or "invalid"--we're all pissed off at what's been happening. I try to keep that in mind.

[natrat]

33. omg--why not start by differentiating the 2 parties and maybe taking just a tiny stand

nader was right

[jpgray]

45. Just a tiny stand? What did you think of the Habeas Corpus vote?

That was mostly party line, with all Democrats supporting that pillar of law and most GOP folks opposing it.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Very well said. Thank you.

[jpgray]

46. Welcome to DU!

And thanks for reading lots and lots of my circumambulatory text. :P :toast:

[creeksneakers2]

37. Your title asks a great question

Victims and perpetrators shouldn't be equally blamed. Is an abused spouse who stays in marriage for the kids and because she has nowhere else to turn as guilty as a wife beater? The perpetrator is the one who is wrong. Some victims fight back more than others, but most do what they can to save themselves and leave justice to the authorities.

A party that lied us into war is far more guilty than one which was too afraid to speak up about it.

Our discussions here tend to put idealism up against pragmatism. A balance is much better than either by itself. It makes no sense to keep getting elected if all progress is sacrificed in the bargain. It makes no sense to blow everything on one heroic standoff that leaves the enemy in charge of everything thereafter.

Solutions that don't accomplish anything and in the end actually make things worse are not moral, no matter how righteous they sound. A man is dying of a heart attack and the only doctor around has his license suspended. Is it right for the doctor to refuse to help?

The best way to accomplish all the aims of the left is to get the GOP kicked out of office at the ballot box. The moral perfectionists among us rank getting elected as least important. What would be the result?

[warren pease]

44. The good German argument...

"A party that lied us into war is far more guilty than one which was too afraid to speak up about it."

Nope. The party that lied us into war is so famous for lying that it's amazing anyone with an IQ over 60 could have believed them, then or now. The party that stupidly bought the lies and then compounded their sins by keeping their mouths shut and pretending BushCo's motives were just and noble is beyond contempt.

But they act as if we're fools and imbeciles who do, in fact, suffer from 60 IQs.

So they're arrogant towards their constituents, inexplicably convinced of their own wonderfulness, cowardly in the face of organized opposition and dumb enough to let Bush and Cheney fool them hundreds of times without ever "getting it."

Not much of a resume, imo.


wp

[creeksneakers2]

48. The Germans were pretty good

after we got rid of the Nazis. Do you think we should have gotten rid of all the Germans who stood by and did nothing and then left the Nazis in place?

[warren pease]

49. No. I think they've paid the price...

They had to live under the fascists for more than a decade. And the phrase "good German" passed into the lexicon to remind them of their inability to imagine why all those trains were heading east.

But there are no similar consequences for our alleged representatives. Our swinish democratic leadership won't have to live under a fascist dictatorship, but they're sure as hell setting the rest of us up for one. So they continue to enable The Commander Guy and add to his magic arsenal of domestic repression tools. Hell, they even voted 404 - 6 in favor of HR 1955, with 218 of those voting aye being alleged democrats and only three actual democrats voting nay (Kucinich of course among the three).

Draw your own conclusions.


wp

[Joe Fields]

47. Not trying to be nasty here, but I do take issue with a few points.

First, I don't think its fun to bitch or complain. I don't get my kicks bashing my democratic leadership. And I think that in most of the threads you will find very good reasons why many here feel that what our party leadership has done rises to a level far beyond just being ineffective.

You have touched on our slim majority, but what you fail to mention was the sea change that happened a year ago in November. We took a few dozen new congressional seats and I believe 8 or nine senate seats, at a time when no one, and I mean no one thought it possible. We damned near "ran the table," so to speak. The mandate was clear, and the new congress should have felt that the tide had turned, and should have been armed with a new sense of empowerment and purpose. We had such high hopes, and a feeling that we were going to stop the Bush administration in its tracks. But nothing could have been further from the truth. Our leadership made it clear that impeachment was off the table. We were outmaneuvered , outgamed by the republicans. Also, I believe that we had been whipsawed about so badly, that when we did take control we still played with a minority mindset. We had been bullied far too long, and still acted like whipped dogs.

At various times throughout our history, when a major crisis occured, we were blessed with having the right leadership at the right time. (not always true, but for the most part) It could be argued that we may be facing the most critical time in our history, and facing the systematic dismantling of our democracy, all at the same time. My point is that if ever there was a time when we needed strong opposition leadership, true checks and balances, as well as real oversight and accountability, then the time is now. We are finding out that it doesn't take long to dismantle a democracy. Two hundred-thirty plus years to preserve one, but seven short years to destroy it, if the leadership does not do what it is sworn to do

Which brings me to my next point. What you have pointed out may be a reality. Blue dogs, DINOS, it just doesn't matter to me. The real fact of the matter is that each and every congressman/woman swore or affirmed that they would protect and defend the constitution of the United States. The didn't swear allegience to AT&T, Haliburton, Boeing, Black and Veatch or any other corporation. They took an oath to defend our constitution. But it seems they have forgotten that. In fact, it seems as though they have a kind of revisionist history, and think they remember swearing to protect and defend their jobs at any cost. Therefore they have traded democracy itself for job security. You'll excuse me if I take real issue with that.

Politics is not a zero sum game. If politicians do not work vigorously to defend the documents this country was founded on, then it can all go up in smoke in no time, as we are witnessing. You may think some of us are being too harsh. I don't think we are being harsh enough. If it came down to it, I would love to see the democrats take a moral stand and shut the government down. If that's what it took to stop the war, then it could very well be that they would greatly benefit in the long run.

[jpgray]

52. Not nasty at all. And I agree that a lack of strong leadership is certainly part of the problem

But beyond recognition of the problems, I'm interested in the causes and possible solutions. I'm not sure exactly what -causes- Reid or Pelosi to behave as they do. To deal with a microcosm of this, I'm not even sure what made Rep. Stark first categorically refuse to apologize for his harsh criticism of Bush and then tearfully follow up by doing exactly that. If you recall, Dick Durbin also went through one of those bizarre reversals. What could cause such things? How do we fix the problem? To me those questions are what we're really trying to hash out--everyone (I think) agrees that our delegation has been ineffective in holding this administration accountable. What we don't agree on is where to assign blame for that, or how to fix it in '08 and elsewhere.

(And "it's fun to complain" is probably the wrong choice of words. "Easy" or even "emotionally necessary" might be a better choice.)

[Stinky The Clown]

53. For all that you said, it still comes down to counting the votes

And the count still comes up short.

In fact, you make the case many of us have tried to make ...... the bitching is better directed at the blue dogs and the Rs ..... unless you operate like Tony Soprano, you can't get get votes changed when the voter is timid or genuinely to the right.

I wish there were a way to direct all the rancor to the people who won't vote the way many of us wish they would. But I guess its much easier to piss and moan at management.

This is kinda like sports. When a team has a shitty year, do they fire the rubber armed pitcher, the floppy armed free throw guy, or the tired quarterback? No. They fire the coach. As if ***that** will fix a basically shitty team.

The fact is, we got a shitty team, not bad coaches.

Did you ever think the 'off the table' comment was cover to try to get some of the shitty team members on board?

Look, I want impeachment as bad as anyone. But if ya got nuttin' ya got nuttin' ...... yanno? You're a smart guy. Surely even you can see that.

[Joe Fields]

55. The votes aren't going to be handed to them on a silver platter.

There is a process that they must go through first. They will have to earn the votes as they go forward with the process. I've seen firsthand how people's mindsets change, when an abundance of evidence is collected. Especially against an unpopular president.

Your analogy would be akin to stating that you want to be assured of a college degree, before you start a single class. You want to make sure the university gives you those credits, that they are in your back pocket, or you will just forget the whole thing. It doesn't work that way. There is a process you must first go through. You have to earn those credits.

If malfeasance is suspected, then it must be investigated. If articles of impeachment are warranted, then the process of voting to have a trial must proceed. It's impossible to ask that the votes be "in the bag" before the process even begins.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. What's the 'process' to which you allude?

I assume it is realistic and not yet employed or surely a wise man such as yourself would not be pointing toward it as exemplary of why he's upset with the leadership. Can you share it with us?

It seems to me a reasonable process would be for each and every one of **US** to be talking one on one with people to get them to see impeachment as needed. Get the people on board and the pressure on the elected officials grows. Right now, please tell me why a Blue Dog from a normally Republican district (a description of many freshmen Dems in Congress) should follow the leadership on impeachment or even on investigation. (This is **NOT** a rhetorical question to you.)

[Joe Fields]

64. Are you an ultra-maroon, or what?

The fucking process is that of investigating, gathering evidence, voting on articles of impeachment, trying the case in the senate and then allowing the senate to weigh the facts of the trial and vote on whether to acquit or convict.

Holy fucking shit! What fucking part of this process don't you understand?

It's so fucking moronic to just say, "we don't have the votes," before the fucking process has even begun.

Please don't bother me again. I do not suffer fools gladly.

[jpgray]

67. And if you don't have the votes during or after the "process has begun?"

Let's posit an attempted impeachment. Pelosi gets behind it, doesn't get the votes, and it fails spectacularly. Can you honestly say DU would cheer that on? Has DU cheered on -any- attempt to hold this administration accountable when it fails due to lack of votes or party unity? Such as attempting to force troop withdrawal, SCHIP, etc.? No. We hear wall-to-wall complaints about these efforts when they fail due to lack of unity.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. Please don't bother you again?

Why? Because you make moronic, elementary posits and then curse anyone who doesn't agree with you?

Try anger management, bro. You need to calm the fuck down.

By the way, you never answered my question. All you did was cite the way impeachment constitutionally would move forward. You never said how you get the blue dogs to vote for it. I guess that red face caused you not to see that part of my post.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. I think you present an excellent analysis

It doesn't make me feel better, but it *is* reasonable.

I am happy to give this its tenth R.

[rucky]

51. You just burnt a hole in my Thesaurus.

[jpgray]

54. Yeah, well RandomKoolzop spilled bongwater on my copy of "The Purpose Driven Life"

:D

[bridgit]

59. It would seem the term "ineffective opposition" exists in a vaccum...

where words themselves clamor for some bygone perfect union, for import, for loft and so...

It was mentioned this very evening on Malloy that the fix came in when the towers came down, and that much of this American experience we experience today was keyed upon 9/11, and the 'get tough creme puff' group-think that was surely to follow. You, or some may; even Malloy himself may consider all such, so-called 9/11 gibberish a ruse, a canard, a spring-board off which a half gaynor with a half twist is claimed to offer an excuse instead, an entry into larger neo-nut plans & designs upon an ignorant, sleeping American world filled with creatures and their creature comforts. Yet still...there is an element of truth to it. America...whether her wanton Malthusian annexation of the world's already scarce resources, whether her 'money equals money monarchy' approach to life, whether her so-called freedom, so-called liberty, so-called justice for all she...is...being...put upon by fundamentalisms quite beyond her control, and so this notion of "ineffective opposition" begs my question: "ineffective opposition" to what, to whom?

I, my little ole self, had dear, long held friends die in those towers come ashes ashes all fall down. Am I then by extension a loyal Bush Supporter? Fuck you!!

Are there many here among us who feel that life is but a joke? Of that there can be little doubt.

The "ineffective opposition" has been in too many instances willingly co-opted, assimilated, triangulated, circumvented, accused of being traitor-esque. And so there it is; there they are: Snookered behind some 8-ball. One may only in some sense find solace in entertaining the prospect that they have done so for the common good...

Would that they had only surrendered so much to an individual with so keen a sense of what the common good was all about, this would be a different world indeed.

[jpgray]

62. I'm not handing out white hats here, bridg

Just want more consideration of the "why" along with the "what," not to mention some "what now?"

:hi:

[Perry Logan]

61. Your premise is wrong. The Democrats in Congress showed the highest unity score in 51 years.

"President Bush's success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

"So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1728952&mesg_id=1728952
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002576765.html

Don't let the media rhetoric fool you. The Democrats have acquitted themselves quite well--especially given their bare majority in both houses, and a relentlessly obstructionist Republican minority.

this 110th Congress has had more roll call votes this year than any
other Congress in history, almost doubling the number under the previous Congress overseen by Boehner
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL):
The House last week held its 943rd roll call vote of the year, breaking the previous
record of 942 votes, a mark set in 1978. The vote was on a procedural motion related to a
mortgage foreclosure bill. When the House adjourned on Oct. 4 for the long weekend, the
chamber had reached 948 roll call votes, putting Democrats on pace to easily eclipse 1,000
votes on the House floor in 2007.
Last year, the Republican controlled House held 543 votes, and for historical comparison,
the last time there was a shift in power in Congress, Republicans held 885 roll call votes in
1995. The Senate, which has held 363 votes this year, isn’t on pace to break any
records, but has already surpassed the 2006 Senate mark of 279 votes.
Much of the lack of progress can be traced back to obstructionism by conservatives. Approximately “1 in
6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes,” noted a JulyMcClatchy report. “If this
pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous
record number of cloture votes.”
It’s interesting that Boehner is criticizing the 110th Congress as doing nothing. After all, the House, under
his leadership, met for just 101 days during the second session of the 109th Congress, setting the record
“for the fewest days in session in one year since the end ofWorld War II.”

There are countless investigations going on. Healthcare is on the table. The internet is safe for now. Our wounded vets are no longer lying around in their own urine. The Senate Ethics Committee is back in action. Many 9/11 Commission recommendations are being passed. A bill to increase financial aid for colleges has passed--the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill. The President's signing statements are being investigated. Legislation to restore habeus corpus has been approved. The Senate Armed Services Committee has passed legislation "that would grant new rights to terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay. The unions have a voice in the government now—as do gays, women, and minorities. The environment has a fighting chance. The House passed the Taxpayer Protection Act, to protect taxpayers against "identity theft, deceptive Web sites and loan sharks." It also makes it "easier for taxpayers to retrieve property lost as a result of a wrongful Internal Revenue Service levy and directs the IRS to notify lower-income people that they qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit." The House approved a bill spending $1.7 billion over five years for cleaner water. There's a new House committee devoted solely to addressing the issue of global warming. And so on.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

65. Dude, do you get paid...

by the number of times you post that exact same post? :shrug:

You should've gotten enough for a trip to Hawaii, by now...

[Stinky The Clown]

72. That doesn't change the essential focts of that post, though, does it?

Let me say that i would gladly hear they voted party a mere 10% of the time if that vote was to impeach. I would be THRILLED at that. But that's not the case. Nonetheless, there is unity even when it isn't obvious.

[jpgray]

73. The easy hole in that argument is that often the "party line" position is weak and vacillating

In other words, the consensus reached by the disunited minority is unambitious and meek. So although the caucus holds to it more or less united, it's often not a strong or controversial stance. Just holding together isn't all that's needed, it's holding together when it's difficult and necessary.