NPR's Morning Edition has a story here on the 110th Congress ending its year with more frustrations than accomplishments, courtesy of a Republican President whose muleheadedness makes his late predecessor Ronald Reagan seem the very soul of compromise and comity by comparison, and a minority of his party's Senators and Representatives that will not break faith with him, even (or perhaps especially) on continuing to fund the Iraq fiasco with no strings whatsodamnever.
Much has been said (here, among other places) about the Democratic Congressional leadership's tendency to emulate the favorite strategy of former LSU head football coach Jerry Stovall, who led the Tigers when I was pursuing my degree there in the early 1980s: run the ball up the middle for three downs, then punt. Time and again Reed, Pelosi & Co. boldly promised to bring Junior Bush to heel, and time and again they backed down when he planted his feet and his GOP fellows on Capitol Hill backed him. But in fairness, it should be noted (again) that the Dems do not have a clear majority in Congress, but only a plurality, particularly in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to prevent filibustering (for which the Senate's GOP members set a new record this year, as Rahm Emanuel was at pains to point out in the NPR story) but the leadership can only muster 51...and one less than that on anything to do with Iraq, where that notorious DINO-saur Joe Lieberman usually votes with the Repubs.
The problem is not that the Dem leaders lack the desire or the will to press their issues; it's that they recognize futility when they see it and elect to work on the things that can be moved forward, rather than the ones they know don't have a sno-cone's chance on a New Orleans JazzFest weekend afternoon of getting past those filibustering GOP Senators or Bush's veto pen. It's called "picking your battles," folks.
If you want to see more progress on Iraq, on health care, on immigration and so forth, the thing to do is not excoriate the Dems' leaders, but to elect more progressive Democrats to Congress and give them a veto-proof majority in both houses. Fortunately, an election is coming up next fall which will allow us to do precisely that, as well as (one dearly hopes) excise that stubborn Texan from the Oval Office and replace him with a Democrat.
Much has been said (here, among other places) about the Democratic Congressional leadership's tendency to emulate the favorite strategy of former LSU head football coach Jerry Stovall, who led the Tigers when I was pursuing my degree there in the early 1980s: run the ball up the middle for three downs, then punt. Time and again Reed, Pelosi & Co. boldly promised to bring Junior Bush to heel, and time and again they backed down when he planted his feet and his GOP fellows on Capitol Hill backed him. But in fairness, it should be noted (again) that the Dems do not have a clear majority in Congress, but only a plurality, particularly in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to prevent filibustering (for which the Senate's GOP members set a new record this year, as Rahm Emanuel was at pains to point out in the NPR story) but the leadership can only muster 51...and one less than that on anything to do with Iraq, where that notorious DINO-saur Joe Lieberman usually votes with the Repubs.
The problem is not that the Dem leaders lack the desire or the will to press their issues; it's that they recognize futility when they see it and elect to work on the things that can be moved forward, rather than the ones they know don't have a sno-cone's chance on a New Orleans JazzFest weekend afternoon of getting past those filibustering GOP Senators or Bush's veto pen. It's called "picking your battles," folks.
If you want to see more progress on Iraq, on health care, on immigration and so forth, the thing to do is not excoriate the Dems' leaders, but to elect more progressive Democrats to Congress and give them a veto-proof majority in both houses. Fortunately, an election is coming up next fall which will allow us to do precisely that, as well as (one dearly hopes) excise that stubborn Texan from the Oval Office and replace him with a Democrat.