The one Christmas present I want most: more Democrats in Congress!

[thatcrazycajun]

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.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

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

Not precisely true.

The Dems have a clear majority in the House of Representatives, but not one that is large enough in and of itself to override a Presidential veto. Moreover, there are still the reprehensible Blue Dogs, conservative Dems who buy anything the White House pushes, or at least that to compete, they need to emulate the neocons. Rahm is one, and he is one large reason the Dem majority isn't larger -- in the last election, his handpicked candidates lost many more races than did those in which candidates emerged from the grassroots and were supported by them.

In the Senate, the Dems are on much thinner ice. Their caucus, which includes two Senators elected as independents, has a 51-49 majority in the body. However, the Dems have proven, time and again, that they don't understand how to expose the obstructionism of the Republicans, by calling for cloture when they know they can't win it, and then pulling or modifying bills. MANY people have called, repeatedly, for the Dems to show some cojones and let -- force -- the Republicans to actually stand up and filibuster. If they argued their case, it would show itself as laughable as it is; if they read the phone book, they prove they have no case.

Similarly, people have recommended making Dubya repeatedly veto legislation that passes by large majorities -- SCHIP, for example. Instead, Congress accedes to his childish and dangerous demands that they let him have his toys, whether unconstitutional or otherwise.

Yes, we're angry, and with cause.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

As Mike Gravel and others have said. Four words "Power of the purse."
My senator voted against the war.
However he sends me emails each time he refunds it telling me that he has to support the troops.
I have been thinking about sending him an email that basically says:
I care about the troops. But sending more money and resources into a unjustifiable war is a waste.
It is past time to force Bush's hand and the Democrats refuse to do it.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

"Support the troops" = "Get them out of unnecessary danger" = "Bring them home from this immoral, illegal, and mendaciously begun war"

That's simple.

If he bitches that it's not easy, remind him that "simple" != "easy", but anything worth doing is worth working for. Standing up proud means not giving in to overgrown kindergarten brats and their Vice Presidents puppeteers.

Still angry.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Still angry.

You and me both.
It was my original intention to vote third party this year.
HOWEVER with the RISE OF SCUDDE... er Huckabee, I may have to change that.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

If it was easy anybody could do it. Quote Kennedy: "We choose to go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is difficult." He could have been speaking about universal health care, or extricating ourselves from Iraq, or any number of worthwhile things we should be doing today.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Of course, they'd have to WANT to do it. Unlike our current Brat-in-Chief, who's probably crying over the fact that he can't play with his bombers anymore.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

I think with Edwards in the White House and good majority whips in Democratically-controlled chambers of Congress, you'd see a lot of difference in how some of those so-called blue dog Democrats voted. Especially if (here's my unrealistic Christmas wish) we could come close to running the table and get 60 votes in the Senate so we didn't have to worry so much about threats to filibuster. (We should be making the Republicans actually filibuster, rather than just letting them hold up a sign that says "Filibuster!" and the deal is off the table -- but that's another discussion.) I'll be happy if we can at least make Lieberman irrelevant so we don't have to kowtow to him all the time while he does things like endorse Republicans.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I give Obama points for his comment on free trade in Iowa.
Saying that it wouldn't be easy, but he thinks that most Americans would pay a few bucks extra at the cash register if it meant keeping jobs here,indirectly invoking J.F.K. ("Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!")
To have a candidate say there is no magic bullet, but if we all work together we can fix things was music to my ears.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

I cough up $15.01 a month for a Democracy Bond because I think Howard Dean has the right idea in the 50-state strategy, and I'm happy to do it. However, when I got a call last month from someone at one of the DNC's fundraising contractors asking me to up that, I told them to pass a message to the DNC that until the Democrats stopped caving in to His Nibs at every opportunity and started acting like Democrats, I was going to use any extra money I had (which at the moment isn't much, but I am hoping to free up a little) to support individual candidates whose philosophies were more in line with mine. No promises to pass the message on to the higher-ups, though -- just a "Consider this a thank-you call" and he was gone.

Some of that money will go to John Edwards. I think a one-two team of President Edwards and Senate Majority Leader Chris Dodd would be awesome and go a long way toward getting things done in Congress. Which is no doubt why it will never happen.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Dodd missed being elected Majority Leader by thismuch once; after his recent performance, he has the visibility you'd want, and there HAVE to be some large number of Dems who want to back his principles.

Add Speaker of the House Henry Waxman to the list, and you have a beautiful trifecta.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

All of which means, we have the right people for the job, but the media and the powers that be have deemed them unelectable.
Heck, I'd even think about voting Republican if I got something like a Hagel/Ramstad ticket.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

I think Edwards is doing better than people realize. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think he'll turn some heads in Iowa and New Hampshire. My mantra is "I'll vote for Edwards before I vote for Obama; I'll vote for Obama before I'll vote for Clinton; and I'll vote for Clinton before I vote for any Republican."

Truth be told I would support Obama if he was the nominee; I just like what I'm hearing from Edwards better, plus his insistence on not taking corporate money. Hilary? Well, she'd be better than having a Republican, but after 28 years of having someone named either Bush or Clinton in the White House, frankly it's time for a change.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

Right you are. Love the button.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

For me, it's Richardson/Obama.
Given a few years of training by someone who does not have his head stuck up his ass would make him the perfect president.
Besides a Hispanic and a black?
Watch the bigot's brains go BOOM!

Too many filibusters?

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Where have I heard that before? Ahh, never mind, it'll come to me. In the meantime I have a suggestion. We could call on our reps to change the rules to put a stop to this cowardly, obstructionist, BS tactic. If we can get it to fruition before the other side tags it with some ridiculous propagandistic name like ... oh say... "The nuclear option", we might be able to put a stop to such pusillanimous stupidity.

Did you notice that, even as blatantly liberal as NPR's bias is, the announcer still had to point out that the Dems most likely were afraid to 'take responsibility' for the bad things likely to happen if they get their "premature pullout" wish?

As for immigration reform... The supporters, sadly including and spearheaded by Mr. Bush, were deluged with opposition all three times they tried to shove those bills through our backdoor. They tried to sneak them past us and we told them that we wouldn't stand for it. The Dems have once again voted for something, then voted against it in the matter of the border fence, making great noise about their concern for our borders and then sabotaging the work when they think no one's looking. They will be very sorry they did. We are all watching that particular battle, and intend to win it.

Re: Too many filibusters?

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

For me, it's not too many filibusters per se. The filibuster is a legitimate tool of government.

However, to bitch and whine and moan and threaten to eliminate the tool when it might conceivably be used against one, and then to use it as a primary tool oneself, is either hypocritical or childish depending on whether you recognize the adult status of the performer of same. Either way, it greatly lessens the validity of the complaints -- especially should that group once more gain the upper hand and face filibusters in opposition once more.

(To set the record straight, the "propagandist" who "tagged" the possible elimination of the filibuster with the "ridiculous" term "nuclear option" was Trent Lott. Does that suddenly validate the language?)

Re: Too many filibusters?

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Nope, not at all. I could as easily have written your post word for word. I was never for getting rid of it, just for the silencing of the whining from both sides. Thanks for making my point so well.