Rep. Pelosi Promises Integrity, Civility

[Rose Siding]

(AP) Relishing the prospects of a triumph, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday promised to restore integrity and civility to the House if voters put her party in control this fall.

"We'll turn the most closed and corrupt Congress into the most open and honest Congress," Pelosi, D-Calif., told The Associated Press in an interview.

She spoke five weeks before the midterm elections as the House ethics committee opened an investigation into an unfolding sex scandal that led to Rep. Mark Foley's resignation and calls for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to step down.

"The only way you can make the change that needs to be made for our country _ a new direction where we're there for the many and not the few _ is to drain the swamp," said Pelosi, who is in line to be the nation's first female House speaker if Democrats ascend to power.
...
"This is an issue, though, that just highlights so clearly the fact that they don't play by the rules," Pelosi said, questioning why Republican leaders did not notify the bipartisan committee that oversees the page program when questions about Foley's behavior first arose....

"What could have been going through their heads, where they have an over-50-year-old man making these overtures to a kid" who was under the responsibility of Congress, Pelosi asked. "They chose not to address it."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/05/ap/politics/mainD8KINSEO0.shtml

[Monkeyman]

1. K&R for Nancy

[BootinUp]

2. This is good. Shes got the stage right now. n/t

[indepat]

3. Nancy, integrity and civility will get you steamrolled and eaten alive

by 'pukes whose only game is to win by whatever means it takes. Ms. nice guy won't cut it with vultures and vipers.

[VegasWolf]

4. Yes, I know, but for once I agree with her. She's just murmuring

comfortating words for the middle. There words aren't serious like pro-life or pro-war.

[pat_k]

10. Keeping truths about the destruction of our constitutional democracy. . .

. . .to yourself to court some segment of the electorate is contemptible.

Speaking the truth, but refusing to take the action demanded by the truth is contemptible.

That MIDDLE they think they are speaking to doesn't exist.

All Americans respect strength.

Members of the so-called Democratic "leadership" sound idiotic when they condemn Bush and Cheney for nullifying the Constitution and then turn around and tell the American people "Hey, but don't worry, we have no intention of doing anything about it. We have no intention of impeaching anyone! We just want to keep the peace. Be Civil."

When you sound like a morally-confused mealy-mouthed moron, your "message" resonates with no one.

What the heck do they think they are winning under rule by signing statement anyway?

[MGKrebs]

5. Well you can't really complain about integrity.

You can be tough and have integrity too.
And "civility" is a well chosen word. You can be deadly and still be civil about it.

I think the thing we have to avoid- whether we are in the majority or not- is to remember that just becasue we are a BIG tent, does not mean we are an INFINITE tent. Not everybody is going to fit in, and if we try to please everybody, we will please nobody. In other words, we must stand for something.

[indepat]

7. Touche re civility. WC once said if you are going to shoot a man,

at least you can be polite or something to that effect. But we now are dealing with a group devoid of integrity (lies), civility (slime), honor (uniter, not divider), reason (fiscal insanity), and humanity (war, torture); have shredded the rule of law, international law and treaties, and much of the Constitution; and have spit on our founding doctrines and principles (promote the general welfare) Moreover, almost all of these rascals will either be returned to office/remain in office. There is absolutely no redemption.

[MGKrebs]

20. To me, talk like that gets too close to considering those who

are opposed to us as "subhuman", and then we set ourselves up to behave abominably towards them.
Regardless of how badly our opponents act, I will take the position that they are not devoid of humanity.

[indepat]

22. The proof will be in the pudding being prepared

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

23. Good point MKG....As Thomas Paine said,"He that would make his own liberty

secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." MKJ

[tblue37]

13. "Civility" simply means you don't tell your colelagues on the floor

of the House or Senate to go Cheney themselves.

[pat_k]

6. Committing to be Civil to Fascists = Appeasement

Sorry Congresswoman Pelosi, Americans who are committed to rescuing our constitutional democracy don't want to see you appease fascists with promises of "Bi-Partisanship" or "Civility." When you make such promises you do nothing but give the fascists cover. (Sure, we know you enabled Bush and Cheney to nullify the Constitution, but no worries, we're happy to work with you!)

If the leadership of the Democratic Party keeps silent on Impeachment, and then takes steps to Impeach Bush and Cheney after they win a majority (as they must to fulfill their oath to defend our Constitution) the Democratic Party will look like a bunch of cowardly, partisan, hypocrites. (To stand for principle only when it is safe is contemptible.)

But even at this late date, we can save the Democratic "opposition" from themselves.

They are home now, we can blast them at close range. We can ask some some tough quesitons. We can pay visits, fax requests for appointments, meet with staff, call. We can keep at them until we get answers to questions like:

• "We hear that some assume it is futile to demand impeachment now and therefore don't think energy should be wasted on it. Is this true?" (Whatever the answer, you can follow up with "Whatever your reasons, to people outside the world of the beltway it looks like you won't back up your condemnations of Bush with action because you don't think you can win. Leaders who only stand up for principle when there is no risk are held in contempt.")


• "If you keep silent now, and then move forward with Impeachment after you win the House, aren't you worried that Americans will think you are cowardly hypocrites? Or that they will assume you are driven by partisanship, not principle?"


• "The gap between the folks inside and outside the beltway is vast -- and growing. We are mystified. You repeatedly fail to stand up in cases that the folks out there see as moral imperatives. Help us understand what you are thinking." (e.g., failure to stand up and object to the Ohio electors on January 6th, failure to filibuster Alito, failure filibuster the War Criminals Protection Act.")


• "Why do you think the nation perceives the Democratic Party as weak and unprincipled? Do you really think it has anything to do with your stance on national security? What role do you think your failure to stand up for principle plays?"


• "You may have taken a stand, but when so many of your colleagues go along to get along, they damage the entire Party by confirming the 'weak Democrat' perception. What can we do to help them see this?"


• "Why do you think the American people would trust the Democratic Party to stand up to terrorists if you refuse to stand up to Bush? If you refuse to rescue the Constitution?"


• "Do you realize how morally-confused the Senator/Rep sounds when they condemn Bush for nullifying the Constitution in one breath, and then with the next tell the American people "Hey, but don't worry, we have no intention of doing anything about it. We have no intention of impeaching anyone! We just want to keep the peace. Be civil."

[MGKrebs]

8. I don't see much room for any good answers there Pat.

What are the right answers?

[pat_k]

14. In attempting to answer, they must hear their own absurd rationalizations.

. . . These may not be the best of questions, but the aim is to leave no escape from the truth.

There ARE no good answers for derilection of duty (at least we haven't heard any to date). When our leaders don't have any "good answers" for their failures, the questions will strike them as "unanswerable."

But, they nevertheless try to answer. For example, the most effective question in the January 6th lobbying effort was this one:

On January 6th, 2005, will you uphold the objection to electors from a state where this is the documented reality, or become complicit with the perpetrators of this condition?

It prompted discussion grounded in simple truths and moral principles. We were able to engage in back and forth dialog in which we could challenge the specific misguided assertions they invoked as they tried to escape the stark choice.

A vast majority of the Democratic caucus and those who advise them are trapped behind a system of rationalizations. Many of the same rationalizations underlie their repeated failures to stand up for principles they claim to be committed to. (e.g., action is futile; the backlash beast will get us; Americans want civility in Congress.)

Even if we do not successfully motivate them to stand up in specific instance, we are still chipping away at rationalizations and making it more likely they will stand up in the future. And we are moving some to provide examples (Kerry and others stood up to their colleagues and called for a filibuster of Alito -- and they weren't struck down by the backlash beast; Barbara Boxer stood up on January 6th and became a hero -- and our respect translated into cold hard cash.)

The bottom line is that members of Congress are just people -- but they are people who have absorbed irrational bits of "conventional wisdom" that dominate the insular DC social scene. Our demands are sliding off their rationalizations like water off a ducks back.

While critical to demonstrating our numbers, I fear that one-way communications
-- FAXs, phone calls, or email, protests, or petitions -- are not effectively
challenging the system of nonsensical rationalizations our "leaders" cling to as
they justify their refusal to rescue our Constitution by demanding Impeachment.

The most effective way to challenge rationalization is in one-on-one dialog.

Perhaps stories of the mythical backlash beast spun by so-called "strategists" is not what keeps them silent. It may be the fear of ostracized within the insular beltway social scene -- a scene that is dominated by Republicans and their propaganda. (Just consider how years in the last couple decades Repubs have been doing the hiring and appointing; just consider how much more ruthless Republicans are when it comes to "cleaning house" and bringing in loyalists at every level. DC is a Republican town.)

Wahatever the actual reason, as humans often do, they invoke all sorts of rationalization to justify inaction, not even realizing themselves what the real reason is.

These folks really are just people, vulnerable to the same social pressures we all are. The best shot we have at injecting reality is to exert "counter pressure" -- to shame them for what the folks out here see as cowardice. To ask questions. To engage in dialog.

[MGKrebs]

21. That's a great post.

I think I only differ with the "shame them" part. I doubt that would do much besides make them even more insular.

However, I do agree with the one-on-one dialogue, and that needs to happen with the electorate as well as our representaives. We expect our leaders to lead, but the people have to listen. Yes, I am talking about growing the grassroots. I don't think Dems have a strong, consistent, between-elections message so that people who barely pay attention to politics know what voting for a Dem means. Dean is trying, but we have a long way to go.

In the end, we have to be able to "do it all". We can't have just one tactic. We have to build the grassroots, we have to have courageous leaders who will speak the truth, we have be able to raise money, and we have to be confrontational sometimes.

[pat_k]

25. The Dem Party has the most powerful consistent "message" there is. . .

. . . our belief in our constitutional democracy. Central to that is the belief that decision-making must ultimately be bottom up.

But even the very best Democratic Party leaders have been infected by an insider/outsider mentality in which the job of the insiders is to manipulate the outsiders, not represent them. The ends differ (common good, interests of a faction, personal interest, personal power, whatever) but in an insider v. outsider world, it is all about manipulation, not representation.

I sometimes think the talk about the need for a monolithic top-down Democratric "message" is a request for the Democratic Party to become a bunch of authoritarian fascists like the dictators of "policy" in the Republican Party.

As we have seen, a constitutional democracy doesn't work when it becomes a spectator sport. When the electorate limits themselves to picking the menu that this or that "leader" cooks up the game of politics is all about Them, when it needs to be all about Us.

Democracy is not just about the collective will of the majority, it is about limits on power, protecting individual rights, and balancing interests. It is about protecting and defending the institutions we established to serve those ends. We talk about our government as if it is an alien thing. We think about protecting and rebuilding the institutions of the executive branch, judiciary, and legislative branch, but seem to forget that We the People are the foundation of all three.

If we make it all about fixing "it" or fixing "them" we will ultimately lose. We must turn our attention to "fixing us" -- building connections, associations, and acting in our civic capacity, not just to accomplish this or that end, but as a way of life.

I avoid the term "grassroots." Too often in recent history, grassroots is a term applied to a single effort or group (the "grassroots of the Republican Party" or "grassroots civil rights movement"). For me "grassroots" doesn't capture the notion that we are talking about something that is part and parcel of a true America.

If by "grow the grassroots" you mean increase our interpersonal connections and civic capacity across the board, I am with you.

I'm not so worried about this or that Party mobilizing "their grassroots." I am interested is seeing more and more citizens connecting and associating. This doesn't mean becoming an "activist" -- the specific actions and the time commitment is actually very small for most. But it means staying in the game and knowing you have avenues through which to make your voice heard when you believe you need to.

Part of inspiring people to join the game is to challenge immobilizing beliefs ("people like me don't do politics" or "We have no power. It's all about money. Why do anything?"), but our real power is rooted in our connections with each other.

If you doubt this, consider the American Legion, which is not exactly an organization that one would apply the label "progressive" to. Despite the "conservative" label, members of American Legion Posts across the nation were instrumental in designing and passing the most progressive legislation we have seen in decades: the GI Bill.

By contrast, consider the AARP, which is made up of lots of people who got together based on status (being old together). Unlike the American Legion, members of AARP do not meet and connect with each other in local associations. It is basically a top down "strategic" organization in which the members are largely viewed as game pieces. Because member participation is limited, the AARP does things like support Bush's prescription drug horror.

We don't need to talk more about politics, we need to talk more about life -- our aspirations, goals, what we want for our children, what sort of country we would like this to be. The "Hows" follow. And when people start talking about "How can we make X happen?" they are "in the game." How we can achieve those goals, collectively, IS politics. Politics is not a separate realm we need to drag people into.

[MGKrebs]

29. My conception of "grassroots" is just people participating.

Conservatives seem to want people to distrust their government, to think that government can do nothing right, that we have no obligation to our communities but only to ourselves and our own families.

I think the very essence of "liberal" or "progressive" is that we recognize that not everyone is going to be just like us, but if we are going to live together, we have to depend on each other and help each other a ittle bit. Governments CAN do good, and we CAN achieve more if we pool our resources.

I completely agree that we have to overcome the idea that we are seperate from our government. The government works for us, and like any other model- a business or a family or a zoo- if you don't participate and pay attention, it will wither and die or spin out of control.

[pat_k]

32. I have found that when you strip away the labels, there are people . . .

. . .on the "other side" who believe we need to commit our dollars to solve many of our common problems -- and who want to see those who benefit most from our common infrastructure (those at the top) to contribute the most to maintaining it.

More than 80% of Americans actually want to see many of the same things happen. They are appalled at our national failure to come through for the people of New Orleans, and want us, as a nation, to commit the resources necessary to come through when our fellow Americans face similar catastrophes. They want to make investments in their schools and hold our officials accountable for spending our money effectively. . . .on and on.

Of course, there are a lot of unreachable folks and I don't bother with them, but at dog park and other sorts of public gathering places, I try out approaches and have come to the conclusion that we do far better if we focus on the specifics, and drop the loaded labels (liberal, right, left, Repub. . ).

When I get into a conversation on addressing this or that common problem, at some point I try to ask "Doesn't this seem like something most of us want? Why do you think we don't seem to be able to get this done?" This often leads to a discussion about our own role that is independent of Party or labels.

I've sort of lost track of my point and need to run. Will post anyway.

[pat_k]

26. BTW, there is nothing wrong with exposing a person to how shameful. . .

. . .their behavior has been when they have been behaving shamefully.

Shame on You! is something we are reluctant to use because we know it is so powerful in social influence.

But, just because shaming can be misused, doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. Because it is powerful, when it is appropriate to use, we should use it.

Same thing goes for accusation. We don't tend to go after people personally. We condemn the behavior, not the person. We must be more willing to accuse and punish the leaders who betray our trust. We cannot just try to "fix the system." The system is driven by individual action and the most effective way to say "This behavior will not be tolerated" is to "make an example of" those who engage in the behavior.

[Rose Siding]

9. If you think Nancy's idea of civility = appeasement, you're in for a treat

Just stay tuned. And *do* note that as she's heralding "civility", she's slamming them with "what were they thinking!" and saying that the "swamp" needs draining. You could even say she's kicking them while they're
down. ;)

[MGKrebs]

11. Yes but I am not sure what you are proposing.

1. Nancy change her stripes?
2. Repubs retain control?
3. Burn Pelosi so someone more to your (and my) liking can ascend?

I have principles, but I prefer to consider a Pelosi Speakership a win, even if it is not what i would ultimately and ideally achieve.

Sometimes I think that there is no political advancement short of the reincarnation and ordination of Che Gueverra that would be acceptable to some.

[pat_k]

16. I'd like to inspire more ordinary people to take on the insiders face-to

. . .face-to-face. Chip away at their rationalizations as we lobby them to stand up and speak out -- and demand Impeachment. (Or other similiar efforts to lobby them to stand and fight for the soul of the nation -- but they all end up coming back to Impeachment.)

If enough of us work on them and inject some reality into the beltway bubble we can "change their stripes."

We were told we would NEVER "get a Senator" on January 6th -- even ridiculed for engaging in such a futile effort. Even House staffers who were working to expose the theft of Ohio declared it beyond the realm of possibility. But ordinary people organized themselves took up the fight. The mainstream organizations were too busy kicking themselves for losing to jump on board until it was apparent that the effort itself was energizing people in a way they could capitalize on.

-------------------------------------
So, how do we go about it?

To schedule a meeting, citizens just need to fax a request to the scheduler (and then follow-up by phone, and follow-up again, until the appointment is made). If you can't imagine going alone, it helps to enlist a friend to come along. If you can't imagine yourself doing it at all, do you know anyone who might?

Sample meeting request:
http://january6th.org/files/meeting_lautenberg.pdf


In the meeting, whether with a staffer, Senator, or Congressperson, we need to ask direct questions aimed at eliciting their rationalizations and fears so we can directly challenge them with follow up questions and targeted argument. Should they not be forthcoming, we can "create" a dialog by citing rationalizations we have heard from others.

[Rose Siding]

17. I'd totally consider a Pelosi speakership a win.

(were you responding to me?)

[pat_k]

15. The only treat I am after is a demand for Impeachment. . .

. . .until the leadership is willing to make that demand, they tip toe around the truth -- because if they say it straight out they would have to act. (By their silence, they trap themselves in a no-win box.)

[Stand and Fight]

12. I agree with, and support, Leader Pelosi in this...

I think that she is doing the right thing, and I am happy to say that she has my full support.

[Supersedeas]

28. I do not support her for Leader, however this is the right message

[lpbk2713]

18. A big step in the proper direction would be

to cancel the broadcast licenses on most of the hate mongering RW talk radio stations.

They serve no useful purpose. They lie, distort and exaggerate. They use the fear and ignorance of their beguiled listeners to perpetuate their own evil agenda.

The country as a whole would be much better off without them.

[Pachamama]

19. Too bad the right wing has no plans for civility and integrity: Tonight on

MSNBC (I can't remember if it was Scarborough or Hardball - waiting to get and review the transcripts), Pat Buchanan was saying that Pelosi "marches side by side with NAMBLA"...

I couldn't believe my ears!!! So, this is the right wings new plans to destroy Nancy Pelosi, future Majority Leader.

PS: We all know that Pat Buchanan is a nut case - but he still serves the right wing GOP's agenda and making such an outrageous statement about the future Madame Speaker of the House, helps them rally the right wing troops....

[Phredicles]

24. I'd rather heard her promise Impeachment, Settling Scores...

A guy can dream :evilgrin:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

27. But you know the old saying...

When you are knee deep in alligators, it's hard to remember that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

[SoCalDem]

30. I sure do wish the "hopefuls" would just tone it back a few notches

I always worry when people start making presumptions..

Pelosi may not automatically end up speaker if we win control
I wish they would all concentrate on first winning the election, and lastly on how they will divvy up the booty after they dig up the treasure

[humbled_opinion]

31. Civility to those who are not civil, come on Nancy

The GOP would sooner conspire to smear your reputation then work with you in a civil manner, you who have been on the Hill almost two decades should know your opposition by now. Truth is the true measure of a leader. I hope you will speak the truth for us that you represent. I hope you will come through for us and not with civility but with guts let the GOP know who you are. It is time for Strong leadership yes integrity but not civility rather conviction to get this country back on track. Lead the charge to impeach Bush.