Should Dems talk about investigations pre-election, or just do it after?

[dajoki]

Slate
http://www.slate.com/id/2141282?nav=wp

Nancy Pelosi, Super-Genius
The House minority leader answers the GOP's prayers.

By John Dickerson
Posted Monday, May 8, 2006, at 1:43 PM ET

Elizabeth Dole sounded desperate last week. Trying to inspire dispirited Republicans, the head of the party's Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote a fund-raising letter urging the GOP faithful to rally, because if Democrats seize power they will "call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush." It's a sad truth of politics that if you can't inspire your voters with a positive vision, you scare them.

But then along came House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to say that, yes, Sen. Dole is exactly right. In a Washington Post interview, Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls. It was Contract With America lite—a point-by-point articulation meant to show what the party stands for and demonstrate that she and other Democratic leaders were actual adults. Then, as if to kill her plans in the same interview in which she was hatching them, Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure.

When Russ Feingold called for censuring the president a month ago, it seemed like a smart political move precisely because he wasn't a Democratic party leader. He was speaking for a vital wing of the party but allowing Democratic leaders to distance themselves from him. But Pelosi is the Democratic leader. Republican claims that Democrats would launch a wave of investigations like the GOP-style ones of the 1990s suddenly seem credible. Those GOP inquiries reached their absurd apogee when Rep. Dan Burton shot a pumpkin in his backyard in an at-home investigation into former Clinton adviser Vince Foster's suicide. "I don't think you'll see anyone shooting into pumpkins anytime soon," said Democratic strategist Joe Lockhart weeks ago when I asked him about the Feingold censure move.

But now, thanks to Pelosi, it may be time to start worrying about long-term pumpkin health. It is important to investigate the ways the Bush administration has used and abused its executive power, but it is much more important not to talk about those investigations when you're trying to launch your policy agenda. It's unbelievably tactically stupid. Perhaps Pelosi couldn't have stayed completely mum on the topic, but she could have given some bland answer about Congress needing to play its oversight role and then returned to her positive agenda items. (She tried to backtrack on Meet the Press and failed.) Republicans, and Karl Rove in particular, want to paint Democratic leaders as cartoon Ahabs fixated on taking down George Bush, so why would you promise that you're going to turn the House into the Pequod?

[acmavm]

1. Oh right, like if she'd have denied it everyone wouldn't have

known that she was lying her ass off.

Hell yes dems intend to investigate. No bout adout it!!

[endarkenment]

2. This is how we will try to lose an election that we can't lose.

"it is much more important not to talk about those investigations when you're trying to launch your policy agenda"

BULLSHIT. If we make the 06 elections a referendum on criminal corruption and incompetence we will win. If our cabal of beltway professional losers talk us into making the 06 election about program and policy differences between corporate friendly Democrats and corporate friendly Republicans, we could actually manage to not win.

[truebrit71]

4. BINGO!!!

We need to say it loud and proud, "We are here to take back the People's House for the People"...

If the republicans have done nothing wrong, what's wrong with multiple investigations? I thought innocent people didn't have anything to worry about...or that was the logic floated when the illegal wire-tapping story first broke right? :evilgrin:

I say fuck 'em, "BRING IT ON!"

[HereSince1628]

6. I think I agree with you...

If the Dems are lucky they will get a slim majority in one of the chamber.

Consequently, a Dem agenda can be campaigned on, but a DEM agenda CANNOT BE MADE A REALITY via control of only one chamber. It will only provide leverage for better compromises.

Moreover, Bush has to sign anything passed into law even if the Dems have both chambers they are unlikely to be veto proof. Although Bush probably won't veto anything, he probably would if it came from a Democratic senate and a Democratic House. Not withstanding his heavy use of the signing statement makes meaningful efforts to establish oversight pointless.

It's been my experience of over half a century that off-year elections generally ARE referendums on the Executive's programs. This president's programs ARE NOT popular, the only reason the Congress has lower marks the he does is because they do next to nothing to check the president's progress down the wrong path.

The Democrats can run on the issue of getting beyond rubber-stamping bad policies and re-establishing over-sight. They can run against the corruption that resulted from too much power in Republican hands. The can run on re-establishing fiscal discipline via responsible budget bills.

If the Democrats _gain control of a single branch of the legislature_ they actually can move that agenda forward. Now I'm not saying it's necessary to run on impeaching the president, but I think it would be a damned good thing to run on re-establishing aforesaid responsibility in the legislative branch. That will certainly mean throwing out at least one chambers set of rubber stamps. And it will probably bring on many investigations to establish information needed for real oversight.

[incapsulated]

3. Never give your enemy your battle plans

I agree. And don't help Rove, either.

[Mz Pip]

5. Don't fire until you

see the whites of their eyes.

Of course we'll be investigating. We don't need to tell them that we are. We need to take a page from Pat Fitzgerald's playbook. No leaks, no public comments. Keep them guessing and off balance.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[dajoki]

8. Yeah...

I kinda worry about a backlash if we only talk about impeachment and investigations.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. This all mirrors 1994 to a T

This is the exact gameplan Republicans used leading up to "Contract with America". It didn't hurt them and it's sure as hell not going to hurt us.

[FrenchieCat]

9. She was Damned......Pelosi, that is.....

When she didn't say "Investigations and Impeachment", the left got mad...

When she said "Investigations and Impeachment", the Right foams indignantly at mouth.

Maybe that's why in the end, it was hard to make out what she was saying.....maybe she was smarter than we give her credit for.

Howard Dean said Investigations but no thought of impeachment too on THIS Week, and he's the DNC Chairman.....

[leftofthedial]

10. investigations, hell

we need executions, and lots of them

[ChrisdemW]

11. I think Dems should get the message honed

and focus on that message. I don't know anybody who decides to run out and vote because of an investigation.

I think that just makes them park themselve in a chair glued to the news. I'd rather get people to a meetup or do just about any type of thing not just hope investigations will win elections.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[w8liftinglady]

13. let the talking heads take the heat-and keep the idea fresh..

we really need to stick to the mainstream issues for 2006-economy,oil,iraq...to attract the crossover voters...then we stick it to them

[dajoki]

14. I feel you are right on target n/t