Does ANYONE understand the value of the control of the Committees

[LynneSin]

I'm sick and tired of these people at DU who vote based on FLOOR votes and make decisions based on FLOOR votes without once considering the amazing power of what a real democratic majority means to us in DC. It's not about the fricking floor votes - it's about the committees.

Were you upset about the votes for Roberts and Alito? Guess what - so was I. Plus we had that dumbass "Gang of 14" to fight too.

But the certain clueless people here assume that even with a democratic majority we'd still get stuck with the likes of Roberts and Alito. When I read that kind of CRAP (and that's what it is) I know that obviously the poster never considered that having the majority means we probably won't have to worry about filibuster or andy floor votes: BECAUSE ACTIVIST JUDGES IN A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DON'T GET THE VOTES NEEDED TO EVER HAVE THEIR NOMINATION MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE AND ON TO A FLOOR VOTE

Look at the record of Patrick Leahy's Judiciary committee back in 2001-2 when approximately 10 of the worst judges appointed by Bush never got out of committee because our Judicial Dems stuck together and opposed them. All we had to worry about was the vote of 8 senators and NOT the vote of 50. And not just anyone gets on Judiciary - compare the list of "Gang of 14" vs. the Judicary Committee Democrats and you'll find that they are NOT the same people. And believe me - they won't ever be either.

If you don't want John Conyers with the power of SUBPOENA knowing that he'll have the majority of votes in committee to issue one then please - keep the democrats in the majority and keep your pride of "I won't vote for bad democrats" because when you post like that it means to me you don't want Conyers the very powerful position of House Judiciary Committee or Henry Waxman the Chair of Government Reform.

<<shakes head>>

It's more than a handful of floor votes we're fighting for - way way much more than that. Open your eyes!

EDIT NOTE:

And finally it was a democratic committee chair back in June of 2001 that finally said his committee would investigate the energy crisis of Californa when the prices were skyrocketing and Bush refused to do anything because it was "none of my business". From that committee's hearing we learned that the energy companies were in cahoots manipulating the deregulation policy in California to their financial gain. Soon after the prices came back down in price and Enron went belly up since they didn't make enough money to fix their cooked books. Ironically that chairperson and committee - The Senate Government Affairs Committee and the chair was Joe Lieberman. Proof that a even bad democrats can make a difference

[Paulie]

1. Yes

The floor vote is the record. If they are going to be weak on the floor, how can we trust them to be strong in committee???

[LynneSin]

4. If we have to examine all democrats then you're right but then we lose

Because there are too many out there now poised for committee majority chair if only we can give them a democratic majority. And if people like John Murtha, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Edward Kennedy, Russ Feingold can't be trusted then that's really sad.

It's easier to influence a small group of 10-12 then the entire group.

Anyhow, I feel that the work someone has done in committee as way more important because it's more than votes - it's the williness to investigate what is wrong

[Ken Burch]

18. We agree that committee chairs matter...

What is your point here, though? We shouldn't ask ANYTHING of our own party's incumbents and challengers?

[emulatorloo]

8. So you are telling me that John Conyers would make a terrible committee

chair? Give me a break -- do a little research into the repug committee chairs are and HOW DEPLORABLE thier actions are, and then some research on who the ranking Dems are on those committees. There are some very very capable Dems ready to step up to the plate WHEN WE WIN A MAJORITY.

[LynneSin]

10. Well you know we can all trust James Sensenbrenner!!!!

:eyes:

[benburch]

2. I do.

This is war.

The committees are the high ground.

If you do not control the high ground you nearly always lose.

I'm sick of losing,

I want to see a river of GOP blood on the floor of Congress each and every vote.

[LynneSin]

5. A majority means we can not only have the hearings but...

...we can then subpoena the witnesses we need. Conyers has tried his best to hold hearings even though they were not much more than a group of democrats in a tiny utility room with mainly one-sided witnesses. But as a committee chairman he has the power to subpoena those witnesses we need to solidify our cases, the ones that would prefer not testifying in front of the House Judicary Committee

[benburch]

6. And we can gavel shut meetings we don't like the outcome of, too!

Oh, OOOPS! That's what THEY do.

[LynneSin]

9. Good one

:rofl:

[Ken Burch]

19. The other arguement is, do those committee chairs mean so much

That there worth tolerating Democratic seats being held by so many DINO's that actual Democratic Legislation never gets passed?

Are liberal hearings worth conservative policy?

[mcar]

22. Controlling the high ground

The perfect way to put it!

[emulatorloo]

3. Yes, I do. And I would vote for a Million "DINOs" to be rid of PAT ROBERTS

The sleazy Repug chair of the intelligence committee who has done nothing in his tenure other than COVER UP FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

[LynneSin]

7. Pat Roberts, Intelligence Committee Chair - what a fricking oxymoran!

How about John Rockefeller as chair instead - which btw, that committee includes Russ Feingold

[LynneSin]

11. Let me paint a picture for you

I want a better democratic party but I ask myself for this election cycle "At What Price". My argument is that we need committee control but when I post that it's common that someone will point out that "If we can't trust them now how can we trust them to do the right thing in committee".

So here's the picture that we paint and I'm just going to use the Senate for now. Let's say that in order for us to get the Senate Majority it means that we have to win every race no matter how bad of a democrat and overall we'll have about 10 really bad democratic senators to deal with in order to get the 51 seats needed for a majority.

And of those 10 really bad senators (and this is an estimation - no list), perhaps 5 of them are high enough in the party to be worthy of a committee chair seat which means now we have bad democrats who could end up doing no better than the republican who ran the committee before them.

But what you don't realize is there are 21 Senate Committees, 4 Special Committees and 4 Joint Committees - so there are plenty of seats to be spread around. And some committees are of higher importance that only certain senators will actually be allowed to serve (Judiciary, Appropriation and Foreign Affairs comes to mind.) Best example is that you'll probably never see an anti-choice democrat or any of those "Gang of 14" dems ever on the Judiciary committee. But even with all of this, some of those bad democrats will end up on committees and possibly cause some damage.

But worst case scenarios is perhaps 25-50% of our committees actually function properly because of the 10 bad democrats doing what they can to thwart the party.

My question is this - at even 25-50% effectiveness (and just for this election cycle) isn't that still better than what we have now?

I don't know about you, but I would rather start with this and then keep working each year to improve that number instead of this "All or Nothing" mentality that I find around here. This isn't a game of chance where we hold out for the perfect democratic congress or we take our ball and go home. This is reality and we need SOMETHING in DC to start working even if it's just 5-6 committees actually doing their job.

Mind you, I've painted worst case scenario. Democratic leadership will do their best to ensure that democrats are matched with committees where they can be most effective

[Ken Burch]

20. How does this play out with the Lieberman situation, now that Lieberman

has declared that he will be disloyal to the party if he loses the primary?

Would you say that the Connecticut Dems should give in to the arrogance and the blackmail and renominate him against their will?

[robinlynne]

12. I think you're right, although I never looked at it that way.

But without honest elections, that is but a dream.

[LynneSin]

13. even more reason to vote democratic

The more votes we can get the harder it will be to fix it without it looking obvious

[robinlynne]

17. I don't think so. I think it is already quite obvious.

I think getting more people to vote will fix it is a myth.
look at what is happening in san deigo.
one little precinct. easy to count. They are doing everything and then some to not count that vote.
(see bradblog's post today.)
If we cannot get one race in one precinct correctly counted, where we have proof that the election was illegally held, what hope is there for november?
RFK Jr started his first lawsuit today and the AG gagged him for 60 days.

[DeepModem Mom]

14. K&R

[MrBenchley]

15. Great post!

[Vidar]

16. Agreed.

[Zhade]

21. Of course. I'm just not convinced the argument succeeds.

There is no guarantee that conservative Dems will vote for the Conyers and Kennedys the way WE would if in their place.

[welshTerrier2]

23. more of the same ...

the OP is certainly one of DU's articulate and forceful writers ... and the same case is made, over and over and over and over and over, about why Dems should vote this way or why some DU'ers are "clueless" because they want to hold their reps accountable ...

there's plenty of reasons to vote FOR Democrats ... the OP argument that we will have committee chairs, is only one such argument ... the subpoena power argument and the right to call hearings is also huge ...

so you see, for all the venom in the OP, i don't disagree with any of these points ...

still, i will NOT be voting for or supporting in any way any Iraq war enablers and that includes the entire Democratic Senate at this time ... i hope that changes before election time ...

i guess it's naive to expect our party leaders and our elected reps to actually build any unity among the divergent views on this issue when we seem to make ABSOLUTELY NO PROGRESS ourselves even here on DU ... frankly, what the hell is the point of the OP??? instead of looking for healing, all it does is divide ... that's what i see as wrong with it ...

you lefty jerks are clueless ... oh yeah? well, you righty jerks are clueless ... wonderful ... and this helps the party, and the country, exactly how?

to make a strong case about why those who are disenchanted with the party should vote a straight ticket is perfectly legitimate; to think the pile of insults that often gets tacked on to making this case will EVER be effective is absurd ...

if anyone really gives a damn about making an effective case, the necessary strategy has two components that includes: 1. all the OP arguments about the benefits of gaining control BUT ALSO: 2. a call for respecting "alienated Democrats" by calling for a meaningful exchange of ideas within the party and a sharing of power ...

put simply, the OP is absolutely useless because it fails part II of the strategy ... and this does NOT mean that voters who will not vote for Democrats for one reason or another are necessarily right for making that decision ... that view badly misses the point!!! it's not that these voters are right or wrong at all; it's that they have a right to vote as they choose and the party should do all it can to be as inclusive as possible ... when you call for that, and you recognize more effective techniques to earn the votes of ALL Democrats, then and only then will you have my support ...

we are failing on DU because we continue to have this same lame discussion, from both the left and the right, and we seem to enjoy the skewering more than working towards the ultimate goals we should be pursuing ...