Dear Nancy: Stop obstructionist Republicans? What about obstructionist DEMOCRATS? Like YOU?

[Pab Sungenis]

I just got my latest DCCC E-Mail from Nancy Pelosi. I tried not to read it, but sort of like those triple-fatality accidents on the highway, you just can't look away from it.

It's entitled "Stop Obstructionist Republicans." Since she said to "forward our message," I figured I'd post parts of it here, along with the response I'm sending back.

Dear Paul,

Last November, we saw that when Democrats stand together -- Democrats win together.

When I was growing up, Congress was a place where our nation's leaders debated crucial issues and passed legislation to improve the lives of the American people. When I was elected as the first woman Speaker of the House, I committed Congress to restoring those ideals.

I am proud of everything we have accomplished in such a short time. We've taken the critical first steps to making our country safer, improving the lives of working families, better caring for our veterans and finally ending the disastrous war in Iraq. But I need your help to create an even stronger Democratic Majority so we can finish what we've started.

<snip bullshit appeal for money>

That's right, she entitled it "Stop Obstructionist Republicans" and said absolutely nothing about obstructionist Republicans, other than the need to raise money to run against them.

So, here's my reply.

Dear Nancy:

I got your message about "obstructionist Republicans," which said nothing at all about how to fight obstructionist Republicans other than give you more money to beat them.

As the secretary for my County Democratic Committee, who gives his time since he doesn't have much money to give, I feel I have a right to take you to task on this E-Mail.

Nancy, have you ever learned how to count? "Obstructionist Republicans?" I've got news for you. You are in the majority! We elected enough Democrats last year to give you the votes you need to do whatever you want. Period.

Why is nothing getting done? News flash. It's not the obstructionist Republicans who are fouling things up. It's the obstructionist Democrats! People that the DCCC put into office who are only Democrats because they put a "D" after their name instead of an "R" but consistently back the criminals in the White House and on K Street.

You want to end the war? You had the votes to block any funding for it in the House, no matter how many votes we have in the Senate. You could have shot down any of the requests for billions of dollars that Bush made to continue this illegal war. You haven't. You've consistently caved to him.

When the time came to hold the White House and people like Alberto Gonzales accountable for their criminal acts, you said impeachment was off the table, even though a majority of the country and overwhelming majority of your party said that they put you into office just for that purpose: to have real oversight and keep the ultimate penalty on the table.

And if your counterpart in the Senate had half the guts he pretends to, he'd use the Republicans' rhetoric and tactics against them. They threatened the "nuclear option." Now let them taste what it would have been like.

My grandfather once said "if you piss in the well, don't complain when it's your turn to drink." Well, the Republicans used the well as their personal toilet for twelve years, but instead of making them drink, you and Harry have been giving them Evian. The American people elected you to get things done, and you're sitting there, letting them play games instead of bulldozing them like they did you.

Is it any wonder that Congress' approval ratings are even lower than Bush's? It's because you're rolling over and playing dead for Bush instead of being the thin blue line between us and fascism.

The old saying "lead, follow, or get out of the way" comes to mind. You aren't leading, and you don't seem to be willing to follow, so get out of the way. Until you do, don't ever ask me for money. I'll spend what little I have to give and do all the work I can for real Democrats, not people like you.

Thank you,

Paul L. Sungenis.

©2007 P. Sungenis, All Rights Reserved.

[AndyA]

1. That reply pretty much says it all.

I am only giving money to individual candidates that I support. I will not just give money to any blanket Democratic organization for the very reasons you indicated in your letter.

Pelosi and Reid need to figure out (quickly) that their time in the limelight might be short if they don't fulfill some of the demands of those who voted for them. It's a package deal, they got the votes, now they need to prove they can handle the responsibility.

I'm not ready to make nice.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. I know exactly how you feel. It seems a lot of people are feeling the same way.

And I wonder if the Dems are hearing it?

They seems to be in a world of their own. Seperate, apart from the rest of the country.


The CHIP Program is being debated and pushed. I think CHIP is very important. My kids are on CHIP.

Yet I wonder why we are fighting about CHIP with the Repos when we should have a single payer universal fee for service system in place, so we don't have to fight about CHIP every couple of years. Apparently private insurance companies are, ultimatley, more important to the Dems than our kids.

The response is , well we need to elect more Dems.
But how? We don't know if our votes are counted. We do know that apparently private computer code and machines are more important than a transparent system where we can watch the votes beung cast and we can watch them being counted.

I have this sinking feeling that the priorities of the Dems aren't my priorities. I keep getting the feeling that their priorities are closer to the Repos than to mine. And I'm at a loss as to what to do about it.

Should I get out their and fight for priorities that aren't mine, but come with a D? I've done that before. In fact I've done that for years. I'm wondering why I should continue to do that?

[Individualist]

3. K&R

[Schema Thing]

4. Is this true:

"We elected enough Democrats last year to give you the votes you need to do whatever you want. Period."

??

[saracat]

7. Not true.We need a super majority for that!

[Pab Sungenis]

15. No we don't.

Not in the House. Majority rules, no filibuster. The Speaker can advance whatever she wants, and if all the Democrats vote for it, it passes.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. I got the same email and here's how I replied:

End the war.
Impeach bush and cheney.
Then you'll get my money.

[truedelphi]

6. Good one!

Let the DLC Dems attend the opera with the George Schultzes on their own damn dime!

Bad enough that the war gives them so many kickbacks!

[bdamomma]

14. and tell her to get the cotton out of her ears, AND LISTEN TO US!!

[DancingBear]

17. I think my reply made mention of some other candidate

Have to check, though. :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. LOL

:rofl:

[saracat]

8. You seem to have trouble counting .We need a super majority. We need the GOP

to vote with us or it is pointless.All we got in Nov. were committe chairs and to set the agenda , which is a big deal but no guarantee of passing anything! Nancy is right about the obstructionist GOP.

[Pab Sungenis]

16. No...we...don't.

There are NO supermajority rules in the House. It's strict majority rule.

[struggle4progress]

19. Yes ... we ... do. No supermajority, no overriding vetos.

[Pab Sungenis]

22. You can't veto impeachment.

You can't reverse veto a funding bill that is killed by the Democrats.

Period.

[struggle4progress]

29. Conviction after impeachment requires a Senate supermajority, which

will be extremely unlikely until the House prefers charges concerning abuses that enrage the public nearly to apoplexy.

I wouldn't enter the Tango competition until I was pretty sure I wouldn't fall flat my face

[OzarkDem]

25. Only a simple majority in the House

is needed to begin an impeachment investigation. That's the mechanism by which Dems can make their case to the public and gain support for carrying it further or forcing a resignation by the target.

[mzmolly]

9. Can you share how she is "obstructing" other than internet rumor, I have seen nothing to

indicate that.

[struggle4progress]

20. She's not obstructing. She's playing the real game, instead of goofing for the cameras.

[bvar22]

10. K&R

I've stopped all contributions to the DCCC and the DSCC in 2004.
I personally witnessed the DCCC manipulating a congressional Primary Race in Minnesota to favor a beltway approved candidate over a grassroots progressive.

The DCCC has NO BUSINESS in Democratic Primaries.

[pberq]

11. Kick & Nominated

To those who say she needs a super majority - that is no excuse for not standing up for what is right and what benefits the American people rather than the corporate sponsors of the Republicans and the DCCC.

[bdamomma]

12. oh, that was powerfully strong letter, now if more people would send her

letters like that.

[Hawkowl]

13. Nancy is WEAK

Ironically, Pelosi is trying to "set the agenda" and "accomplish something" to appear strong. But she is achieving exactly the opposite by running from every single fight to hold this fascist administration accountable. Impeachment is off the table and so are deadlines, benchmarks, guideposts, or even recommendations about pulling out of Iraq.

Pelosi is the weakest lapdog, toothless poodle of Speaker we've had in generations. WEAK!
She whines about how they don't have the votes for impeachment and it'll take too long, (simper, whine).
I've got news for you Nancy, you don't really have the votes to pass much of anything! because you can't override a veto. So you might as well do impeachment first, blow up the roadblock and then you might get on with actually accomplishing something.

I'm disgusted with our democratic leadership. Disgusted and ashamed.

[dkofos]

18. I'm with you

[LittleClarkie]

24. And you think impeachment will be any more effective?

How does she stack up against O'Neill? How was his record? Was anyone calling for Reagan's impeachment?

I suppose we should get a big strong man in there, eh?

[onenote]

28. And how, exactly, does Nancy get the Blue Dogs to support impeachment

[Harry Monroe]

31. What you said...

I completely agree with you!!
AMEN!!!

[LittleClarkie]

21. Well, yeah, the idea is to have less Republicans

so they can't filibuster absolutely everything.

[Pab Sungenis]

23. There is no filibuster in the House.

Nancy can pass anything she wants to.

She just doesn't want to.

[LittleClarkie]

26. Sorry, I was reacting to "obstructionist Republicans"

Wasn't thinking of the House per se.

[onenote]

27. "elected enough Democrats last year to give you the votes you need to do whatever you want. Period"

Uhhh.. If that's what "we" did, we did it rather badly. "We" elected several dozen Blue Dog Democrats who only the most naieve person in the universe could think have as their agenda giving Pelosi the votes to do whatever she wants. The Democratic majority in the House is made up of Democrats of all stripes -- progressives, moderates, even conservatives. And while there would be no Democratic majority without the progressives, neither would there be a Democratic majority without the Blue Dogs. So it takes consensus to act. Whether the Speaker was Nancy Pelosi, Dennis Kucinich or the man in the moon the situation would be the same -- the speaker doesn't have the votes to do whatever he/she wants. The Speaker has the votes to do what a consensus body of very diverse Democratic congress critters wants.