Scarecrow @ Firedoglake: Questions For Dems (Why Don't They Use Majority Power More Effectively?)

[Hissyspit]

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/27/morning-cuppa-chat-with-nancy/

Questions for Democratic Leaders
By Scarecrow on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:15 am

Senate Democrats all claim there is nothing they can accomplish unless they have 60 votes in favor, or in the case of a threatened veto, 67 votes.

- snip -

I understand Rangel’s point. But I am surprised that House Democrats see themselves as essentially helpless against this blackmail, with no power to influence the outcome.

Under the Constitution, all appropriation bills must arise in the House. No monies can be appropriated for any federally funded project — including earmarks or “pork” — unless authorized by bills initiated or approved in the Democratic House. That’s power. But I haven’t heard a peep from Republicans complaining about their pet projects being held up.

- snip -

The same thing is happening again with proposals to make permanent changes to FISA. Once again, the Administration, abetted by Democrats, is making outrageous demands — immunity for its own criminal authorizations and for the telecoms who complied — plus expansions of their warrantless powers — the permanent gutting of FISA and independent oversight. But Democrats are not demanding information about the actual surveillance programs, and they’re still relying on closed sessions with DNI McConnell, who has already lied to them about how necessary the changes are.

The progressive community has been pleading with the Democratic leadership to stand up to this thuggery and to take seriously the mandate they were given last November. We’re not asking Democrats to become thugs; we’re asking them to stop allowing themselves — and the American people — to be mugged. Our reward has been too many Democrats voting to condemn MoveOn’s ad, thus indirectly mugging their own party members.

Given this abysmal behavior, no one should be surprised when the once faithful respond by withholding money from their Senate/Congressional campaign committees. Progressives are urging everyone to channel their contributions away from those who betray them, to those who stand up and fight back.

Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Harry Reid has explained why the Democratic leadership cannot use the power of the majority to more carefully control what does and does not emerge from the House and Senate. Voting for SCHIP is relatively easy, but what will they do on issues that require more political courage and arm twisting, like the Lieberman-Kyl Iran war resolution (too late!) or more discipline in saying no to gutting FISA or demanding honest facts and justification? Where/what is their game?

MORE

[sam sarrha]

1. the jury is still out on this one, but people are getting fed up, they will lose their base trying

not to piss of the fascists.. maybe they have a plan.. but it doesnt look like it.. get tough or get beat up by the bullies

[European Socialist]

2. Reid and Pelosi should step aside and give the jobs to people..

who won't get pushed around so easily.

[Ganja Ninja]

8. I wholeheartedly agree.

The Move On and Lieberman/Kyl resolutions should have never made it out of committee. If the situation were reversed and the GOP were in charge they would never allow stuff like this. They would have killed them off before they ever got to the floor.
The Democratic leadership in both houses is lame.

[Coexist]

9. actually, I think the whips need to be replaced.

It is their job.

[OHdem10]

3. Could it be something so simple as--

They have the majority in number of Democrats: however, the
party does not have a set of guding principles; therefore
Conservative Democrats determidly go their own way triangulating
with GOP while Democrats who lean more liberal are left
in the lurch. Conservative Democrats=DLC and Blue Dogs.


Consensus is an oxzymoron in this situation.
Leadership has to do some unpopular things in order to
be effective.

You have to hand it to GOP, -- as unpopular as the War and
GWB are, they hang in their to thwart any Democratic Progress.
Yes, they play hardball politics. At some point our Leaders
are going to have to lay down some markers amd demand some
cooperation. Teilling members they can vote their conscience
indeed sounds noble---but they are getting their heads handed
to them.

[MrCoffee]

5. unpopular? ok, i'll give you that. but unconstitutional?

how can anyone defend the PAA?

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Dare I say it's as simple as Joe?

As in, Lieberman?

As in, it could be that behind the scenes he's made it crystal clear that if such-and-such happens, he's taking his ball and bat and becoming a Republican? And that we don't have a friendly Gooper (e.g., Snowe or Hagel) who'll agree to switch to us if that happens?

I bring this up from time to time, and I think it may play a heftier role than many recognize. All it takes is for one guy to switch from either "D" or in Joe's case "I" to "R" and the Senate committee chairs go away.

Of course the logical follow up question is, what good are such committee chairs if the GOP effectively calls the shots anyway?

[yurbud]

7. yep--Chamber of Commerce Dems hearts are really with GOP. We really need 3 parties:

progressive, religious right, and corporate. If they were defined that way, the corporate whore party would get the fate they deserve and wither away and die.

[yurbud]

4. they agree with GOP on issues of trade & war & peace. All else is window dressing

[Robbien]

10. Dems don't have the majority. The DLC/BlueDogs side with the GOP

So really the Democratic party is the minority party.