About Some Lies My Democrats Told Me

Something is seriously wrong. The pollsters tell us a majority of Americans opposes George Bush's war on Iraq. The one poll that counts--the 2006 Congressional Elections--gave the Democrats a majority in both houses of Congress, with the apparent intent of replacing the rubber stamp Republican Congress with one that would restrain the President and bring his war to an end. Nine months have passed since this new Congress was seated, and the Democrats have delivered--nothing? No, not exactly nothing: they have propelled us a few miles further up the road to instutionalizing a mind- numbingly duplicitous public discourse.

Why does the Democratic Congress not stop the war? Nancy Pelosi tells us it's because the Senate can't act, and if it did, neither house would have the votes to override a presidential veto. Harry Reid says, he's tried, but the Senate doesn't have the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. He and Senator Levin tell us that to get those votes we must persuade a few more Republicans (Senator Lieberman being presumably beyond persuasion of any kind) by offering bills them the opportunity to endorse a bill that would have no effect on the conduct of the war. We thus have a national debate about how best to give the President's Congressional abettors the cover they need to continue evading the expressed will of the voters.

The continuing waste of lives and treasure is intolerable; yet the premise that Congress is dysfunctional because the majority party cannot effectively change policy goes unexamined--despite being arrant nonsense.

Take the filibuster first. We need a correction here. The Republicans did not block Senators Webb's and Hegel's attempt to support the troops by demanding they not be left indefinitely in a combat zone, with no predictable rotation home, nor any other recent Democratic initiative with a filibuster. Rather they blocked these moves with the threat of a filibuster. Under current practice a cloture vote is scheduled and if it fails the matter is, at least temporarily withdrawn. A filibuster, on the contrary, requires the physical stamina, organization, and public scrutiny of an interminable senate debate.

This behavior on the part of the Democratic majority corrupts public discourse. I need an explanation: Mr. Reid,Why don't you make them filibuster--give us the public spectacle of Democrats trying to stop the war while Republicans stand (the rules require them to stand) in the Senate--day and night--reciting Shakespeare or reading recipes into the Congressional Record as Huey Long was wont to do? Let them break Strom Thurmond's record 24 hours and 18 minutes of non-stop bloviation against the Civil Rights act of 1957. You did it symbolically--keeping the Senate in session for one night not long ago. That was a good start, but the death and destruction in Iraq, the erosion of the rule of law at home, the bankrupting of the economy and the corruption of public debate are not symbolic. These on-going travesties need to be confronted substantively.

If you need to refresh your memory Senator Reid, you might consult the Congressional Research Service's useful report "Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate", produced in 2003, when Republican's thought the filibuster an apt target for a nuclear strike, Here's a telling paragraph:

Contemporary filibusters usually are fairly courteous affairs. The Senate's daily schedule normally is arranged so that filibusters are not unduly disruptive or inconvenient to Senators. One way to make conducting a filibuster more costly and difficult is to keep the Senate in session until late at night, or even all night, requiring the participating Senators to speak or otherwise consume the Senate's time. During some contentious filibusters of the 1950s, cots were brought into the Senate's anterooms for Senators to use during around-the-clock sessions.

Maybe courtesy isn't all it's cracked up to be. The troops you so gallantly support have been known to miss sleep and hot meals; they don't get home for holidays and summer recesses. Would it be too discourteous to keep the Senate in session looking for a way out, so they can stop being blown up and shot at?

Of course, making the Republicans actually filibuster, rather than taking their stated intent for the action, would cause the business of the Senate to grind to halt--and so it should. What are you doing that's more important than ending the carnage in Iraq and restoring constitutional government in the United States?

Ms. Pelosi has an easier time in the House. She can pass a bill now and then and let it die in the Senate. But this too is an absurd evasion. It is George Bush who needs to fund his war. The Democrats don't have to pass anything; they need only to prevent passage of appropriations. Ms. Pelosi, you know as well as anyone that your majority in the House can do that on its own. The Senate can neither pass nor kill an appropriation you don't send them. You can stop the administration in its tracks; just shut down its funding. I know it didn't work out well when Newt Gingrich brought the government to a halt in a fit of pique over the seating arrangements on Air Force One. Is your contempt for the electorate so great that you really think we can't distinguish between that and an illegal and futile war? The mind boggles.

If the Congressional Democrats were serious about the substance of what the President and his party had wrought upon us, business as usual would stop dead, and that would be a good thing. Because when real people are dying real deaths for no moral purpose, the wheels ought to cease to turn until something is done about it.

So what is up with the Democrats? Are they more at ease with the Administration's purposes than the public at large? Is there something they aren't telling us? Or are they really so out of touch with life as others live it that they don't even see the dissonance between their own interests and the (not-at-all symbolic) bloody mess they are stepping in?

Comments

[Poboy]

CBS has no more credibility, especially after Scott Pelley's interview with Iran's president on 60 Minutes.

Ahmadinejad had to remind CBS that he was the president of Iran.

[scooperss]

"What are you doing that's more important than ending the carnage in Iraq and restoring constitutional government in the United States?"

Someone has to name all those post offices and buildings don't they? AND BOY IT SURE TAKES A LONG TIME TO CONDEMN AN AD.
But I think congress is busiest when it's giving speeches on the floor.

All that and so much more that you and I consider trivial is VITAL to congress.

[AlaskaMad]

I've been saying pretty much the same things as Mr. Grossman and many of the people who have left comments heres ince last November. My audience is limited to my wife and dogs though. I've also been asking why Ms. Pelosi has taken impeachment off the table. At least she could initiate the process of impeachment. The Repugs impeached Clinton for a blow job from one woman. Bush has sodomized every American and Congress is supplying the Vaseline!
AND someone needs to get MSM to stop saying it's the Democrats not being able to get things done, BUT THE REPUBLICANS BLOCKING their efforts. The Democrats need to keep calling for votes on efforts to stop the war and when it doesn't go through BLAME the REPUBLICANS and the President for allowing it to continue.

[scooperss]

No the dems need to call the republicans bluff and FORCE them to have a real filibuster. Bring in the cots and make the republican stay there as long as needed.

The media will HAVE to report the filibuster as the dems trying to force the obstructionist republicans into doing what the American people want.

[howdouno]

Perhaps because leaving Iraq might lead to a terrible loss of thousands of lives - broadcast on television worldwide - and a jihadist victory. Do Democrats want to sponsor a live-Rwanda style genocide for international television audiences and give Osama Bin Laden his greatest victory in one day?
That might be why more sensible and serious minds in both parties are trying to find a way to leave Iraq without evoking memories of helicopters leaving Saigon and the killing fields of Cambodia.
Personally, I like the idea of holding two national referendums in Iraq. Do you want American soldiers to go? If they vote yes, we can leave. The second referendum should be on dividing the country into three "federated" regions. Honoring the election results would both save face and illuminate our committment to making government respond to voters. In the long run, democracy holds more opportunities than theocracy for the region - and more Arabs will recognize that fact.
Finally, we might want to hold a referendum here in the United States before we committ ourselves to another war or any major treaty. It's an old, but forgotten, progressive idea from before World War I. Perhaps we can dust that idea off too.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"The Republicans did not block ... with a filibuster. Rather they blocked these moves with the threat of a filibuster."

The MSM has not spoken truthfully about this, and thank you for doing so.

The Democrats are not limited to the choices highlighted in the MSM.

They could look at one more. Adopt PAYGO. Under Bush's spend-and-tax policy, Bush has already spent the money. It was his choice. His choice will inevitably result in more taxes.

The Democrats could rightfully blame Bush for the occupation. If they want to end it, they could agree to all future funding but condition the funding with a PAYGO system so that the top two-percent will pay for it.

If you make the top two-percent pay for the occupation, they will end it.

[Poboy]

Here is where Americans should have been paying attention in their civics classes.

Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives MUST originate all money bills.

If the House does not want supplemental funding for the Iraq war, then there is NO FUNDING.

END OF STORY!

[baylaw73]

And the right-wing machine accuses them of stranding our troops in Iraq, surrendering to the terrorists, supporting the terrorists, abandoning the Iraqis, being weak on defense, etc.
Then, there's the part about the Democrats being the other side of the one party that rules this country in the interest of big money. There's too much money being made in Iraq to give up, and no one, D or R who meaningfully stands in the way will be spared the wrath of the money interests. Face it folks, there is no opposition party in this country. The GOP leans so far to the right that the Dems look like the liberal party. But they aren't. Obviously, there are exceptions to the general propositon I put forth (e.g., Kucinich). Of course, he's marginalized and ridiculed by the establishment. But on the whole, big money runs this country, and hoping the Dems rescue the other 98% of us is like waiting for a dead Jewish prophet to come back and take us up to heaven. It's just stupid.

[beanie]

There is not a significant difference between the Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to the Iraq misadventure. The reasons why are being debated endlessly and disingenuously (and will continue to be).

However, it is painfully obvious that neither political party truly agrees with the majority of the American electorate. The two parties are responsive to their true benefactors, the economic elite. Short-term economic interests continue to trump the morality and best long-term interests of our country.

Nothing can be done to deter Bush and the Republican party. The Iraq issue is a perfect fit for them. They cannot and will not lose this debate. The Democratic party will not win the debate, despite having the most rational and eloquent debating points.

Action (not words) to stop and reverse the Iraq misadventure will start in 2009 with a Democratic administration. A slight majority of voting Americans (approx. 60% of the eligible electorate) will pin their hopes on a Democratic Party that really does not deserve their confidence.

[realitytrumpsbull]

That's why we need the Independents, now more than ever, to get some clear-headed thinking
happening, bust up the payola party, and help
make way for some ground-up reforms, especially and specifically in the area of spending.
I think both parties basically decided at some
point to stop listening to the public, and have
permanently jumped in bed with their respective
special interests, which kind of points to a
generally diminished value to the old ballot, there.

But, you neglect the public at your peril,
and if sufficient people decide it's time for
recall elections, then there'll be an 'under new management' sign on the door, one way or another...

9 trillion in red ink, and that number only promises to get higher...

[Qbear]

My patience with the Congressional Democrats has run out. If they don't begin some serious knock down drag out fighting to end the War, then Democrats will have an uglier Convention than Chicago '68.
For the life of me I can't imagine the Representatives and Senators aren't being bombarded daily with RAGEFUL emails, calls, and letters. What building has to fall on these people to get their attention?

[Tellmethetruth]

What has changed since March 03 and September 07 is the American people know the war was about oil. Is everyone okeh with that as a motive to invade Iraq?

Some people are. A lot of Democrats and Republicans both. No we know, we aren't finished pilaging the oil. So, that means there is no hurry to withdraw troops except for one problem. Our troups can't take it anymore.

So that means bring back the draft. Is everyone okeh with that?

This does explain the statemate in Congress - Democrats want the oil as much as the Republicans so the Democrats will re-instate the draft. The war will go on...

No impeachment of Bush and Cheney. No ending the funding to the war. More debt. The draft will be the next debate. We need the war and the oil to keep the US economy going. Otherwise we have a collapse.

Is there another picture here?

[NoFactsJustTruth]

No,... I think you had it right the first time, they've delivered ...NOTHING.


Leopards changing their spots, and all that...

[CarmanK]

The Democrats are too busy trying to pass "Amnesty for illegal immigrants", child health care legislation that will be vetoed by Bush as fiscally irresponsible, and a farm bill with outrageous subsidies to multinationals. Remember people its not what you say, it's what people hear and right now they are hearing-do nothing democrats, democratic whimps, choose to lose, rule of law has no real meaning, our borders are wide open and Calderon is conducting US policy, trade agreements are unfair, but the Dems aren't doing anything to change any of these perceptions. How come??

[Plowboy]

IF they were serious ... Oh, boy, that is one big bad IF, but sorry I don't think they qualify.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Unfortunately they are very afraid of the smear to come afterward. They know the rethugs will stand up and cry, I'm sorry SHOUT that the dems do not care for the troops! And rather than fight back with the truth, they'd rather just avoid the whole issue.

Dems, if you are out there reading this...

STOP THE FUNDING NOW!

[Scarabus]

Absolutely! It is essential that public business be conducted in public, not behind closed doors. It is unthinkable that a statesman or stateswoman would not be eager, let alone willing, to foreground his or her position on an issue as important as supporting the troops (Webb's bill) or, to the contrary, wasting the lives of the troops and the troops' families (those who opposed the bill).

If you believe it, then shout it, sign it with your name, and attach your photo. If you don't believe it, then shut up and don't vote it. It's not a political game. It's about the lives of countless numbers of innocent persons.

If Republicans are determined to abandon and abuse our troops, to destroy the lives of our troops and their families, they should be forced at the very least to stand up in public, to fillibuster continually, to show the world how little they value the lives of Americans and Iraqis. This is far, far too important a matter to be settled via cloakroom politicking. This is a time when men and women of character should stand up, shout out, make their positions and their votes known.

In short, this is not a game. The whole world will be watching, and the names and faces of those responsible for wasting the lives of Americans as well as Iraqis will be known now and forever, throughout history.

[iburl]

Great article, Marshall Grossman!

This Congress simply assumes that it can ignore the PRIMARY reponsibility of the CO-EQUAL Legislative Branch, which is to enforce the US Constitution.

Impeach Bush and Cheney.

Start the trials now! That might seduce just enough "Undecideds" (which are mostly "Disgusteds," in truth) who hate the ruination of our counry at the hands of these plutocratic, cleptocratic, croneycratic, despotic "Unitary Executive Theory" weilding oil-warlords, to tip the scales to "50/50 Hillary"!

Impeachment is the ONLY way you can stop this war, short of cutting off the funding, which you are AFRAID to do. WHY is impeachment off the table, in the face of High crimes and misdemeanors on the parts of both Bush and Cheney?

Nancy, could you give the US Constitution a quick read before you go to your next fundraising meeting? You're not really just there to win elections, you're there lead a co-equal branch of govenment. One that SHOULD take offense at the laws of our country, Congress' laws, constantly being INGORED and simply signed away by a criminal who has lied about wiretapping, lied to start a war, and, among other things, lied about the end of a war. Impeachment for violations of the FISA law won't be quite as easy to sell to the public as an Oval Office BJ, but then, what could be?

Nancy, you are cementing the legacy of the Democratic party, and it is a legacy of being the doormat/shill for the Republicans. We don't want to wait until a couple of days after the next election to find out that "50/50 Hillary" has flubbed another one, and in a recount, in a swing state with a corrupt Republican elections supervisor, we lose by a hair again.

IMPEACHMENT NOW!

P.S. Harry, why did you let the Cornyn/Limbaugh moveon.org amendment go to a vote? Do you realizing how devistating that was for your base? Do you have any freaking idea of the chaos that stupid "sense of the senate" is wreaking in your base?