The Democrats in Congress have a lower approval rating than George Bush despite the fact that the Democrats have not broken any laws, tortured any prisoners, or stripped away the rights of any citizens. The reason is not too surprising - the Democrats were elected by a majority of Americans to investigate the reasons for going to war, and to begin undoing the mess that Bush and Cheney have put us in. But so far, the Democrats in Congress have resisted doing the hard things that are necessary to hold the administration accountable for their malfeasance.
What are the major reasons for the Democrats reticence?
The first is money. The Democrats are just as dependent on donations from large corporations whose lobbyists are swarming Washington like locust in a wheat field. Many of these corporations are defense manufacturers and contractors, and they are not about to let Democrats spoil their military contract gravy train. Even liberal Democrats like Ted Kennedy are putting multi-million dollar earmarks into bills to keep the money flowing to their donors. If the Democrats push an anti-war agenda too hard, they will lose all monetary support from the defense industry.
But that doesn’t explain the lack of investigations aimed at possible impeachment charges against Cheney and Bush. Theoretically, they could pursue impeachment while still funding the military, thus not jeopardizing their friendly connections to the military industrial complex.
I believe that the primary reasons for the lack of impeachment proceedings are a combination of concern about being perceived as too partisan (Hatfield/McCoy syndrome), and the fact that Democrats are still caught in the archaic Congressional mental trap known as “comity”. Comity is the notion, long ago abandoned by Republicans, that doing the people’s business was a cooperative effort requiring civility, and respect for other’s points of view. Indeed, the Republicans long ago abandoned all comity, and all decency in their interactions with Democrats in Congress, so it is a tad quaint that the Democrats are still locked in a 1950’s mindset where they think the Republicans will play fair, and respect the Democrat’s input. They don’t, and they won’t.
Democrats need to wake up, and realize that the Republicans will always play hard ball, and will do anything to pass their preferred legislation, while blocking the Democrats efforts by any means at their disposal. If Democrats intimate they might filibuster a terrible, partisan Supreme Court nominee, the Republicans bring up the “nuclear option” of eliminating all filibusters permanently. As soon as the Democrats suggest they might set a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the Republicans immediately rush to filibuster. No shame, no honesty, no decency, and certainly no comity.
At this point the Democrat’s comity is becoming more like a tragic comedy than bipartisanship. Call your congressperson immediately and urge them to support HR 333, which is Dennis Kucinich’s bill to begin impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney. Representative John Conyers has said if he gets three more co-signatures on HR 333 he will bring it before the House. It does not guarantee it will go forward or that it will get enough votes, but it needs to be done as soon as possible. While you're at it, urge your congressperson to invoke “inherent contempt” charges against Harriet Miers and bring her before the Congress to testify.
It's high time that the Democrats stop slathering comity all over the Republicans when they only get black eyes in return. Comity Schmomity… it's time for a bare knuckles fight.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Support HR 333
Dr. John Moffett is an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published over 45 scientific articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org, and is a Managing Editor at OpEdNews.com.
Calling my Congressman is a total waist of time and money. Every time I have tried to call him all I get is the run-around, at least twenty minutes on hold and end up talking to some idiot who always says that the congressman is quite busy just then and will get back to me. I should live so long.About 60% of my emails are rejected because time has run out on the transmittal. Whatever the hell that means. I doesn’t stop me. I keep trying to contact the useless jerk.
by
walley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 108 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 5:18:04 PM
When you urge Dems to "wake up" and tell them it's time for
"a bare knuckles fight", you are presuming that they "really" are opposed to the Bush regime, in some potentially powerful way. You are picturing them as well-meaning bumblers, who are simply too innocent to realize how ruthless their opponents are, & are lost in the pleasant haze from a bygone era of comity.
Do you really think they're that dumb and/or naive? The truth is that they accept most of the Bush doctrine & his main objectives. That's why they don't fight with bare knuckles -- they support his basic agenda. They may not like how he does what he does, but they have no real quarrel with his goals.
Like Bush, they seek global domination for top-level US business interests. They care about that -- and if it should conflict with preserving the US Constitution, respecting international law, or working for peace & social justice, the Democrats will wind up on the side of global corporate dominance, every time.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1162 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 2:49:48 PM
Not all Democrats. That's the difference, all Republicans are on the corporate-domination bandwagon. Many Democrats, especially the DLC Dems that spew the free-market crap all day long, are not on the right side of the issue.
But there is at least a substantial side-branch of the Democratic party (progressives, independents, liberals, leftists, etc) that is keen to regulate business, tax the rich, and reduce military spending in favor of domestic programs. They have been dwindling as the corporate media prop up the corporatists, and the ditto-head public has gone mindlessly along, but they persist.
Any help and support that the progressives can get will benefit everyone in the long run.
If the Green party can actually get going, I’d love to join, but they will never peal away more than 50% of Democrats/Independents, so it will always hand the election to a Republican (unless their party is likewise split).
This suggests that the Green party should wait until the Republican ticket is clearly split (like Perot vs. Bush Sr.) before putting up their best candidate to challenge Dems on the moderate/liberal side.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 607 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 3:18:16 PM
The so-called "Progressive Caucus" is not really very
progressive. If they were, most would support calls for impeachment and most would be serious about getting out of Iraq.
There are about 70-some names on the Caucus's membership list. As is well known, only around 14 have signed on to Kucinich's impeachment bill. That tells us something about the Caucus.
Tom Lantos, for example, is a Caucus member. He is perhaps a social (domestic) progressive, but a foreign policy hawk. He echoes the AIPAC line, which is hawkish towards Iran, Iraq, & strongly supportive of "the war on terror." Needless to say, it favors continued brutal repression of the Palestinians.
The fact that a guy like this belongs to the "Progressive Caucus" is revealing of the caucus's real character.
(Incidentally, I don't know what all this "Greens" talk here is. I'm not a Green, and didn't even mention them.)
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1162 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 9:34:26 PM
So, you believe the Caucus should have a litmus test?
OK, you picked on one of the members and said he was a foreign policy hawk and dismissed the fact that he is domestically/socially progressive. So, he should be kicked out of the caucus? According to what criteria? A caucus member cannot disagree with any of the caucus positions, or just certain ones?
You also mentioned one bill that only 13-15 or whatever the number is signed/cosponsored. So, that means they cannot be progressive? Care to guess how many bills the house considers in a year?
by
Steven Leser (209 articles, 44 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1369 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 9:48:51 PM
My shocking position is that a "Progressive Caucus" should
actually be progressive. It shouldn't have a pretty name like "Progressive Caucus" just to maintain appearances & deceive Dem voters as to what they're really about. // And, if the members are truly progressive, they must defend the US Constitution -- which means supporting impeachment -- and they must oppose US involvement in immoral wars.
So on those front-burner issues, yes, I do think there should be a sort of "litmus test" -- at least in the sense that Dem voters should understand that the so-called "Progressive Caucus" is mostly fake, & not adhering to truth in advertising.
Most of the bills the House considers in a year are for penny-ante matters, like naming a post office after someone or decreeing that federal flags be flown at half mast on a given Tuesday. Plenty are pure pork. What a given rep does on these penny-ante matters doesn't make him or break him as a progressive -- so many of those things are not "litmus tests." Those would have to be discussed on an individual case basis. // But if only 14 members support impeaching Cheney, out of a group of over 70 who call themselves "progressive," it's not hard to see that something's very wrong.
A similar argument could be made about the war, and serious opposition to it. The Dems practise a kind of fake opposition to it -- long on posturing & stunts, short on substance.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1162 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 10:32:51 PM
You made only 1 substantive point about the Caucus in your
response. Namely, that someone cannot be progressive and should be thrown out of any progressive caucus if they do not support impeachment.
I think that is a crazy position even though I am overwhelmingly for impeachment. This is the problem with many progressives. They are more for finding new excuses for attacking people and calling them "Not true progressives" than actually doing anything. I'm more than willing to accept someone as a true progressive if they are for a living wage, universal single payer healthcare, etc. and do not support impeachment. I guess maybe I am just crazy.
by
Steven Leser (209 articles, 44 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1369 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 11:33:57 PM
Vice Chairs Hon. Diane Watson Hon. Raul Grijalva Hon. Emanuel Cleaver Hon. Hilda Solis Hon. Mazie Hirono Hon. Phil Hare
Senate Members Hon. Bernie Sanders
House Members Hon. Neil Abercrombie Hon. Tammy Baldwin Hon. Xavier Becerra Hon. Madeleine Bordallo Hon. Robert Brady Hon. Corrine Brown Hon. Michael Capuano Hon. Julia Carson Hon. Donna Christensen Hon. Yvette Clarke Hon. William “Lacy” Clay Hon. Steve Cohen Hon. John Conyers Hon. Elijah Cummings Hon. Danny Davis Hon. Peter DeFazio Hon. Rosa DeLauro Hon. Keith Ellison Hon. Sam Farr Hon. Chaka Fattah Hon. Bob Filner Hon. Barney Frank Hon. Luis Gutierrez Hon. John Hall Hon. Maurice Hinchey Hon. Michael Honda Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson Hon. Hank Johnson Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones Hon. Marcy Kaptur Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick Hon. Dennis Kucinich Hon. Tom Lantos Hon. John Lewis Hon. David Loebsack Hon. Carolyn Maloney Hon. Ed Markey Hon. Jim McDermott Hon. James McGovern Hon. George Miller Hon. Gwen Moore Hon. Jerrold Nadler Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton Hon. John Olver Hon. Ed Pastor Hon. Donald Payne Hon. Charles Rangel Hon. Bobby Rush Hon. Linda Sanchez Hon. Jan Schakowsky Hon. Jose Serrano Hon. Louise Slaughter Hon. Pete Stark Hon. Bennie Thompson Hon. John Tierney Hon. Tom Udall Hon. Nydia Velazquez Hon. Maxine Waters Hon. Mel Watt Hon. Henry Waxman Hon. Peter Welch
by
Steven Leser (209 articles, 44 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1369 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 9:34:25 PM
OK, just to clarify -- when you speak of this "substantial
side-branch of the Democratic party ... that is keen to regulate business, tax the rich, and reduce military spending", are you talking about Democrats in Congress, or Dem voters out in the hinterlands? And if you're talking about those in Congress (which I don't think you are), what percentage of them would you estimate are solidly behind the progressive ideas you mentioned there?
If you're talking of the Dem-tending voters out here in the boonies, I agree that there's a lot of support for those ideas. If you're talking about Congress, my guess is that there's maybe a small handful of Dems in the House -- not more than 10 or 15 -- really prepared to fight for those kinds of ideas. The number that's come forward to support Kucinich's impeachment bill (14 so far) roughly indicates the size of the party's real progressive faction, IMO.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1162 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 9:49:29 PM
Which I think by that means a sizeable minority. "Sizeable" being open to interpretation. African Americans are considered a "Sizeable" minority of the US population and I think they number about 11% (Someone feel free to jump in if I am off).
If I had to guess, I would say that among the General populace, Progressives comprise about 35% of Democrats in the Blue States, 5% of Democrats in Red States and about 25% in swing states. Nationally, I think Democrats are 40% of the Population, Republicans are 33%, so you can interpolate/guess some of the numbers.
Of the 27% that do not identify themselves as either main party, I would guess that about 17% are "centrist/swing voter types" and about 5% are left of the Democrats and 5% are right of the Republicans.
Here in NYC, there are plenty of Progressives. As soon as you leave the metro area of NYC, the amount of Democrats and proportionally of Progressives, drops substantially. In Florida, there were very few Progressives even in areas that are Democratic strongholds. In Colorado, outside of places like Boulder, you can go a long way without finding a progressive.
by
Steven Leser (209 articles, 44 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1369 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 10:04:57 PM
Good discussion guys. I was speaking about both. There are some great progressive/liberal Dems in the House, but there should be lots, lots more. I was also suggesting that Dem/Independent citizens, like those here at OpEd, can help drive the timid Dems in Congress to move more to the left.
If you don't think that Rush's dittoheads, numbering in the millions, haven’t helped move Congress to the right over the last couple decades, then you haven’t been paying attention.
We can help swing the pendulum back to the left if we keep the pressure on. The Republican noise machine is great a pushing Congress right, now the left truth and justice machine should be working every day to push it back the other way. Bush and Cheney are making that job easier, but the corporate media isn’t going down without a fight. So it won’t be as easy for progressives to move the debate left as it was for the right wing to move us toward fascism.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 607 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 6:47:39 AM
Nor is attacking representatives who, quite frankly are trying to represent what the majority of the people seem to want.
We have to grow the ranks of progressives by convincing people that progressivism is the best ideology. We arent going to do that by attacking or pressuring people.
by
Steven Leser (209 articles, 44 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1369 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 11:32:03 AM
As I told Congressman Inglis at the town hall meeting, the 54% of the people who want Dick Cheney impeached are not a fringe. They are a majority. Sheila Jackson
by
Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 12:35:51 AM
Impeachment is in the air. I just posted my experience confronting my Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, Fourth District, South Carolina (See Raging Grandmother at a Town Hall Meeting in a Red State). Coincidentally, he raised the issue of comity as did the democrat who was sitting at my table and who ran against Inglis last year. I feel a desperate need to be part of making impeachment a reality. I am trying to get an appointment with Representative Bob Inglis now to press this issue further. We should NOT GIVE UP even when our representative is not ever likely to agree to do the deed. It just has to be done. I just think if I can make any headway at all in South Carolina, of all places, maybe there is hope.
by
Sheila Jackson (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 133 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 12:09:08 AM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
