What happens when liberals take over most of the committee chairs in the House of Representatives? Washington gets nervous:
WASHINGTON — Anxious to chart a centrist course with Democrats’ new majority in Congress, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top deputies are busily working in private and public to rein in the liberal ambitions of some senior party heavyweights –including proposals to reinstate the military draft and end the Pentagon’s ban on gays in uniform.
Pelosi has urged House Democrats, including incoming committee chairmen, to use the first weeks of next year’s congressional term to focus exclusively on proposals on which the party is unified and legislative goals that are within reach, according to Pelosi allies and aides.
Yesterday, Pelosi and the incoming House majority leader, Representative Steny Hoyer, quashed talk of reinstating the draft one day after Representative Charles Rangel said he will file a bill to make that happen. Rangel, a New York Democrat, is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the most powerful posts in Congress.
“The speaker and I have discussed scheduling; it did not include that,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.
Already, House Democratic leaders have extracted a promise from the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, to rule out impeaching President Bush. Conyers is the lead sponsor of a bill that would investigate whether to recommend “grounds for possible impeachment.”
Pelosi has also tempered hopes of reversing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the service of gays and lesbians in the military, after two key Democrats — Representatives Martin T. Meehan of Lowell and Barney Frank of Newton — said last week that they want to repeal the policy.
Though Pelosi believes homosexuals should be able to openly serve, she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities — including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.
Pelosi and Hoyer outlined an agenda yesterday for early next year that Pelosi said will relieve “the middle-class squeeze.” It avoids hot-button issues such as tax cuts, gay rights, and abortion for popular issues such as a higher minimum wage, more affordable student loans, and congressional ethics reform.
“These issues are bipartisan in nature,” Pelosi said. “That’s why we recommended them. We thought they were areas that are relevant to the lives of the American people, and that would have bipartisan support.”
I have mixed feelings about this. There are two points in Pelosi’s favor. First, it’s desirable to make a good first impression and gain some momentum by actually accomplishing something. Democrats want to pass some of the things they ran on, like increasing the federal minimum wage, negotiating drug prices for Medicare D, and passing some of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations on security reforms. These are areas where they have the votes and the President might be inclined to cooperate. They might also be able to pass an immigration bill that will be popular with both the Hispanic community and the business community.
Second, it doesn’t profit us to work on divisive issues where we don’t have the votes or where the President is sure to use his veto. Those types of votes are better left for next year when there is some profit in forcing Republicans to make uncomfortable votes, just for the record.
So, I completely understand the strategy that Pelosi has laid out. It makes a lot of sense. At the same time, a strategy is one thing, stifling progressive policy is another. I don’t know if there is ever a perfect time to bring ‘gays in the military’ back up for reconsideration. I can agree that now is not the best time, but can Pelosi tell me when such a time might arrive?
Rangel’s bill on reimposing the draft is actually one I might support, depending on the details of the national service elements, but I don’t think it is anything more than a ‘message’ bill. It won’t pass, and passing it is not the point of forcing a vote on it.
As for impeachment, making Conyers promise not to impeach the President is kind of funny. All that really means is that he will not introduce a bill to create a subcommittee committed to investigating whether there are grounds for impeachment. That’s largely irrelevant since we know there are grounds for impeachment. What there isn’t are votes for impeachment, and those votes will not show up until investigations force the truth out into the open. Why put the cart before the horse?
I do have one question. Does anyone remember seeing articles and editorials that pleaded and begged the Republicans not to act divisively and run Congress from too far to the right? I don’t. Where were the calls for moderation when the Republicans controlled Congress? I’m just saying…I’m beginning to doubt that the liberal media is liberal at all 😉
This doesn’t bother me yet. It seems reasonable for a new majority to take on the easy, popular stuff to show that it is indeed a working majority. Don’t forget, it’s Congress, not just the Reps, that hold abysmal approval ratings. Dems need to demonstrate that things really have changed, and that they are capable of getting good things done. Yes, they will have to be held accountable, but let’s not panic before the new Congress is even in session. Elected pols are never going to lead on innovative proposals without popular support. They need time to lay the groundwork, to make their case, rather than just shoving bills into the hopper before anybody knows what they’re all about.
I have no particular faith that the Dems will lead the way on their own. That’s why my real grounds for optimism is the newly proven clout of independent forces like the Net, MoveOn, the unions, etc. It’s up to us to put on the pressure after the easy stuff is out of the way. That is what gets the attention of pols of all parties.
OTOH, I disagree about looking for stuff Bush won’t veto. He is irrelevant. Let the Dems presell their proposals for change, then put them in front of Bush to sign or take yet another hit from the voters next time. And keep on bringing the bills up again and again.
At this point, I give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt. I’m not persuaded that she’s calling for moderation. She’s looking for a good working strategy. From Dems, that would be a welcome breakthrough. So let’s give them a little breathing room for now and be ready with the hammer if they never get around to the hard stuff.
I basically agree.
Let me reiterate a point though.
There are bills that you raise because you hope to pass them into law, and there are bills that you raise to create a record so that you can run against the people that opposed the bill and prevented it from becoming a law.
With the GOP, these latter bills were on restricting abortion, protecting the flag, making an amendment to ban gay marriage, etc. The point is not pass them, but to run against those that voted against them.
These types of bills are a general waste of time and the taxpayer’s money, but they are not completely indispensable. It’s a way to push forward an issue that doesn’t currently have support.
My point is that these types of bills are generally better positioned if they come up during an election year. So, I would not make them the first order of business, but would put them off to late in this session, or in the next session.
We should concentrate on working on things that will actually get signed into law.
That means the immigration bill and the minimum wage hike. Next up, prescription drugs and 9/11 Commission recommendations, which will require negotiation with the White House.
After that, we can begin pushing the harder stuff, like election/lobbyist reform, energy policy, tinkering with NCLB, etc.
Let’s let a few bills get passed — minimum wage increase is a good start — so that everyone who voted the Democrats into power can see that their vote was well cast.
And just because they made Conyers promise not to hit the ground shooting doesn’t mean we can’t lay the groundwork for impeachment. I’m of the opinion that if the case is made well enough, people will essentially have no alternative but to support impeachment when the time comes. (Again, I think I’d rather see war crimes trials, but I’d also like to see a million bucks in my wallet and that ain’t likely to happen either.)
…she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities — including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.
So it’s okay to investigate war-related contracting fraud but not the fraud perpetrated by our fearless leader that got us involved in Iraq? WTF?
Maybe by enacting real and meaningful change to Iraq policy and investigating the shameful war contract issues, enough information will come to light that will mandate that Bush be impeached. The money trail would show how this administration blindly walked into Iraq without any clear understanding of why it was needed and what the final results would be.
The ability to pull troop from Iraq will not be an easy battle to win. Too much money is tied to this conflict and that might the reason why they are starting with the war contract issues first. I see as being crazy like a fox! You have to pick the right thread to unravel the ball of deception.
I’m beginning to doubt that the liberal media is liberal at all 😉
Welcome to the party. 🙂
Bloggers. There’s nowhere else, anymore.
Btw – when the Liberal rag Ramparts was in its heyday, guess what happened? The CIA infiltrated it and sunk it, and we now have the documents to prove it.
I’m wondering how long before all blogs are infiltrated with ostensibly liberal voices who nonetheless will not brook opposition on certain points. Whoops – some are there already…!
The Dems are the less idiological and more opportunist wing of the corporate party. What can you expect? More of the same.
A reasonable rule-of-thumb would be to make up lost ground before attempting to gain new ground. For example, in the law this puts restoring old rights (habeas corpus, limits on search and seizure!) ahead of pushing for new rights. It puts restoring the minimum wage ahead of (sigh) single-payer health insurance. It includes fighting the new heights of corruption and deceit.
This, of course, a conservative agenda — out of step with the times, trying to roll back the clock, opposing needed reforms, and all that. There is, however, much in America’s liberal tradition that is worth conserving.
The paradox: The most urgent parts of the liberal agenda are, in the true sense, conservative.
The opportunity: We can move to the center and advance our principles.
This can help build the strength that we need to do more.