Comments (48)

Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 2:58 PM:

Rahm Emanuel doesn't believe that Congress is a co-equal branch with the executive.

We should replace him with someone who believes in the US Constitution.

Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 3:08 PM:

Gum it to death.

JohnW1141 wrote on October 3, 2007 3:13 PM:

The Dems need new leadership in the House and Senate. A number of new committee chairs would help too.

The Dems are such spineless a**holes they may be flirting with minority status come '08 by virtue of the base not coming out to vote.

JohnW1141 wrote on October 3, 2007 3:17 PM:

The Dems need new leadership and a few new committee chairs. What they have
are spineless.

They may be flirting with returning to minority status in that the base is so pissed at them they may not turn out to vote in 08.

asdf wrote on October 3, 2007 3:24 PM:

What's tragic is it won't matter if they are back in the minority.

Ol D.W. wrote on October 3, 2007 3:24 PM:

If the leadership were to act on anything and get convictions it would just mean wholesale pardons like Ronnie did when he left. Bite yiur tounge for awhile and things will change.

oleeb wrote on October 3, 2007 3:29 PM:

The Democratic leadership is a joke at best.

What the hell is wrong with those people? They can't get anything done on the war (or won't because they're too busy calculating the electoral effects), the won't do anything about the open defiance of subpoenas, they won't do anything about restoring habeus corpus, ad nauseum.

Will they do anything about anything or are they just the weak, pathetic, calculating political whores as they appear to be?

della Rovere wrote on October 3, 2007 3:36 PM:

which is the bigger fraud: Republican oversight or Democratic oversight?

Becauce We Know You're Interested wrote on October 3, 2007 3:43 PM:

San Diego Union Tribune -- Case filings up since Lam stepped down

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071003-9999-1n3stats.html

Dennis wrote on October 3, 2007 3:46 PM:

Given the "Blackwater" hearing yesterday, it would seem that some Democrats do indeed have some spine. But apparently that cannot be said of Nancy Pelosi.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Jesse wrote on October 3, 2007 3:46 PM:

I'll bet they could enforce a subpoena against MoveOn

P J Evans wrote on October 3, 2007 3:50 PM:

I wonder now if Pelosi is actually running the House, or if all the decisions are being made by Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. Far too many indicators are pointing at the latter and not the former ....

moondancer wrote on October 3, 2007 3:59 PM:

Hey guys, I thought this past election was about new direction.
I'm getting the feeling its about better offices and bigger chunk o'the pork.
Well, like the philosopher once said: fool me once, shame (sputter)..we wont get fooled again!

Henk wrote on October 3, 2007 4:01 PM:

I've gotta agree with PJ. It seems like the leadership has bought into the self promotional bullshit Emanuel was pedaling after the '06 elections.

paul wrote on October 3, 2007 4:15 PM:

Why do we even effing bother?

It's bad enough when the republicans try to convince us that there's no difference between the two parties.

phred wrote on October 3, 2007 4:18 PM:

Dennis -- I'll believe the Dems have a spine when they cut-off funding for Blackwater. Yet another hearing without consequences does not constitute having a spine.

Gandhi wrote on October 3, 2007 4:19 PM:

Maybe the Democratic leadership is afraid of their own courage?
Maybe they don't want a new direction? Maybe they are GOP light?

Bob's not Right wrote on October 3, 2007 4:19 PM:

I watched an interview with Nancy Pelosi just after the Webb amendment went down and I was ashamed that I ever considered myself a Democrat. Ms. Pelosi seemed to think that a Democratic victory in congress was the ability to blame the Republicans for the war. She stated with some glee that “this war is now the Republican congress’s war, it used to be President Bush’s war but now it belongs to both of them”.

The last time I checked neither Republican congressmen or congresswomen or the President were getting shot at, living in a third world nightmare or caught between helping a indigenous people who are truly scared and helpless and the same looking people that try to kill them everyday.

The Democratic leadership should be forced out for the same reason the President should be impeached, they treat real human beings like political fodder.

To quote Will Ferrell “where are all the grown-ups”.

Andrew wrote on October 3, 2007 4:22 PM:

This is why I am now registered as an Independent - so I don't have to support Pelosi as she crumples under pressure or plots her cynical 2008 strategy.

Personally, I think all disgruntled Democrats should register as Independents.
Whatever it takes to makes to make these folks wake up. Are they listening? Do they care?

lucky wrote on October 3, 2007 4:57 PM:

Damn, As a progressive liberal, I can't stand that double-talking, manipulating, SOB Emmanuel. He and the DLC-circle are dispicable, spineless, game-players who will destroy the democratic party and continue to drive americans into sleep-mode and apathy. Political victory first, nation second. With thier support of nafta, cafta, etc, it's also corporations first, people second. He had no f-ing part whatsoever in the 06 victory, if fact it would have been greater if not for him. Meet the new elites, same as the old elites.

Don't give up folks, we can still get the party back. Educate, communicate and vote.

Dahju wrote on October 3, 2007 5:05 PM:

The BlueDog Dems are again making the Dems look spineless? Do the Dems have the votes or do they not? If not, let us start to name names.
Why is Leahy in the Senate not moving? Getting promises from a group that considers such only a game that requires honor only if is suits their purposes is worthless. Impeach them all, no exceptions!

JimBob wrote on October 3, 2007 5:08 PM:

If the Republicans weren't busy committing political suicide by catering to Bush and the wingnut religiosos, the Democrats would be in serious danger of losing their majority in '08. Hard to see that happening; even if they are spineless, at least they don't stink like home-made sin from a hundred paces away.

SPENCER wrote on October 3, 2007 5:18 PM:

Dahju:
Funny that you should ask about Leahy; he just sent a letter to Mukasey about those contempt citations; he'll certainly bring that up at the confirmation hearings.

The Dems have to find a way to circumvent the White House in attaining the relevant docs and take it to the Supreme Court.
Anyway, here's the link and the article:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Leahy_asks_AG_nominee_Will_you_1003.html

Leahy asks AG nominee: Will you block contempt charges?
Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday October 3, 2007

The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked President Bush's attorney general nominee whether he would block criminal contempt proceedings against current and former administration officials.

In a letter sent Tuesday to nominee Michael Mukasey, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asks whether, as attorney general, he would go along with White House plans to block federal prosecutors from pursuing contempt charges.

The House Judiciary Committee earlier this year recommended contempt charges against two administration figures, and Leahy himself mulled contempt proceedings in the Senate if the administration did not provide subpoenaed documents and testimony related to the firing of nine US Attorneys last year.

"If the White House sought to prevent the U.S. Attorney from bringing contempt charges to a grand jury as required by law," Leahy wrote to Mukasey Wednesday, "would you take any action to prevent the U.S. Attorney from doing so?"

Leahy's letter sought to clarify Mukasey's opinions on a range of issues that have been sticking points in disputes between the president and Congress. Dates for Mukasey's confirmation hearings have not been set, but Leahy suggested the two meet in person Oct. 16.

In his letter, Leahy seems to be seeking assurances that Mukasey will not run the Justice Department in the manner of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales. Democrats widely panned Gonzales as little more than a Bush crony who politicized the Justice Deparment and demoralized career employees.

"We will need to explore with you how you would ensure the independence of federal law enforcement from political pressure, what steps you would take to restore morale at the Department and the public’s trust in the Department, and whether you would uphold constitutional checks on Executive power," Leahy wrote.

Along with the attorney-firing scandal, Leahy castigated Gonzales for enabling President Bush's overreach for authority.

"The Attorney General who recently resigned apparently believed that the President has a commander-in-chief override of the laws of this country, which contributed to his violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), his signing statement reservations, and other overreachings," Leahy wrote.

Leahy placed the blame for the ongoing controversies squarely on the White House, accusing the administration of deliberately stonewalling his committee's search for information.

"With so much to do and so much damage that needs to be repaired, I had hoped that the White House would have taken advantage of the time since the resignations of Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove to work with us to fulfill longstanding requests for information so that we could all agree about what went so wrong at the Department of Justice and work together to restore it," Leahy wrote. "Instead, they have left you to answer the unanswered questions and left longstanding disputes unresolved."

Evan wrote on October 3, 2007 5:41 PM:

Nancy Pelosi made history as the first woman to be speaker of the house. She is doing such a lousy job that there won't be another woman speaker for another 200 years.

After 9 months, Reid still doesn't understand he's not in the minority anymore.

I look at the Dems as the last best hope of restoring the US to what it was before Bush, and I dispair.

howard wrote on October 3, 2007 5:44 PM:

i was going to take my shot at the leadership as well until i read all the other shots, which then reminded me of a point i made during the moveon vote: you can't ask reid and pelosi to be considerably more aggressive than their respective caucuses.

if we want a tougher democratic presence on capital hill, we need to elect tougher democrats: there are too many spineless types who get elected with a "d" after their name. that's not something that reid and pelosi can control....

quasar wrote on October 3, 2007 5:58 PM:

I would think that the Democrats are sitting in ambush tactily on this and many issues for an onslaught in 2008. Sometimes it takes a long time to build a case with hard facts. With so many members of the administration and the Congress leaving, not only does it make for a more conducive workplace, but it will also make it much easier,in time, to bring those people under investigation now to hearings later when they are in public life. Also they may have to respond to a federal court. At present, this administration's coocoon dictates protection from that. Right now Congress has to do so much micro legislation. So many executive orders have to be sent to the judiciary.
In the meantime, I wanna see what Leahy can learn.

xargaw wrote on October 3, 2007 6:12 PM:

The Democrats were given an opportunity after the '06 election to provide some leadership and oversight. Their failure is a slow bleed that will prove once again to be fatal to the party. Only when and if they discard the centrists with true progressive Democrats will the party have half a chance. The current direction of the party appears that they are choosing the slow death option.

Eric Ferguson wrote on October 3, 2007 6:22 PM:

Thanks Muckraker for keeping on top of the story. Even for those of us trying to follow it, it's easy to lose track with new outrages. I suspect this Blackwater scandal will be to State what the fired USAs were to Justice, but it has pushed this still unresolved scandal out of mind.

Chris Andersen wrote on October 3, 2007 6:39 PM:

I sense the advent of a "let's get beyond the ugliness" logic going on here.

Alberto Gonzalez is gone. Wouldn't it be better for the country if we just "closed the books" on that ugly chapter and get on with the business of the people?

At least, that's the argument I can see the Broderites making.

And you can bet they will make it even harder once Bush leaves office if Democrats don't immediately drop their investigations ("harrassment") of the Bushies.

quasar wrote on October 3, 2007 6:40 PM:

Watch what dead the sea gives up once this SCHIP veto sinks in.

chabuka wrote on October 3, 2007 7:02 PM:

Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid must go....they are so busy working their political angle...they can't be bothered with stupid things such as a Constitutional Crisis, the DOJ's political partisan witch hunting, tampering with the laws and justice, vote rigging or an end to funding this damn illegal war, and never mind ever actually holding any one accountable for any form of criminal behavior..forget Impeachment...How ever, they do have time to meet with AIPAC and pick up their "campaign funds", and try to give all immigrants (legal or not) amnesty, available to their "corporate masters" to drive down wages and living standards, even while they allow (with their blessings) those same corporations to ship our jobs overseas and stick us with the "tax void" the rich and powerful leave
VOTE ALL THE INCUMBENTS OUT...!! Lets show them who really runs this country and fire the lot of them

Dave Huntsman wrote on October 3, 2007 7:28 PM:

VOTE ALL THE INCUMBENTS OUT...!! Lets show them who really runs this country and fire the lot of them

Without a true alternative - like existed in the old Russia - to vote 'none of the above' in a binding fashion, that's impossible in this country. Too much is fixed; including the nominees of the two old, corrupt political parties.

It's now clear that both parties have not only truly incompetent, but corrupt, 'leaders'. We need something that puts power - literally - back in the hands of the people; that makes the people more of a threat to bad politicos than fear of losing their donors. We need a binding None-of-the-Above option on all ballots.

Prabhata wrote on October 3, 2007 10:29 PM:

I know many people here believe she is not tough, but Pelosi will not get into a losing proposition. Going to the Supreme Court might not be the best way if the right wing judges prevail and give the White House cover. Congress will regret that precedent for years. Please know that Pelosi is tough, but thoughtful of consequences. I trust her judgment.

letligre wrote on October 3, 2007 10:46 PM:

I'm speechless

Prabhata wrote on October 3, 2007 10:56 PM:

I want to make one more point. Pelosi became the Minority Leader in November 2002. She worked very hard and did not get a Democratic majority of the House of Representatives in the 2004 election, but she's been remarkable as a leader. Does anyone remember the Democrats under Gephardt? It's disappointing the way so many people are trashing Pelosi so early in her leadership as speaker.

modmom wrote on October 3, 2007 11:11 PM:

I agree with Lucky and others who are placing fault with the DLC. They would rather fight the progressive base than give up their ties to big money. Rahm, Steny and other are sabotaging the progressive agenda in order to hold onto control.

Rahm believes ending the war is just another political manuever, just like dealing with the US Attorney Scandal. He is an opportunist who cares more about his position than what is best for the party. Think of his attempted sabotaging of Howard Dean to promote his centrist candidates.He is near the top of Dems I would love to see replaced with a progressive.

If you missed his recent slapdown on Bill Maher, it's worth googling.

anon wrote on October 3, 2007 11:32 PM:

...The Dems need new leadership in the House and Senate...

Yup. It's not so much that I mind Pelosi and Reid as individuals but I haven't seen real evidence of strategic thinking from them. Things are going to get better for the Dems? How? I would have been okay with them if they had bumbled along but put in place, say, clear headed ethics procedures and rules and then articulated why and how Dem methods of making law was going be cleaner and smarter than what we've had. But, no, they haven't even tried to change things at a fundemental level. They've had to scramble to keep things together, yes, and the odds of passing much of anything given the opposition are, yes, slim but they haven't done any foward thinking at all.

I could live with new leadership, even if that leadership suffers from the same general problems. I'd like to see leadship that's talking about what need to be done to make stuff work five, ten, and fifty years out. I'd like to see leadership that can articulate how and why the current process is broken. I dont' care if they can't pass laws but they need to provide leadership.

quasar wrote on October 4, 2007 1:06 AM:

It would be unwise for the Democratic led Congress to publicly debate long term legislative and electoral strategy. Karl Rove is watching.

steambomb wrote on October 4, 2007 2:06 AM:

WTF?

LimaBN wrote on October 4, 2007 4:30 AM:

Perhaps Speaker Pelosi is waiting until enough of the mid-level people leave government employment and move on with their lives. Out from under the Cheney/Rove/Bush machine's shell,
they will be harder to monitor, harder to "keep in line," and more hard-pressed to find the money needed to hire defense attorneys.

Also, they're going to be looking at the need to get past the consequences of their abuses of power.

So they'll be far more amenable to cutting deals, providing information, and turning over the goodies needed to nail the real perps.

Works when you're prosecuting dope dealers. Should work with this scum, too.

Al in Austex wrote on October 4, 2007 5:56 AM:

Take a deep breathe & TAKE HEART , ignore the Trolls. Instead read Limabn, Quasar, and know that the Dems are not dummies & WILL DO US PROUD .
We must all support the OVERSIGHT Committees .
And keep an eye on Grassley & the other moderate conservatives - they will not drink the neocon kool aid - they will not follow "Reverend Jim jONES Cheney " into a mass political suicide for the GOP- in the 2008 cycle.
Meanwhile to all the TROLLs -and you know who you are -STFU , and let us restore our checks & balances.
And to my thread pal Moondancer -please remember all who wander are not lost - Conyers et al will not let us down ..we just need a little more time to wander gathering evidence etc .
Meanwhile me & Alex Jones are over here reviewing the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment & making sure we are well provisioned ,and following the Blackwater hearings with existential interest ..

Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 4, 2007 8:07 AM:

Al wrote

"Meanwhile me & Alex Jones are over here reviewing the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment & making sure we are well provisioned ,and following the Blackwater hearings with existential interest .."

If it does come to that, not all others may want to participate in that bloodbath. Any border smugglers interested in ferrying folks INTO Mexico?

lambert strether wrote on October 4, 2007 9:00 AM:

Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats understood that the Republicans want to be dominated -- but can't admit that, even to themselves?

If only the Dems stopped acting like wussy bottoms, everyone in the Village would be happy, and the nation would be better served!

Dean Broder, please feel free to make use of this idea in your next column on civility and teh bipartisan.

theswan wrote on October 4, 2007 11:56 AM:

They are not in any hurry to dig up answers to a mountain of deceipt, so my job becomes sooo easy. I already know who to vote for. Any newcomer.

Gerald Pechenuk wrote on October 4, 2007 8:18 PM:

Lyndon Larouche identified Felix Rohatyn and other big money hedge fund operators as the root cause of the failure of the Democractic leadership to act on the mandate of the people given in the 2006 election. Little did you know but that Rahm Emanuel is the name of a hedge fund and he is not a real Congressman. He could not give two sticks about what the people in his district want. He wants what the hedge funds want. Find out what the hedge funds want and you'll find out what Rahm Emanuel wants. And it ain't the interests of the people in this country or any other nation-state.

Gerald Pechenuk wrote on October 4, 2007 8:18 PM:

Lyndon Larouche identified Felix Rohatyn and other big money hedge fund operators as the root cause of the failure of the Democractic leadership to act on the mandate of the people given in the 2006 election. Little did you know but that Rahm Emanuel is the name of a hedge fund and he is not a real Congressman. He could not give two sticks about what the people in his district want. He wants what the hedge funds want. Find out what the hedge funds want and you'll find out what Rahm Emanuel wants. And it ain't the interests of the people in this country or any other nation-state.

Gerald Pechenuk wrote on October 4, 2007 8:19 PM:

Lyndon Larouche identified Felix Rohatyn and other big money hedge fund operators as the root cause of the failure of the Democractic leadership to act on the mandate of the people given in the 2006 election. Little did you know but that Rahm Emanuel is the name of a hedge fund and he is not a real Congressman. He could not give two sticks about what the people in his district want. He wants what the hedge funds want. Find out what the hedge funds want and you'll find out what Rahm Emanuel wants. And it ain't the interests of the people in this country or any other nation-state.

Jake D. wrote on October 10, 2007 6:51 PM:

I told you guys this would be the only result way back when you first found out and started screaming about INHERENT CONTEMPT!!!

If any of you live in San Francisco, make sure you vote for Cindy Sheehan -- the rest of you can donate to her campaign to defeat Nancy Pelosi:

http://www.cindyforcongress.org