A valid question, no?
Take this, for example [HT to FireDogLake & AmericaBlog],
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently announced:
Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina, the newly and unanimously elected Chairman of the Democratic Caucus who has lived his life with a commitment to a high ethical standard, will head the Clean House Team.
And just who is Clyburn?
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay isn't the only politician facing ethics charges. South Carolina's James Clyburn and Mississippi's Bennie Thompson, both Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, also had to answer tough questions last week. In 1997, both men traveled to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. commonwealth. The trip -- and an earlier trip to the Marianas by two associates of DeLay -- appears to have been paid for by lobbyist Jack Abramoff. It is a violation of House ethics to accept gifts from a registered lobbyist.
So the House Democrats choose a Representative that looks to be substantially tied to the Abramoff scandal. That's just brilliant. I'm sorry, but this plain idiotic. I'm afraid that Pelosi and her staff have spent more time spouting 'Republican Culture of Corruption' rather than doing simple research on who she will put in charge in carrying the load on ethics reform.
The Dems were handed a golden opportunity to speak up on ethics, lobbying, K Street and major reform on the Hill. But all of this will be overshadowed and minimized with making such an unstrategic leadership decision. The GOP has been screaming that Congressional corruption is a bipartisan scandal. While this has been mostly hot air (and even admittedly so by certain conservative rags), appointing Clyburn to head up the call for reform is about as idiotic a move as selecting Roy Blunt as the next GOP Majority Leader. While it remains to be seen whether Clyburn knowingly took the trip from Abramoff or Preston Gates is immaterial. The appearance is bad enough. Unlike the Reid and Dorgan allegations, based on distant links from campaign contributions, these claims are much more serious.
If Congressional Dems are to win over the lagging public opinion, they have to stand up and make the public respect their commitment to their vision and their ideals. Simply voting a certain way isn't the solution. It's who you are. It's how one leads. It's the strategic command which ensures that the public will respect your message. This appointment seriously undermines that message. It gives the opposition an opening when they've been on the ropes for months. The Abramoff scandal will likely go down as the biggest Congressional scandal to ever hit the Hill. One would think that the Dem. leadership would be more serious at a time when they have the chance to broadcast a message of reform, progress, and an intense grasp of the public's interest. That disconnect has been obvious as of late, not just here but in the Senate.
Within all likelihood, a small number of Democrats will go down in the Abramoff scandal. Most likely, they will be relatively small like Clyburn or Thompson. Of course, the majority has more to lose because of the scandal since they are in power. My point is a strategic one. At a time when the party is stressing their integrity and honesty, this appointment makes no sense. Such strategic points have been made here in vast abundance over the past week. One which many of us have thought to ourselves while observing a party in disarray when it should be preparing for an opportunity similar to the GOP in '94.
There's plenty of time between now and November but one has to think: Are they seeking to fail on purpose? Is there incentive to win when detesting Bush and Republican rule has become such a familiar topic? When simply exposing Republican lies is such a safe and personally uninvolvin venture? Is what's at stake (the future of our nation) important enough to fight for? Are Dems. focused enough to put together a message (let alone follow through with it)? There's a difference between commenting on corruption, scandal and impeachable offenses and showing the nation that there is a viable alternative with very concrete goals in mind. Simply relying on people to vote for the lesser of two evils, without a defining message, will not lead to a change in Congress. Shooting yourself in the foot isn't a good way to win the war, and neither is uncommited leadership.