I am done:
In the face of stiff opposition from powerful fellow Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has abandoned a proposal she supported less than 24 hours ago to eliminate lawmakers’ earmarks from the omnibus spending package.
Democrats admit such a move would be highly controversial within their own party. Coming just weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, vowed the White House would not get another dollar in war money this year, it would further antagonize the liberal base of the party, which has become frustrated with the congressional leadership's failure to push back on Bush's Iraq policy.
"The base will not be happy," said one senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to candidly discuss budget negotiations that have not been completed.
The Democratic aide acknowledged the president is likely to get new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before Congress adjourns for the year. "Yes, in the end, that's where we will be," the aide said.
That's right, Sparky, the base will not be happy.
It's not the fact that Democrats are funding the war. If they believe in the war, they should fund it, and I'd be OK with that, though I disagree.
It's not the fact that they had to back down in yet another battle with the White House.
It's not the fact that this makes them "look weak". Being a student of human nature, I have a hard time believing that Congressional Republicans are made of sterner stuff.
In fact, that's the problem. The Republicans under Gingrich were able to impeach a very popular President over what amounted to a minor and irrelevant (to governance) episode of sexual misconduct. I have a hard time believing that today's Democrats can't even win a budget battle with the most unpopular President since Nixon, especially when Rep. Obey proposed a plan that would have been a clear win-win for any party that actually gave a damn. In fact, any rational person would have a hard time believing that -- which leads to only one possible conclusion.
There is no such thing as the Democratic agenda.
All the Democratic leadership has wanted all along is for the status quo to continue -- for the special interest money to keep flowing and the cozy relationships with lobbyists and contractors to go on as usual.
2006 was no 1994 -- we had no Gingrich to lead a crusade. We, the Democratic voters, empowered a group of people who essentially hold no ideology at all. Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Rockefeller, Harman -- all these luminaries of Congress were probably terrified to wake up and find themselves in the majority. Being in the majority means you might be expected to actually do something.
I think I speak for a great many people when I say that I would rather have Newt Gingrich than that. I'd rather have someone as Speaker who is sincere in his beliefs, even if I strongly disagree, than someone who cares only about walking that fine line of keeping up appearances while never rocking the boat.
So, I am done. I am not giving another dime or making another phone call for any Democratic candidate or national organization. I will vote for candidates that I feel represent my values the best, but my active involvement in politics is over until there is not only a candidate but a party that represents me.
Judging by the commentary today on liberal blogs, I'm far from alone in this. If it means Democrats lose their majorities and lose the Presidential race in 2008, all I can say is "good". The Democratic Party I want, the one I could vote for and contribute to, simply does not exist. I'm tired of pretending otherwise.