We're coming to a point where we're going to have to make a choice.
On the one hand, we'll have loyalty to Nancy Pelosi, and on the other we'll have the Democratic majority in congress and a chance for a Democratic President in 08.
When a leader is elected and that leader proves they can not or will not do what it takes to use the power they've been given responsibly and in good faith, that leader must be removed.
This goes for Nancy Pelosi just as much as it goes for George Bush.
In my readings, I stumbled across this editorial by Dave Lindorff.
Not quite six months out, it's becoming apparent to Democrats who were looking to her for leadership that she's not about leading an opposition party; she's about posturing and hoping for better days in 2008, but not much else.
...
According to a report today by MediaNews in Sacramento, written by Steve Geissinger, Pelosi's support in California, which was at 52 percent in March, has slumped 13 percent to just 39 percent since then. That's Bush territory she's entering.
It would be nice to think Pelosi would see this decline in support on her home turf as a signal that she needs to do something radically different, but she's been pretty pig-headed so far about taking on the president. In fact, as I wrote in yesterday's column, the Speaker is now on record as saying that impeaching the president would be a "waste of time" and that defending the Constitution "isn't worth it" unless she knows in advance that she can succeed.
This is exactly the feeling many of us have been expressing lately. What good was it electing democrats if they don't have what it takes to make changes? Every time the Republicans shout "boo" they flinch. Time after time they are tested, and time after time they are found wanting.
More from Dave in another editorial.
Pelosi made another important admission in her interview with Stark and Johnson, confirming something I have been saying for some time now. That is, she admits that she and the Democratic leadership have known all along that they couldn’t pass any significant legislation. Rather, they are simply hoping to use their legislative ability to pass bills (knowing that nothing of consequence could survive a veto or a signing statement), in order to "establish a record of our priorities" and of the Republican Party’s "shortcomings."
As this story on Alternet shows, a majority of this country believes in the progressive platform. The Democrats have a solid base to draw from. They have a comfortable majority in the House and a majority in the Senate.
What they don't have is leaders.
They have plenty of excuses, but what it comes down to is this: by failing to go after Bush, Pelosi is sinking the party, and with it the country.
Democrats have spent years doing everything they could think of to shake off the "weakness" narrative. But there was always one thing they just couldn't bring themselves to do: be strong.
You can call it the influence of the DLC/Consultant wing of the party, the DC culture, being in the minority, or whatever. Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that if the Democrats want to keep power, they have to show the people of this country that they're willing to stand up for something.
And I don't mean making stands when the polling is in their favor, or when they think they can win.
This is what they have to do:
- Define a set of core values from which their arguments will be made.
- Construct arguments based on those values for certain positions.
- Follow those positions through in a logical manner.
An example of how this is done:
Central Value: The Pursuit of Happiness
Argument: In order to maximize happiness, people must have freedom and live in a society under an impartial rule of law.
Logical Policy: A President who undermines the rule of law, and/or breaks the law, must be removed from office.
By failing to do this, the Democrats are framing things in people's minds this way: Choose between two groups, one, the Democrats, are power-hungry villians. The other, Republicans, are power-hungry villians who give out tax cuts.
How do you think people are going to swing in 2008 if that is the choice they're given?
Nancy, by being a weak, ineffectual leader who won't stand on principle, is dropping in popularity even in her home state. In the process, by refusing to adapt to conditions in the field, she is leading her Party and her Country into disaster. She must either boldly step up and take a stand on positions, or she must resign her Speakership and allow someone with the best interests of the Republic at heart take over.
Tommorow I'll start talking about Harry Reid's failure to call the Republican's filibuster bluff and keep the Senate in session and the Republicans talking until they all collapse from exhaustion.