A Theory on the Lack of Democratic Backbone

It's been awhile since I've written a full diary but I'll use a new one to keep going a discussion I got into on another diary that quickly fell off the list. (Agnostic's excellent entry titled Pathetic Pelosi, Reidiculous Reid)

I've been just blown away by the apparent lack of spine by what I thought were greatly empowered Democratic leaders to take on the Republican thuggery and then I had this thought:

Somebody's got something on these folks and I've been unsure up until now just what that was but, after seeing Lieberman's endorsement of the Senator Comb-over I think I finally understand the hesitation of the Democrats to take on any real issues.

I think Republican leaders laid it out to them the day their tenuous "majority" took hold.  I imagine it went something like this:

"If you push too hard, our ace in the hole, old Smoking Joe, will switch parties, you'll lose your majority in the Senate, and we will regain control over all these valuable committees.  Play along and we'll allow you the illusion that you actually control things by giving you a few silly victories you can claim."

Of course the response should have been a hidden video camera ready to display its clip on Youtube and a flat out middle finger to these thugs, but we can see that Reid and Pelosi just don't have that fight in them.  They have not one ounce of understanding in how human behavior works, that the American public is itching for someone with some political balls.  

Now it's all conjecture but it fits perfectly with what we're seeing.  The chickensnot Democratic leadership was more concerned with being playground leader during the recess than advocating for the American public.  Joe Lieberman needs to be tarred and feathered and displayed in stocks below the Washington monument, a target for rotten fruit and lugies from passing tourists.  Pelosi and Reid should be locked on either side to catch the misses.

A poll follows:

•  My pet theory is that...

  ...Pelosi and Reid were the targets of electronic surveillance without the benefit of FISA warrants, and now Bush and his cronies have so much dirt on them that they're both paralyzed with fear.

  It's as good as any...

  by Vagabond57 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:34:40 AM PDT

  •  It's a good theory as well

    but also one that I think is worth exposing at whatever personal risk there might be.

    What's more important, your reputation or the future of the country?  Tough choice but one that the founders of our country wouldn't have hesitated with.

    by artmartin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:40:43 AM PDT

    •  It was a bit snarky on my part...

      But if it turns out to be true, I agree with you completely.

      by Vagabond57 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:52:14 AM PDT

  •  the ol' J. Edgar Hoover ploy

    that worked so well once,
    why not again?

    Who's going to blow the whistle on you when you have their explicit photo negatives in your safe?

    by crystal eyes on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:51:08 AM PDT

    •  I hope you're not implying that...

      ..Bush (like Hoover) is a cross-dresser.  That's too awful to even contemplate.

      by Vagabond57 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:54:04 AM PDT

      •  Well the image

        certainly beats one where Cheney's the one in drag.  I think Bush has better legs.

        by artmartin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:04:49 AM PDT

•  agree

  I completely agree with the above comment.  the Republicans have been looking at Reid's emails and listening tohis phone calls for 6 years.  And his staff's and his childrens.  Or they have convinced Reid that they listened.  That is enough for him to follow their simple demand that he not go to the matresses on any issue.

  by stationakl on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:39:04 AM PDT

•  Here is the real reason

  http://youtube.com/...

  by funluvn1 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:39:26 AM PDT

  •  Dang

    I'm at work and blocked from videos.

    by artmartin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:41:48 AM PDT

    •  Check it when you get home.

      I hope you enjoy!

      by funluvn1 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:45:14 AM PDT

•  Forgot a tip jar

  let this be it.

  by artmartin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:44:34 AM PDT

•  Nice theory...

  unfortunately not true.

  At the beginning of the session in addition to electing a majority leader both houses also pass "organizing resolutions" that lay out committee assignments and chairmanships.

  Once enacted these resolutions can't be changed unless they already contain provisions for that change as they did in 2000 when the party change by Jeffords resulted in a change of leadership.

  The current "organizing resolution" has no such provisions.

  So party change or not, we're stuck with Joltin' Joe LIEberman as chair of Homeland Security until 2009, as  well as 'Send a sternly worded letter" Harry.

  by ek hornbeck on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:52:07 AM PDT

  •  And...

    before we took over, they weren't fighting tooth and nail either.  Remember when a majority was good enough to pass legislation?  

    But I appreciate the sentiment and share the outrage and frustration.

    by maxschell on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:56:35 AM PDT

  •  Great information

    Thank you.  It never amazes me how bizarre Congressional rules are and I certainly don't pretend to understand them all.  

    I just know that the assumption of a majority in both houses of Congress is a very tenuous one given that number 51 is Joke....er Joe.  

    Bottom line is that there's a climate of fear running the Democratic leadership right now no matter what the underlying reason and we may never know what coercion is behind it.  

    by artmartin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:59:45 AM PDT

•  Sorry, your theory is wrong.

  The rules of this term's Senate say that the committee assignments etc are set up at the beginning of the term and are fixed until that term expires, regardless of what happens to the membership numbers of each party.

  Your confusion is understandable, as the rules aren't always this way. For example the rules in 2001 allowed the Jeffords switch that year to alter the leadership makeup in exactly the way you describe.

  But the rules for this term's Senate don't allow that to happen. Things are as they are until next January.

  by some other george on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:59:56 AM PDT

  •  You beat me to it

    I was just getting ready to post the same thing.

    by RenMin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:12:31 AM PDT

  •  Just read

    count's diary entitled Why Congress is Unproductive and, while I had a general idea about the challenges faced by the majority party if their numbers aren't overwhelming, what I came away with is that once again we have some crazy system that was designed for simplicity that has been tweaked too many times so that the average citizen can no longer understand the dynamics.

    Just as our tax code requires us all to spend $50 every year on some software program to be able to accurately pay our taxes and a huge industry has been created to make some sense of a medical coding system gone amok, years of manipulating Congressional rules have created a bureaucracy no voter can wrap their arms around.  

    I'd have real sympathy for the Senators and Congressmen but never do you hear them raising the BS flag in protest and trying to once again simplify the mess.

    by artmartin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:26:50 AM PDT

•  Not sure that 'Ole Joe...

  ...is the only reason for rubber spine syndrome.

  by pere on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:24:26 AM PDT

  •  maybe not

    but he sure is fun to throw darts at.

    by artmartin on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:27:29 AM PDT

•  Another theory

  by William C. Carlotti, posted on the Baltimore Chronicle, claims that senate oversight of CIA activities now implicates them (esp. Schumer and Feinstein) for abrogating international treaties, thus violating the Constitution.  Personally, I doubt this is the smoking cannon, but it is perhaps one of many minor factors.

  While Republican ships flee from the sinking rat, our dumb Dems hang on.

  by Eikyu Saha on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:27:34 AM PDT

•  I think Pelosi showed the real reason recently

  in the recent article in CQ

  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., admitted Thursday that she had underestimated the willingness of Republicans to stand behind President Bush’s Iraq policy despite the drubbing the GOP took in the polls in 2006.

     "The assumption I made was that the Republicans would soon see the light," she said. Instead, the minority stuck to the president’s war policy in the face of unrelenting pressure from congressional Democrats and powerful lobbying campaigns by anti-war groups.

  I think there were a lot of Democrats who thought that we were still in the 90s, when bipartisanism wasn't seen as all bad (on the Republican side).  She (along with many others) didn't understand (or want to believe) that the R's have become a group that don't understand the idea of compromise - they all buy into  Grover Norquest's claim of compromise  being the equivalent of date rape.  

  In addition, there are more than a few Ds who have friends on the other side (don't kid yourself on this) who know that if they were to embrace the kind of politics that takes no prisoners, a lot of those friendships would die.  

  In essence, what we have is leadership that consists of Pragmatic Old Geezers who are prepared to reach across the isle to get things done, but there is no one on the other side.  

  They need to get over it, and accept total political warfare.  

  by FerrisValyn on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:35:39 AM PDT

  •  Very insightful...

    ...and that's the reason I tend to turn a deaf ear to those elected officials and candidates espousing "bipartisanship", "working across the aisle", "conciliation", "negotiation", etc.  Every time we've tried these approaches lately, we've gotten it packed in our collective asses.  It's time to play hardball, and not the way Tweety plays it either.

    by Vagabond57 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:12:35 PM PDT

    •  The thing to remember is that a lot of them

      remember how successful it was in the 80s and 90s, and think it can continue to be successful.  Look at people like Rahm Emmanual, and Pelosi, and others - how many of them got their training during the 80s and 90s, when "The Grand Old Party Men" worked to pass, what was acceptable legislation?  

      What they don't want to face is that the Republican party has had a sledgehammer taken to it (in the form of the Religious right and 9/11) by this administration, and turn it into a group of cowering wimps, following him over a cliff.  

      I mean, its just inconcivable - people seeking political office that want to destroy government.

      [eye roll]

      by FerrisValyn on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:19:07 PM PDT

  •  I feel I should add a link

    to the diary where I first heard this click here.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:21:00 PM PDT

  •  With 'friends' like that...

    You may well be correct that:

    ..there are more than a few Ds who have friends on the other side (don't kid yourself on this) who know that if they were to embrace the kind of politics that takes no prisoners, a lot of those friendships would die.

    But doesn't that imply that Ds value friendship over principles, while Rs value neither (since they prefer to scuttle their principles entirely rather than give an inch to the opposition)?  

    If such Rs constitute 'friends,' then who, indeed, needs enemies?  I say treat them like the dogs they are, show them who's boss, and watch them cower in return.  

    Speaking of which, has anyone sent copies of "The Dog Whisperer" to Pelosi or Reid?

    by Eikyu Saha on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 01:03:02 PM PDT

    •  The problem is that, in politics, its

      the "leaders" who are on the front lines.  Think of it like the WW1 Christmas soccer game, but only in reverse.

      I've had friends are Rs, and my father who is a staunch D has friends who are religious nutjobs (and by in large are Rs), and even though we have different political viewpoints, I know they would help him, and he has helped them.  I am sure the same could be said for many in congress.  

      However, they need to realize that the time for such a situation has passed, and if they can't truely be friends across the battle lines, then they need to put up or leave.

      by FerrisValyn on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:26:28 PM PDT

      •  Agreed. nt

        by Eikyu Saha on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 08:41:41 PM PDT