Is This What We're Asking Congressional Democrats to Do?

During the days leading up to the Civil War, a Senator name Preston Brooks beat a colleague to within an inch of his life with a cane as a result of a debate over the issue of slavery.  Obviously he was putting up a fight for what he truly believed in at great risk to his political future.  Obviously, this is not a man I'd invite to a party with any alcohol served.

Now I don't believe in violence for solving issues except as an act of self defense.  It's a stupid and ineffective way of dealing with divisive topics as illustrated by where our country went in the wake of incidents like this one.  I do worry however when I see titles of diaries indicating we're bringing a (insert ineffective weapon here) to a (insert overwhelming weapon here) fight that we may find ourself in some bloody battle that nobody wins.

I've posted diaries and responses lately where I've found myself guilty of wanting a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach by Congressional Democratic leaders and I'm beginning to wonder, were we to get everything we want out of people like Pelosi and Reid, if an event like this one wouldn't be the eventual outcome.  This is not to say that I think they've taken the right approach in capitulating every time as it appears but I'm tempted lately to lower my expectations just a bit.  I'd settle for metered outrage and an occasional procedural push just to mess with these moronic fascists until the voters truly take away their power.  

As much as that well-repressed macho gene in my body can cause me to fantasize the guy with the cane being Dennis Kucinich and the guy on the ground being some cretin neo-con like Mitch McConnell, my intellect immediately tells me that if we get to that point, we've all lost.

The more I read and learn about the absurd procedural rules of the House and Senate the more I'm beginning to understand the bizarre predicament Democratic leadership is in.  The numbers simply aren't there to get past an adversarial veto power in the White House or even to change the rules to have them make more sense.  All of those things take an overwhelming majority.

Now here's what I could live with for the next year though.  Defeat the FISA bill if there's any telecom immunity in it.  Make that a line in the sand.  Get Cheney's impeachment resolution through committee and out to a vote.  This is an issue that needs to progress even if the votes aren't there to convict just because it will ensure the investigations get some press.  Stand up to the FCC and reverse their decision to allow further media consolidation or at least set up the fight for when the majority gets larger.  Every time the President gets on the TV to whine about Congress, find a camera and point out every dumb move the guy has ever made, loudly and firmly.

I'm pretty sure we won't see a repeat of Preston Brook's violent outburst in our modern day Congress but there are certainly the personalities on the other side that if pushed too hard would love to provoke those kinds of emotions.  Ultimately it's always about balance in the end.  

I'll continue to press for action from people like Reid and Pelosi but I'm not sure I'll be calling for their heads if they don't totally live up to my expectations.  We can still demand action while just calling for an ear or a nose.

•  Tips/Cane Slinging

  try to be gentle

  by artmartin on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:12:56 AM PDT

•  Look, I'll never ask Kucinich to knock out all of

  Mitch McConnell's teeth and then force him to give Ann Coulter a blowjob. I'm not asking for that—sorry about that image, too.
  I would simply like a slightly more spirited debate in the halls of congress. When the Rethugs threaten to filibuster, Dems shouldn't just immediately cave. I WANTADEBATEDAMNIT!
  That's all.

  by pat bunny on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:27:57 AM PDT

  •  You just made my morning

    with that image.  Were I Catholic I'd immediately go to confession.

    by artmartin on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:30:31 AM PDT

•  what we CAN do is work to defeat McConnell in 08

  and defeat all the other Republican obstructionists up for re-election.  We can get a 60+-vote majority in the Senate.  

  And we can elect a Democratic president.

  That's our calling...and our charge.  

  Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. RFK 1966

  by Wanda517 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:33:11 AM PDT

  •  I'm hoping

    60 may be unreachable but we have to try.  I'd settle for as many as possible if not.  We certainly don't have a true majority today with Lieberman the flake that he is.  I'm pretty sure, if push comes to shove, he answers to Republican leadership over the Democrats.

    by artmartin on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:40:10 AM PDT

    •  60 isn't necessary

      The closer the democratic majority gets to 60 votes, the better we are.  I'm honestly not really sure it matters if there are 59 or 60 votes.  There will still be some conservative dem senators who don't go along with everything, and there will be repub senators who break with their party, too.

      The important thing is that even with a 58 or 59 vote majority, repub leadership would have to be constantly wary of anyone tiring of their obstructionism and jumping ship.  They would be forced to become more accomodating.  I'll take that over the current environment any day.

      by cdsmith on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 09:54:26 AM PDT

      •  Also, after 2008...

        ....Republicans will not have Bush in the White House. Bush, while unpopular, can still make life miserable for Republican Senators and Representatives who don't toe his line. With him gone, and with a Democratic White House and strong majorities in the House and Senate, I think you'll see a lot of Republican opposition crumble.

        by metal prophet on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:44:56 AM PDT

•  I think

  that we're too caught up in the idea that the GOP got everything it wanted when they were in teh majority.

  While they got alot of what they wanted from 2001-2007, that wasn't the case while Clinton was President. Clinton veteod 36 bills the GOP gave him and they failed to override 34 of them. In some issues, such as DOMA, he was way outnumbered. The GOP tried to stop Kosovo unsuccessfully. They couldn't even come close to removing Clinton from office after impeaching him, and the House only passed two of the four articles of impeachment, one of them by just 10 votes. During the Clinton presidency the Republican base was furious at their party for "giving in" to Clinton constantly.

  by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:27:35 AM PDT

•  is there a precedent for this?

  If the Democrats would simply decide what they will not allow in a bill to be passed by them and stick to that, it would be a big change. In other words, don't pass any bill if the Republicans won't back down. You want 70 billion dollars for more war with no withdrawal timeline? Too bad, the choices are 70 billion dollars with a timeline or ZERO dollars, which should get the troops home pretty soon also. You want FISA changes with telecom immunity? How about you take FISA changes with no immunity or we leave FISA the way it is?

  Why do the Democrats feel like they have to pass something, anything, even if it means giving the Republicans everything they want? Just pass nothing, which in most cases means the Executive doesn't get money it wants or it doesn't get a free pass on previous crimes.

  How about if the Democrats also stop voting near unanimously for stupid and dangerous legislation like the Domestic Terrorism (AKA "thought-crime") bill? They really need to take the physician's "primum non nocere" pledge when it comes to anything to do with civil liberties and the Constitution.

  by glaser on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:07:41 AM PDT

  •  Republicans want Democrats

    cut funding. it makes it easier for them to win "The liberals are so hell bent on ending the war, they're willing to make the troops suffer"

    As for FISA and other national security issues, we're dealing with a nation so paranoid of another 9/11, they'll sell their mothers to the devil if it meant there's a chance it'll make them less likely to be killed by terrorists.

    Perhaps you've heard of the saying "The Constitution is not a suicide pact?" It was attributed to Abraham Lincoln when he suspended habeaus corpus during the Civil War and was used by a Supreme Court Justice in a dissenting opinion during a free speech case. Judge Posner wrote a book about it last year and John Sununu has used the saying recently.

    Personally, I think it is a suicide pact and I'm not ashamed to admit it, hell, the Declaration of Indpendence was, Ben Franklin himself said "we either hang together or seperately" when siging the DOI, but when I say that, I am looked at like some crazy person.

    But America today is that brave. It likes to believe it is, but it's not. We're not willing to die for the Constitution, just for the dollar. Those who are willing to live and die with the Constitution are branded as "anti-American" and "defeatists" The America I see today is one that would never have fought the British for their indepedence, because it's too inconveinent. It means missing the Dancing with the Stars results show or posponing that vacation. They'd just bitch and moan about the taxes and go back to their lives.

    by nrafter530 on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:29:26 AM PDT

•  It's one thing...

  ....to compromise with reasonable people. It's quite another to give unreasonable people everything they want in a bid to curry favor with them. Favor that will never come.

  by metal prophet on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 11:42:37 AM PDT