Poll: how much responsibility does Pelosi have for the House's failure to stand up to Bush

OK this is the third in a series of diaries. I am trying to get some information about kossacks' feelings about the Democratic Congressional leadership's performance. it is my intention to use this in a future diary.
I am doing 2 diaries to find out the amount of responsibility that DK bloggers think the leaders of each house have for the widely-condemned failures of Congress to stand up to Bush on the war. Because there appears to be a limit of one poll per diary, I am going to have to do this in 2 diaries. I'm started with Harry, because he is the leader of what is usually considered 'the upper chamber". you can still vote in that poll here. Now it's Nancy's turn.

•  I think Dem leadership is in Washington bubble

  and feel their oversight hearings are enough to stand up to the administration, and that they will lead to real accountability.

  This perspective comes from my meeting with Nancy Pelosi's Deputy District Director on Tuesday. I posted a lengthy diary on it today. The majority of the meeting was about impeachment, and I came away with three To Do items.

  by forbodyandmind on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:33:52 PM PDT

•  Leadership sometimes requires that you stand up

  and take a position.  If Nancy had be strong in opposition to FISA, we would have known.  If she was strong against the supplemental, we would have known.

  I think she was against both of those, but for whatever reason didn't feel she could actually lead the charge against them.  I don't understand it.

  by rjones2818 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:35:23 PM PDT

  •  FISA came up pretty quickly

    After the Senate collapse on the issue, I think Pelosi had few real options. Would have been nice though if they had either had the courage to stick around and debate the issue as long as it took, or shelved it until Congress came back.

    With regard to the supplemental, I got nothing.

    by forbodyandmind on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:42:15 PM PDT

    •  Option 1

      The easy one, sit on it until after the recess, and let us go to work on the Members.

      by ben masel on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:55:38 PM PDT

    •  the timeline

      if you want a detailed timeline of fisa related actions in the house, read my diary "how FISA went down in the House"

      by selise on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:16:50 PM PDT

      •  There you are!

        Glad to see you posting this INVALUABLE information here!  I get to bits of it in my post below yours...but your's fleshes out the full, ugly details very nicely.

        by praedor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:34:58 PM PDT

        •  howdy!

          nice to see my fdl friends here too!

          by selise on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:43:38 PM PDT

    •  I disagree with the underlying premise

      Pelosi was 100% on board with the Senate bill.  That is a fact.  The Senate bill passed so very quickly and then Reid closed down the ajourned the Senate and they left...and yet the House hadn't come anywhere near the bill at that point.  Reid closes the Senate down before knowing the fate of the Enabling Act of 2007?  Hardly.  Pelosi was entirely onboard and he knew it.  

      Pelosi takes the bill and uses an entirely different and FAR less stringent set of rules for passing the Enabling Act compared to the rules for the better bill that actually protected some of what remains of the 4th and 5th Amendments.  The rules for the better bill (not a good bill but better) required 2/3s of the House in order to pass.  The Enabling Act was dropped on the floor with merely a majority required to pass.  Furthermore, Steny Hoyer had to seek unanimous consent for the Enabling Act to be considered.  Not a single Dem objected to unanimous consent.  What does that tell you about the "brave" Dems that voted "no" on the Enabling Act?  Any one of them, or ALL of them could have objected and forced a proper consideration and fight for the better bill while torpedoing the Enabling Act.  They didn't.

      Those are the facts.  The Enabling Act would NOT have passed if Reid or Pelosi weren't in favor of it.  Period.  Once they got onboard, there was still a chance for other Dems to kill it.  Once the Senate fell down utterly on the Constitution, the House STILL had a chance to kill that cancer.  Pelosi and the entire House fell down.

      Reid and Pelosi are 100% complicit.  Most of the Senate, Dems and GOPers, are complicit.  Virtually the entire House, Dem and GOPers, are complicit.  No one.  NO ONE lifted a finger to stop the Enabling Act.

      Shortly thereafter, Pelosi made a totally pandering move to the base (those in favor of a few basics like the Bill of Friggin' Rights) by calling for a bill for consideration in September to fix the broken fix that they just passed!  Problem.  THERE IS NO WAY THERE WONT BE A VETO!  AND PELOSI KNOWS THIS (and PLANNED on this).  It is PANDERING!  Furthermore, even if they managed to "fix" the Enabling Act that should NEVER have passed in the first place, it's too late.  The Enabling Act gives Bush a free pass to spy to his heart's content until the end of his term.  Huh?  That's right.  All he has to do is pick his targets before the automatic expiration (since he will veto the bogus Pelosi pandering bill) in February and he's home free.  See, even when the bill dies in 6 months, it contains a clause that allows any and all spying being conducted at that time to continue for a year!  FREE PASS!  Sure, he wont be able to start up NEW spying but hell, why would he need to?  He can simply pick all the targets he wants (political opponents, journalists, etc) and make sure they are spied upon BEFORE the 6 month period ends and there you go.

      This is, first and foremost, on Reid and Pelosi.  It is then upon EVERY Dem in the House and Senate for lying down and allowing this to go through with barely a whimper.

      by praedor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:33:50 PM PDT

      •  one question...

        i'm not sure that any dem in the house could have stopped passage of s.1927 on saturday by objecting to the UC. the leadership would have just gone the route of using a rule to bring it up for a vote (that would have required a simple majority to pass). so the only think that could have been accomplished was a delay of a day - if i'm understanding it correctly.

        this week i've been talking with another house aide (and expert on the rules), and just got some more info via email from him. will go through it this weekend and write an update to my diary if necessary.

        by selise on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:48:28 PM PDT

        •  Delay is good

          It would have helped get even MORE angry phonecalls, email, faxes, and letters to them indicating how very very BAD this bill was and that they had better listen to their betters on this.

          Of course, that merely addresses the unanimous consent issue in the House.  Pelosi and Reid were still complicit since it was up to them whether the better bill or the Enabling Act got considered and pushed.  They BOTH chose the Enabling Act.

          They are not leaders.

          by praedor on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:51:28 PM PDT

          •  agreed.

            absolutely agree w/ you about the complicity of the congressional leadership... sadly, especially speaker pelosi.

            by selise on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:54:21 PM PDT

•  Unlike me, the Democratic leadership

  doesn't exactly want to be known as fire breathing, progressive radicals.  They'd be horrified to be called socialists.  I wouldn't mind those appellations, I might even like them.  They on the other hand are far more cautious and have some illusions about the possibility of bi-partisanship.  I see it mostly as gradualism and selling out; they see it as politics.

  So I don't expect the Democratic leadership to lead us.  I prefer to think that by agitation, and other means we can actually get them to follow us.

  I don't think N Pelosi is responsible for any of the above.  I'd prefer that we take responsibility for it.  I think we've got the government we so justly deserve.

  by davidseth on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:42:09 PM PDT

  •  I like that perspective

    at least until you get to the point that we deserve this government. We do need to take responsibility for where our government is, but I think deserve stretches the case just a bit far. Just because the radical right fringe has been able to push things so far, there have been attempts to stand in their way. Because such attempts so far have not been strong enough, that does not mean we deserve the abuses that arise out of those failures.

    Those that are complicit, well that's another argument, but that number does not encompass the whole.

    by forbodyandmind on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:51:05 PM PDT

    •  You're partially right.

      We do need to take responsibility for where our government is, but I think deserve stretches the case just a bit far.

      I do stretch it and I do that intentionally.

      Look, if we were organized as a serious opposition to rethuglican abuse, we would've been out in the streets long ago, and we would have made it perfectly clear to our representatives that we are not going to accept their folding while the Constitution is being dismantled.  That's our job.  And we haven't done it.  My point even if it's a stretch, is that by not forcing these issues, we deserve the lackluster response we've been given.

      by davidseth on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:58:47 PM PDT

      •  the masses have definitely been passified n/t

        by forbodyandmind on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:08:52 PM PDT

        •  Not pacified, more like drugged n/t

          by davidseth on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:21:24 PM PDT

          •  you know, I thought that looked wrong

            my spellcheck didn't pick it up for some reason

            by forbodyandmind on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:53:51 PM PDT

  •  There is something very, very wrong

    when doing something like refusing to introduce a bill that supposedly legalizes something that is flat-out unconstitutional gets one described as a fire-breathing progressive.  Not that there's anything with being a fire-breathing progressive, mind you.

    If Pelosi were to ever get accused of being that, and if she didn't have the courage to say "You're goddamned right I am", then all she has to do is reply like this:  "This is not about political ideology.  This is about protecting and defending the Constitution, which I took an oath to do when I entered the House of Representatives.  If I allow this bill to reach the floor, I will be in violation of that oath."

    It's kinda like when Russ Feingold was grilled for his Patriot Act vote.  "Why didn't you support that bill?" he was asked, accusingly.  "Because I read it", he replied.  Even my neocon mother was impressed with that one, and gave him her grudging respect.

    And so what if Insannity and O'Lielly go apeshit?  So freakin' what?  They wake up apeshit every morning and it all goes downhill from there anyway.

    by Mehitabel9 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:55:38 PM PDT

•  She is the leader.

  She gets the credit and/or blame.  

  by Delaware Dem on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:58:09 PM PDT

  •  I have a little quote

    on my refrigerator door.  It's been there since I was in graduate school.  (Don't pay attention to where it came from, though.)

    Accountability is taking responsibility before the fact, rather than after the fact.
     
    It is taking a stand, and standing by it.
     
    When those who are accountable are right, they take the credit. When they're wrong, they take the heat. It's a fair exchange.

    Accountability is a way of working.

    Those who practice it have an unspoken respect for each other -- and a visible disdain for the absent-minded apologizers, mumbling excuse makers, and trembling fence-sitters who run from integrity as if it were the plague.
                                                                 -- Lehman Brothers, 1987

    by Mehitabel9 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:06:43 PM PDT

•  Where are Pelosi's patriotic, heroic speeches?

  I'm proud she's Speaker, but "someone else" is OK with me.

  by number six on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 05:59:28 PM PDT

•  Remember the Blue Dog Democrats

  The make up of the House is 231 Democrats and 202 Republicans.  But, don't forget the 33 or so Blue Dog Democrats that are very conservative.  There is NO liberal or progressive majority in the House.

  The Senate has 49 Democratic votes...forget about Lieberman, and Tim Johnson is on the disabled list.

  So...there is no Democratic majority in either house to approve liberal or progressive policies.

  by KLS on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:04:05 PM PDT

  •  A point that more

    people should understand.

    by Mike S on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:13:58 PM PDT

  •  enough to block

    there is no Democratic majority in either house to approve liberal or progressive policies

    true enough.

    but there's enough to block bad legislation. if they want to.

    by selise on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:20:06 PM PDT

  •  Which is why it is Pelosi's job to make sure

    bad legislation doesn't get to the floor for a vote.

    by Tanya on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:23:54 PM PDT

    •  The problem is that we

      ran saying that we would return congress to it's old ways of allowing the minority a vote. We'd look like Republicans if we didn't follow through.

      by Mike S on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:45:11 PM PDT

      •  sorry, no.

        i don't think that's what happened. the dems did not use a normal procedure to get this legislation passed. looks like the process was manipulated. (see my diary link above for the gruesome details).

        wish i didn't have to give you the bad news. :(

        by selise on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:52:08 PM PDT

•  Part of the problem, but...

  I think the 1 1/2 Party System mentality is so deeply ingrained in so many leading Democrats that it's hard for them to know that the ceiling's been raised so they can stand up for what they had believed in.

  by Judge Moonbox on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:34:03 PM PDT

  •  1 1/2 party system

    I like the terminology - so true

    by lenzy1000 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:55:55 PM PDT

•  how can the answer *not* be 100% ?

  ...she sets the house agenda and no committee or sub-committee can assemble without her approval, ultimately.  

  if i am mistaken, please inform me of how the speaker is not responsible for the house; i am most interested in the answer...

  by james risser on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:47:55 PM PDT

  •  Oh, good grief.

    What foolishness. She and Reid are herding cats -- people who get hired and fired by voters, not by the leadership.

    If she were "100% responsible" we would be wasting a lot of money on another 399 Representatives (don't do it: it's too easy).

    by Elwood Dowd on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:17:34 PM PDT

    •  Oh, come on.

      What is the worst that could have happened if she'd kept that bill off the floor?

      I bet all those yes-voting Benedict Arnolds would have been relieved at being taken off the hook, is what I bet.  And the voters?  All but the 25% Bush-supporting knuckledraggers would have been just fine with that.

      by Mehitabel9 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:57:59 PM PDT

      •  I'm not saying 0%

        But people who say 100% are living in a fantasyland where changing One Key Figure Makes Everything Right.

        If she had simply kept the bill off the floor -- and I'm no expert on House rules; I don't concede that she could have -- she would have been replaced as Speaker and the bill would have gone through.

        by Elwood Dowd on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:05:26 PM PDT

        •  She is 100% responsible.

          Responsibility is not the same thing as guilt.

          She is the Speaker.  She is responsible.

          Part of the problem with this country, in my not so humble opinion, is that too many of us no longer understand the concept of responsibility and accountability.  

          by Mehitabel9 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:08:14 PM PDT

          •  I understand both, I think.

            And pardon me, you do not.

            We have a House of 400 representatives, each of whose votes has weight.

            To say that any one person -- Pelosi, Rove, Bush -- is "100% responsible" for a House action is nonsense.

            by Elwood Dowd on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:11:09 PM PDT

            •  Pelosi has the power

              to keep legislation off the floor.

              Pelosi has the power to set the agenda for the House, just as Reid has the power to set it for the Senate -- or they would have the power, if they chose to exercise it.

              However, Pelosi and Reid have voluntarily abdicated those powers and allowed the WH to push through any legislation it pleases, and to set the Congressional agenda.

              The buck stops with the two of them.

              by Mehitabel9 on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:18:12 PM PDT

            •  you are showing that you do not...

              ...understand the role of the speaker of the house, i'm afraid.  she sets the agenda, committee assignments, and has to approve any and all committee meetings and legislative matters concerning the house and its members.

              she is indeed 100 per cent responsible for that, and therefore my original question remains unanswered.  nothing happens without her approval; and all that does happen must have her approval...

              by james risser on Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:49:21 PM PDT