I watched the congressional proceedings on January 6 and was proud of those Democrats who voted to object to the slate of Ohio electors. To all 32 representatives and Senator Boxer, thank you for doing a service to our democracy. However, that should not excuse the rest of the Democratic Party for its pathetic display that day, especially those Democrats in the Senate. Boxer's whole point to objecting was not to overturn the results, but rather to make a symbolic protest of our broken election system. Right after she finished speaking, one of our own - Mark Dayton (D-MN), spoke up and said he disagrees. He's followed by Dick Durbin, who states he will vote against Boxer's objection but then agrees with all of her points. And you wonder how the Republicans are able to paint us as trying to have it both ways.
It was a shameful display to watch senators who have nothing to worry about in their own state in terms of a political challenge - Durbin, Schumer, even Ted Kennedy - vote against Boxer. In the house, the speeches were far more passionate; Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson, Jr. were fantastic. And yet we have Bernie Sanders (I-VT), make a fabulously passionate speech about the election problems, and then he votes against the objection. Where were Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on these issues? Why did they not make the party hold the line to the Republicans and make a very real protest by having a significant number of senators and more representatives object?
The answer lies in what I saw of both of them on January 6. Harry Reid's little statement in the Senate was pathetic; it was lame; it was awful to listen to someone state objections, ones that cause all of us so much outrage, in such a dull, lifeless tone. Pelosi was equally docile in her statement on the House floor. One of the important lessons I learned in one of my freshman classes at the Wharton School of Business - Management 100 - was that substance is only half the battle in making presentations. Style is equally as important, and our leaders don't know that if you want others to believe what you're saying, you have to make it seem as though it truly matters to you. It gives the impression that Democrats don't really have any spine - one that I'd be inclined to agree with. It's a shame, but where is our party when we need to stand up on issues?
Even though there have been headlines about the Gonzales confirmation hearings, there hasn't been any widespread belief that he may not get confirmed, whereas his predecessor, John Ashcroft, faced far more intense hearings - and we didn't even know how bad he would be at the time. Now it comes out that a possible candidate for the DNC chairmanship, Tim Roemer, is a top member at a right-wing think tank. There are even some senior Democrats suggesting that Terry MacAuliffe stay on as DNC chair. Don't get me wrong; I've eaten a cheesesteak with MacAuliffe, and he's a very personable guy. But he's just not a politician; he's a fundraiser. We need someone who can go on TV and talk common sense to the masses. We need someone who can make nuanced statements in plain English (yes, that's an oxymoron). Most of all, we need someone who has spine, someone who's willing to say what they mean and speak for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party - us. It's time for us to take back our party from the bottom up, as Howard Dean has been advocating with DFA. Only when our voices can truly be heard will there be true reform in the Democratic Party. How is that Republicans can demonize Michael Moore and paint Democrats as equally evil during the electoral objection, and we do absolutely nothing to combat that criticism? When the GOP pushes, we push right back. We must stop rolling over. As Joseph Cannon states in his excellent blog, I don't mind being called the 'X-Files' wing of the Democratic Party. The motto of that show, after all, was THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. We know what the truth is. Now we need to find someone who is willing to speak the truth - and not be afraid of it.
