democratic leadership

Yesterday I posted about our weak kneed leaders in Congress. Today they seem set on proving my point:

With a potentially bruising election less than six weeks away, Democrats on Capitol Hill came to an impasse Thursday over what to do about the Bush tax cuts. The result was a decision to do nothing, at least until after the elections, when Congress comes back to Washington for a lame duck session.

For weeks, Republicans have happily watched from the sidelines as liberal and moderate Democrats have struggled to agree on the best course of action, both politically and on policy grounds, with the Bush-era tax policy that Democrats describe as a "time bomb." All of the tax cuts -- including those on income, estates and dividends, as well as the child tax credit, the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax -- will return to 2001 levels (as the legislation originally called for) unless Congress acts this year.

Greg Sergeant points out that the Democratic leadership is afraid that if the tax cuts expire on the top 2%, the Republicans will accuse them of “raising taxes”.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) is now the guilty party when it comes to the mystery of who shouted “baby killer” on the House floor during Bart Stupak’s speech.

“Last night was the climax of weeks and months of debate on a health care bill that my constituents fear and do not support,” Neugebauer said in a news release. “In the heat and emotion of the debate, I exclaimed the phrase ‘it’s a baby killer’ in reference to the agreement reached by the Democratic leadership. While I remain heartbroken over the passage of this bill and the tragic consequences it will have for the unborn, I deeply regret that my actions were mistakenly interpreted as a direct reference to Congressman Stupak himself.”

Well OK, maybe not so much an apology to the people, but he says he apologized to Stupak and his colleagues:

“I have apologized to Mr. Stupak and also apologize to my colleagues for the manner in which I expressed my disappointment about the bill,” he said in a statement. “The House Chamber is a place of decorum and respect. The timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate."

These kind of outbursts are starting to become a little too common with the GOP. For this to happen just hours after the House GOP leadership tells their caucus to act like adults leaves on wondering what kind of control the leadership really has.

Adding…For even more of an interesting tidbit:

Things are looking more and more uncertain on the House side when it comes to the new health care bill coming out of the senate. Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the co-chairs of the 190 member strong abortion rights caucus are question the Constitutionality of the new anti-abortion language:

As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate’s health care bill," the lawmakers said.

"This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional," DeGette and Slaughter added. "As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care."

Add to that the fact that NOW, NARAL and the Center for Reproductive Rights have now all come out opposing the bill, this will spell a lot of trouble for the bill, especially when it comes time to vote on the final conference.

As far as what would be unconstitutional about the provision, I’m not really sure, but Slaughter and DeGette are promising a fight:

DeGette and Slaughter had previously warned that if the final healthcare bill were to include restrictions on abortion spending, they would lead the Pro-Choice Caucus against the bill.

"The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform," the two said.

Given the 220-215 victory the original House bill saw, this puts acceptance of the conference bill in big peril.

Greg Sargent has found out something very interesting:

The House GOP leadership hopes to force Dems into an awkward vote on the plan to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, a leadership aide tells me. The idea: If the House Dem leadership brings a big scheduled appropriations bill up for a vote this week, Republicans will likely offer a motion calling for a ban on using any Federal funds to transfer KSM and co-conspirators to New York.

“Now that the White House has announced it is ignoring the will of the American people and going ahead with this, the stakes are a lot higher,” the aide says. “Will House Democratic Leadership bring this bill up for a vote this week?”

It’s amazing how much America has changed. Just a year ago if you questioned a decision our Commander in Chief made about the “war on terror”, you got called all kinds of names like: traitor, terrorist sympathizer, America hater, or weak. Of course those were Republicans shouting those names at Democrats. Now that a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans feel it perfectly fine to question every single decision made by the Commander in Chief.

Something else I have been thinking about with this is how other countries handle terrorists. Take the U.K., who has had their fair share of convictions of terrorists. The U.K. didn’t set up military tribunals or war courts, instead they tried them in their public courts of law and did so successfully. So why can other countries do this but America can’t? It sure seems like there is a lack of confidence in our system of law.

There has been a lot of talk about the new WaPo/ABC poll that finds 57% of the respondents want the public option, with 51% saying go for it without Republican support.

Another interesting number in this new poll is 20%. That’s how many people now identify themselves as Republican. The numbers are very dire for the GOP:

Only 20 percent of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans, the fewest in 26 years. Just 19 percent, similarly, trust the Republicans in Congress to make the right decisions for the country's future; even among Republicans themselves just four in 10 are confident in their own party. For comparison, 49 percent overall express this confidence in Obama, steady since August albeit well below its peak.

And while it looks bad for Republicans, it should also send a warning shot to Democrats. On a nearly 3:1 basis people support the public option more than they claim to be a Republican. That’s a huge margin. So what will happen if the Democrats scrap the public option because of Republican opposition, or put in other words – if the majority party gave in to the 20% minority party? Simple – loss of power.

No I am not saying that everyone will say “that’s it I’m voting Republican”. Instead what will happen is people will say “that’s it, I’m done voting!” 2010 is a mid-term year and already has the obstacle of being near impossible to get voters to head to the polls. Add to that a disgust with the Democrats for not listening to their base, and you will see far less head out to the polling places. Likewise Republicans will be touting the defeat of the public option as a huge victory over Democrats and use that to energize their base, thus translating that energy into votes.

Oh this is just priceless:

Republicans wrapped up their retreat Friday by signaling they are losing patience with President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) criticized the new administration on Friday, saying it had promised to reach out to Republicans on the Capitol Hill, but then offered an economic recovery package that included few, if any, proposals from the minority party.

Romney, who helped write the House Republican substitute voted down Wednesday afternoon, said enough of the rhetoric, it's time for Obama to act.

And what the fuck did the Democrats get with Bush? Hell we questioned his policies and were called “traitors” and “unpatriotic”, and now the Mittster has his magical panties all up in a bunch. Welcome to what the detractors from the previous administration went through. If you don’t like it then get the hell out of the country. That is something else we heard too.

The Huffington Post's front page this morning couldn't sum it up better:

The top article from today's WaPo has a little gentler headline:

Key Setbacks Dim Luster of Democrats' Year

Having been a close follower of politics for over 25 years, I keep thinking back to 1995. Bill Clinton was in the White House and Newt Gingrich just orchestrated a massive takeover of Congress for the GOP. I have to give the Republicans credit on that, because they did fight for their campaign promises. They shut the government down to fight. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership have shown absolutely no spine in fighting this White House, and that is an extreme disappointment.

Of course the two deserting Bush now are John Doolittle and Pete Domenici, two people facing tough re-elections as well as investigations into their own backgrounds.

While the media is talking about this recent rash of desertion by warhawk Republicans, the Democratic leadership is wondering if they will put up or shut-up. Nancy Pelosi had this to say:

Another senior Republican senator has broken with the failed Iraq policy of President Bush. Senator Domenici’s March 2008 timetable is consistent with the legislation Democrats have proposed as recently as June 29 to redeploy our troops and reflects the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Yet President Bush and most of his party in the House and Senate remain firmly committed to a policy that has failed and a war without end.

Senator Warner’s benchmarks, Senator Lugar’s declaration, and the realization by Senators Domenici and Voinovich that a change is needed in Iraq demonstrate bipartisan support for an end to the war. Now the question is whether they will join in a bipartisan way in voting to change course in Iraq and to bring our troops home? For those in Congress who have yet to speak out, the question is: how long until you respect the wishes of the American people to end this war?

Aravosis also has the statement released by Harry Reid on the same subject.