Recently in The Pelosi House Category

"Our work is far from finished. As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back. It is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to create jobs and strengthen the middle class."

In a rebuke to the few Blue Dog remnants that have been calling for her ousting, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces her intention to run for Minority Leader in the 112th Congress. "[D]riven by the urgency of protecting health care reform, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare, I have decided to run."

This is excellent news. As I've said here before, Speaker Pelosi has gotten things done on the Hill, and the blame for what happened Tuesday does not fall on her shoulders. To the contrary, she was often the only Democratic leader putting up a fight. Also, there is historical precedent: Twice during his long Speakership, Sam Rayburn cooled his heels as Minority Leader, waiting out the GOP blips. As the linked article points out, if Pelosi emulating Rayburn somehow encourages Obama to consider becoming more Trumanesque, well, all the better.

Imagine for a moment you are president of the United States.

You were just elected in the midst of a worsening economic crisis, one that demands bold action and decisive leadership to confront. Fortunately, you enter office with an historic wind at your back: You enjoy unprecedented enthusiasm and goodwill from millions of new voters, a clear mandate for change, and, most importantly, sizable majorities in both the House and Senate.

You also know that the political opposition -- who hold a long and storied record of being ruthless, craven and despicable to get what they want -- will try to prevent your agenda by any means necessary.

And, being a student of history, you know that, particularly in the face of a poor economy, this political opposition is very likely to pick up congressional seats in the next election (with a few notable exceptions, one of which I'll get to in a moment.) In other words, a pendulum swing against you is highly probable, and so the majorities you have are probably as big as they are ever going to get.

Basically, you have two years, and likely two years only, to do pretty much anything you want in order to grapple with this economic crisis. Do you [a] take a page from FDR's 100 Days, go big, and push hard for the progressive agenda you laid down in your election campaign, which has the added benefit of enthusing the "rising American electorate" that got you elected? Or do you [b] try to ingratiate yourself with people who will always hate you, water down your signature legislative initiatives from the outset, and seemingly go out of your way to depress the lefty base that got you elected?

I think you see where I'm going with this.

First things first, let's be clear about why the Republicans took back the House so decisively two days ago.

1) It's the Economy, Stupid. Though it may be mostly Dubya's fault, the economy is obviously still in terrible shape. The official unemployment rate hovers just under the double-digits, and real unemployment and underemployment levels are much higher. Household incomes are down, consumer debt is up, millions of homeowners are stuck with underwater mortgages, and millions more feel in danger of slipping under. As everyone knows, when economic times are bad, the party in power suffers.

Compounding the situation, families are feeling under the gun at exactly the same time that those same wealthy few who precipitated the Great Recession are now rolling in dough. Having evaded pretty much any and all serious consequences for the meltdown they created, the Big Brains on Wall Street are instead giving themselves record bonuses, and trying to profit from even more rampant corruption on the foreclosure front. To no one does this ugly sight look like change we can believe in.

2) Republicans voted, Democrats didn't. Again, not rocket science: Democrats lost because Republicans came out and Democrats stayed home. Look at the breakdown of exit polls: As per the norm in midterms, the 2010 electorate was older than the population at large. (23% of the vote versus 13% of the population.) And 57% of those seniors, worried that the threat of Creeping Socialism might somehow interfere with their federal retirement security and universal health care, pulled the lever for Republicans.

Conversely, 29 million Obama voters did not show up to vote. "Hispanics, African Americans, union members and young people were among the many core Democratic groups that turned out in large numbers in the 2008 elections...In 2010, turnout among these groups dropped off substantially, even below their previous midterm levels." Take voters under 30, for example, who vote Democratic at about the same rate seniors vote Republican. They went from 18% of the electorate in 2008 to 11% this year. Obviously, that's a problem.

So, working back from these factors -- economic performance and voter turnout -- it follows that the two best things the administration could have done to improve Democrats' standing this year would have been to get the economy moving again and to get the Democratic base fired up and ready to go. So what happened? Let's look at the tape.

The Economy: As Paul Krugman has already pointed out, much of the story of this election was written way back in February 2009, when the Obama administration chose to settle on a stimulus package that was watered-down to appease Republicans who would never, ever vote for it. In fact, thanks to Larry Summers, the stimulus was low-balled from the start -- Summers made sure Christina Romer's higher-end projections for the amount needed never even made it to the president's desk.

So the crystal was in the steel at the point of fracture, and mainly because Obama, doing the President Goldilocks routine that would become a trademark, watered down the Recovery Act early-on to appease an opposition that was unappeasable.

By late 2009, the warning signs that ARRA was probably too small were all over the place -- not the least in the growing state budget crises seen all across the country. But even as Republicans throttled congressional attempts to remedy the situation, the Obama administration remained mostly passive...or, in the case of food stamps, worse. Many in the White House took up the standard of the deficit witchhunt. (Yes, there was some rhetorical urging of the tsk-tsk variety eventually, but that, as on so many other fights, was after the chips were already down.)

Going along with this frustrating passivity was the increasing sense over time that this administration, elected to be change we could believe in, was more than a little cozy with the Wall Street yokels who caused the economic disaster in the first place. Yes, TARP was originally Dubya's baby -- not that very many voters seemed to remember that fact. (And it's hard to blame them when folks like Geithner keep touting its merits.) Still, acceding to the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street -- with little to no strings attached -- was an extraordinarily inopportune way to kick off an administration theoretically premised on fundamental change.

I have to confess that, at the time, I thought TARP was unfortunate but probably necessary. Two years later, I'm thinking I probably just just got railroaded, and didn't know what I was talking about. (Hey, it wasn't the only thing I was wrong about in 2008.) But, even back then, I argued that TARP had to come with game-changing restrictions on Wall Street's behavior. Those, clearly, were not forthcoming.

Yes, Congress did pass financial reform -- But let's remember, Team Obama worked openly to weaken the bill, and even now certain admin folks are clearly trying to derail Elizabeth Warren, the best chance the financial reforms, however tepid, have at working as intended for consumers. (Or, to quickly take another example, there's the matter of the HAMP foreclosure program, which, as David Dayen has documented, seems more concerned with recouping money for lenders than helping families in trouble.)

As on the finreg bill, so too on other fronts -- and this is where we get to the suppressing turnout issue.

On health reform, which thank god eventually passed, we now know that the administration cut deals early on to kill drug reimportation on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry (even after Sen. Dorgan reintroduced the idea) and, more egregiously, to kill the public option on behalf of AHIP and the hospitals. Looking back, the president signaled the public option's expendability in his September 2009 health care address, another classic example of the wait-too-long-then-try-to-swoop-in-and-save-the-day legislative strategy usually preferred by the White House. And by the eve of the midterms, he was openly mocking public option supporters at fundraisers.

But, even those fundamental breaks with real reform aside, the entire health care process got badly screwed up when the administration, in a misguided attempt to curry bipartisan favor for reform, let Max Baucus dink around for weeks on the Senate Finance Committee. While Republican Senators Snowe and Grassley played Lucy to Baucus' Charlie Brown and kept moving the football, the Tea Party August of 2009 took shape, and almost a year in legislative time was lost. And, by the time Baucus finally released the durned thing, the bill had once again been watered down to gain imaginary Republican votes that were never, ever going to be forthcoming.

The litany of Obama's other sins by now are well known. As noted before, this administration has been absolutely egregious on civil liberties, all the while telling us to "look forward, not backward" on Dubya's torture regime. (But different rules for everyone else, it seems.) Meanwhile, Gitmo is still open, and DADT is still enforced. Immigration reform did not happen. Nor did energy reform, despite House Democrats going out on a limb to pass a bill way back in June of 2009. (Yesterday, Obama the "shellacked" buried this bill for good.) And so on.

If all these compromises and capitulation -- which were never political necessities so much as unforced errors -- weren't enough to depress the base, the administration's press arm continued a steady diet of hippie-punching. "Left of the left", pajama-wearing bloggers, the "professional left" -- time and again, "senior advisors" and press flaks went out of their way to scorn the people who sweat blood and tears to get them elected. I already mentioned Obama ridiculing public option supporters -- Well, where did folks ever get the notion that a wonky, badly-named fix like the public option was the ground to fight on anyway? Because the president told us it was important.

To be clear: I am not arguing that Obama hasn't accomplished anything (although, in almost all cases -- including health care reform, much more credit should really go to the very unfairly maligned Speaker Pelosi -- she's the one who made it all happen.) But, at every point down the line, for every piece of legislation that did pass, you have to factor in the opportunity costs that were lost. And consistently, this administration has pursued the politics of the lowest common denominator. To quote the prescient Drew Westen once again:

"I don't honestly know what this president believes. But I believe if he doesn't figure it out soon, start enunciating it, and start fighting for it, he's not only going to give American families hungry for security a series of half-loaves where they could have had full ones, but he's going to set back the Democratic Party and the progressive movement by decades, because the average American is coming to believe that what they're seeing right now is 'liberalism,' and they don't like what they see. I don't, either. What's they're seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That's a recipe for going nowhere fast -- but getting there by November."

And, hey, look what happened.

Remember how I mentioned a midterm outlier way up at the beginning of this post? That was 1934 -- when, in an economy even worse than the one America faces now, Roosevelt managed to pick up seats in both the House and Senate. FDR gave us the 100 Days, a flurry of political activity we haven't seen before or since. Now, granted, the Roosevelt team did not have to contend with either unfettered money corrupting the system or a pathetic Fourth Estate in a death spiral -- both severe problems with our current political culture that must be addressed. Still, when elected in the midst of a similar economic crisis, with similar expectations, this administration did not bring about a 100 Days. It gave us Three Months of Max Baucus dicking around to appease intractable Republicans.

So why did the 2010 shellacking happen? Because of the economy, yes. And because of low turnout, yes. And also because of troubling trends like corrupting money everywhere and a national press in severe decline -- The fact that the media followed Christine O'Donnell more than any other 2010 candidate tells you all you need to know about that broken-down disaster we call the Village these days.

But, nonetheless, all of these determining factors were exacerbated in the wrong direction by the administration's fatal addiction to the Fetal Position fallacy. As I said of this year's State of the Union address, "people were not looking to President Obama for this sort of deficit tsk-tsking and small-bore, fiddling around the margins. You'd think we Dems would have learned this by now. But curling up into a fetal position and mouthing moderate GOP-lite bromides will not stop the Republicans from kicking us, ever."

Some argue politics is the art of the possible. That's true, but I believe much, much more was possible if this administration had actually deigned to fight for it.

Some say the president can only do as much as Congress lets him -- he needs 60 votes, yadda yadda yadda. I'd say that he had 60 votes, and even then did not push to make things happen as much as he could. I would also argue that the presidency of the United States is actually a remarkably powerful position these days, that Obama has showed no inclination to act progressive on crucial matters like civil liberties that are totally in his bailiwick, and that, even now with a Republican House, the administration could move forward with a progressive agenda, if it so desired.

Some -- such as pathetic, DLC-brand fortunate sons like Evan Bayh and Harold Ford -- say progressivism was tried and found wanting. I would argue progressivism was not even tried.

Some say it is time to go for the Dems to embrace a more "centrist", GOP-lite Third Way from now on. I think we've been experimenting with that sad sack of failure for decades now -- it's our First Way -- and it's been proven over and over again not to work. (Just ask the Blue Dogs, who got eviscerated on Tuesday. Why vote for Republican-lite when you can have the real thing?)

Basically, it comes to this. Without vision, the people perish...and vote GOP. And because this administration did not go big, because it did not produce the change people so desperately desired, and because it forsook the possibility of real progressivism early and often to indulge their fantastical belief in the magical unicorns of High Broderism, the Democrats have now lost the House -- ironically the one branch of government that, under Speaker Pelosi, actually tried to get done what had been promised.

Now, matters are worse.

"These records show that while the chamber boasts of representing more than three million "businesses, and having approximately 300,000 members, nearly half of its $140 million in contributions in 2008 came from just 45 donors. Many of those large donations coincided with lobbying or political campaigns that potentially affected the donors."

The republic stands upon the edge of a knife, people. Stray but a little, and it will fall. While the NYT belatedly figures out the Chamber is up to no good in its overwhelming campaign spending -- thank you, Citizens United -- the Center for American Progress discovers that the vast right-wing conspiracy actually holds meetings(!):

"While the Koch brothers -- each worth over $21.5 billion -- have certainly underwritten much of the right, their hidden coordination with other big business money has gone largely unnoticed...The memo, along with an attendee list of about 210 people, shows the titans of industry -- from health insurance companies, oil executives, Wall Street investors, and real estate tycoons -- working together with conservative journalists and Republican operatives to plan the 2010 election, as well as ongoing conservative efforts through 2012."

"The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and 'if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place.'" As part of a continuing pattern of late, President Obama tells Rolling Stone that progressives need to stop whining about the way things are going and get happy, because, in what's become a new talking point, "If you look at the checklist, we've already covered about 70 percent [of the 2008 campaign promises.]" (70%?! Uh, can I see this checklist?)

Anyway, this latest weird effusion against the base has already been well-critiqued and well-answered many times. See, for example, Glenn Greenwald and David Dayen: "I've never seen a politician run an election with the message 'Don't be stupid, quit your bitching and vote for me.'" I would only add two things:

1) As it turns out, the unhappy Dems among us are more likely to vote, so perhaps berating them for not clapping enough is not altogether productive. (Unless, of course, the WH is doing it as a Sistah Souljah bank shot to get independents, on the classic establishment premise that indies love hippie-punching.)

2) I'd love to live in a world where progressive bloggers have the power to move ginormous voting blocs, I really would. But it takes a certain type of top-down, Beltway-obsessive mentality to think that's what's going on here. The biggest reason voters are depressed is because the economy is, quite obviously, not doing so well at the moment, and people are feeling the pinch. And, that aside, most Obama voters don't need blogs to tell them that this administration, on all too many fronts, hasn't lived up to its promises.

If this White House wants to engage the base (and I really, really hope they do, for reasons personal, professional, and patriotic), then, for Pete's sake, don't browbeat and lecture the Left for being disappointed -- Try to make them less disappointed! Give them some red meat, respond to their concerns, and, you know, do the things you were elected to do. Why this even has to be said is beyond me.

"I'm a free-market guy. Normally, I would leave this to the invisible hand of the market, but the invisible hand of the market has already moved over 84,000 acres of production and over 22,000 farm jobs to Mexico, and shut down over a million acres of U.S. farm land due to lack of available labor. Because apparently, even the invisible hand doesn't want to pick beans."

As you no doubt know by now, and like his White House correspondent's dinner speech in 2006, the inimitable Stephen Colbert came to the Hill on Friday to deliver his expert testimony on the plight of migrant workers, a topic the media would otherwise have completely ignored in favor of whatever crazy thing Sarah Palin tweeted today.

For those making the ridiculous argument that Congress was horribly besmirched by Colbert's satirical testimony, I have two words: Twain and Elmo. For everyone else, it was very funny and, as per Colbert's usual m.o., spoke truthiness to power. "[I]t just stands to reason, to me, that if your coworker can't be exploited, then you're less likely to be exploited yourself. And that, itself, might improve pay and working conditions on these farms, and eventually, Americans may consider taking these jobs again."

"I don't know what my biggest contribution has been. I think it has been simply showing up for work every day, trying to fight the good fight for average people...But I leave more discontented when I came here because of the terrible things that have been done to this economy by political leaders who allowed Wall Street to turn Wall Street banks into gambling casinos which damned near destroyed the economy."

On the eve of his retirement, Chair of the House Appropriations Committee David Obey has some choice words for the administration, and himself. "I think the more important thing was what was my biggest failure...our failure to stop the ripoff of the middle class by the economic elite of this country, and this is not just something that happened because of the forces of the market."

"Late one night in January, as congressional leaders and White House officials tried to narrow their differences on the cost of the health-care bill, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) gave Obama credit. 'I don't speak for the House, but this is a good offer,'...'Henry, I agree with you about two things,' Pelosi interjected. 'The president put out some numbers, and, number two, you don't speak for the House.'"

The WP's Paul Kane profiles the inimitable Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. "Some historians list her alongside Rayburn and his successor, John W. McCormack, as among the most influential speakers in the annals of Congress." (What, no love for Joe Cannon? C'mon now, American history doesn't start in 1945.)

In any case, from my ringside seat here in the belly of the beast, it's pretty clear: Speaker Pelosi gets things done. "After Scott Brown's special-election victory...some pushed for a scaled-down version of health-care legislation to draw Republican support. Pelosi balked. In a moment that has come to define her speakership, Pelosi mocked a scaled-down bill as 'Eensy Weensy Spider' health care."

Via Speaker Pelosi's official website, some much-needed perspective on the jobs situation under Dubya and Obama respectively (so far). Next time anyone of the (Keynesian-challenged) Republican persuasion starts to rant and rave about the stimulus, this might be a good graph to keep in your back pocket.

Of course, this is not to say we're anywhere near the clear on the jobs front. Not only is there some frightening new data around about the length of unemployment in this downturn, The Atlantic's Don Peck makes a compelling case about how this new jobless era will transform America: "The unemployment rate hit 10 percent in October, and there are good reasons to believe that by 2011, 2012, even 2014, it will have declined only a little...The worst effects of pervasive joblessness--on family, politics, society--take time to incubate, and they show themselves only slowly. But ultimately, they leave deep marks that endure long after boom times have returned."

"[L]ong before Hollywood discovered the Texan, he cut a wide swath through the House, always playing the roguish ladies' man and macho militarist...[His] frequent, much more sober-styled partner was Democratic Rep. John Murtha, the Pennsylvania powerhouse who chaired the defense subcommittee so important to CIA funding for the Afghan cause. And the fact that both have died now within days of each other punctuates the end of a major chapter for the House left behind."

Charlie Wilson, 1933-2010, and John Murtha, 1932-2010.

"I know that we haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there are surely times in the future when we will part ways. But I also know that every American who is sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. That must be the starting point for every debate we have in the coming months, and where we return after those debates are done. That is the foundation on which the American people expect us to build common ground."

They do? I thought they expected change we can believe in. But worn-out nods to an elusive, ephemeral, and, given the current GOP, often undesirable bipartisanship does not constitute such. In any event, so concluded the President's State of the Union address last Thursday. This is old news at this point, so I'll keep it brief. Suffice to say, while it got better as it went along, I thought the speech was merely ok, and often troubling. Throughout the evening, the president's remarks had that excessively-poll-tested, small-bore feel that conjured up grim odors of 1995 and 1996. Throw on a flannel and fire up the Pulp Fiction soundtrack, y'all: One year into the Obama era, are we already back to V-chips and school uniforms?

Part of the president's problem is that the Senate is looking like the elephant's graveyard of progressive-minded legislation right now. The president called for an energy reform bill. The House went out on a limb to pass one last June. The president called for a financial reform bill. The House passed one in December. The president called for a new jobs bill. The House also passed one in December. All of these bills, and many, many others, are languishing in the Senate right now, as Sen. Reid and others try to figure out how to somehow get something -- anything! -- passed with a larger majority than Dubya ever enjoyed.

The Senate issue aside, there were other problems in the President's speech, including far too many nods and feints in the direction of ridiculous deficit peacocks like Judd Gregg and Evan Bayh. First off, at the risk of sounding like Dick Cheney, I tend to think that deficits are troubling, but, even in the best of times, they shouldn't really be the foremost driving concern of our government policy. If we run a deficit to invest in education now, we'll save money down the road and improve Americans' quality-of-life to boot. (Put in somewhat ugly fashion, it's invest in schools now or prisons later.)

And that being said, right now is emphatically not the best of times. We know exactly what happens when you cut spending too quickly after a virulent recession -- It was called the 1937 Roosevelt recession, and it would be flagrantly idiotic to repeat it. Just because the GOP doesn't seem to understand basic Keynesian economics doesn't mean we should follow them down the rabbit hole of flat-earth thinking, just so we can look bipartisan.

No, the problem with deficits isn't necessarily the running of a deficit. It's the running-up of massive deficits for patently stupid reasons -- like, say, prosecuting a war of choice in Iraq, or doling out excessive tax breaks to multi-millionaires. And that's why some of the President's nods in that direction were so irritating last Thursday. Calling for a spending freeze on discretionary spending, without touching the exorbitant "security-related" budget (cute euphemism, that), is kabuki theater at best. And at worst, you're balancing the books at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens. (I tend to agree with Candidate Obama on this issue anyway.)

Similarly, this deficit commission which the president plans to foist on Congress by executive order after the Senate killed it, is, again, at best kabuki theater and at worst trouble. It's clear to everyone involved that the entire point of this commission is CYA: i.e, to create political cover for raids on entitlement spending, while once again ignoring the grotesquely swollen defense budget. (Altho', to be fair, Secretary Gates has at least tried to rein in growth in this sector.) In other words, this commission will basically just be a chance for deficit peacocks to pretend they're Serious People and "make tough decisions," while in fact the one really tough idea that actually needs to be tackled -- reining in defense spending -- will be completely avoided.

In any event, all this discussion of the deficit ignores the larger problem. Obviously, one of the president's biggest charges coming into office was to restore economic sanity after eight years of Dubyaite excess. That being said, people were not looking to President Obama for this sort of deficit tsk-tsking and small-bore, fiddling around the margins. You'd think we Dems would have learned this by now. But curling up into a fetal position and mouthing moderate GOP-lite bromides will not stop the Republicans from kicking us, ever.

We have a Democratic president, an 18-seat majority in the Senate, and a 79-seat majority in the House. In short, we Dems need to keep thinking big or we will pay dearly at the polls this November. Perhaps the dysfunction of the Senate is the central problem Obama faces right now, but his speech nonetheless suggests that we're getting dangerously close to Eisenhower Republican territory now, and not even in the good "the military-industrial complex is completely frakked" kinda way. Without vision, the people perish. So too will our party, if we keep up with this thin gruel, triangulation schtick. At the advice of the careerist DLC-types over the years, we have tried this path several times over -- Put simply, it does not work.

"The 'death panel' episode shows how the news media, after aiding and abetting falsehood, were unable to perform their traditional role of reporting the facts. By lavishing uncritical attention on the most exaggerated claims and extreme behavior, they unleashed something that the truth could not dispel." In the NYT, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) reviews the sad, sordid tale of Death Panel fear-mongering by the GOP this past summer.

In very related news, it seems the Republican National Committee's health insurance plan, contra all their rhetoric on Stupak, has not only covered abortion services for the past eighteen years -- it includes end-of-life counseling, a.k.a. the "Death Panels" of Sarah Palin's nightmares. These folks really have no shame.

"In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident. Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology companies."

As a speechwriter in the House, I'm sort of a rare bird...but perhaps I shouldn't be: An estimated 42 Members -- 20 Dems and 22 GOP -- get caught lifting industry talking points for the health care debate. Suggested TP's make the rounds all the time, of course, but they're usually meant to be guidelines, not taken word-for-word. Oops.

"[L]ives are what's at stake in this debate, and moments like this are why they sent us here -- to finally meet the challenges that Washington has put off for decades; to make their lives better and this nation stronger; to move America forward. That's what the House did last night when it brought us closer than we have ever been to comprehensive health insurance reform in America."

After many months of work and a long Saturday of debate (not to mention quite a few flagrant and ridiculous GOP lies along the way), the Houses passes the Affordable Health Care for America Act 220-215. (Joining 219 Dems was one solitary Republican, Anh Joseph Cao of William Jefferson's old seat, and he voted after the bill had already crossed the 218 threshold.) And, much thanks to the people who have fought for it all this time, H.R. 3962 passed the House with the public option bloodied but still intact.

Alas, the skeleton at the feast was a successful gambit by the heretofore unknown pro-lifer Rep. Bart Stupak to use the necessity of health care reform to fundamentally alter the status quo on abortion. (Best tweet of the day, btw: "'Stupak' sounds like a political action committee for morons.")

Stupak forces like to say they're just upholding existing law with this amendment, which already states that federal funds will not be used to pay for abortions. But, in fact, this amendment goes further -- it prohibits not only the public option but private insurance companies who operate in the exchange from offering abortion services to people who receive subsidies. Or, in other words, low-income women are going to be S.O.L. for starters, with mission creep ultimately denying more and more women reproductive choice and/or necessary medical procedures. (Stupak to women -- don't miscarry.)

On one hand, the good news is that Stupak's gambit is pretty much dead in the water in the Senate -- even the GOP isn't warming to it. (And, while maintaining the usual "above-the-fray approach"for now -- big surprise, I know -- Obama has telegraphed he's not a supporter of the idea.)

On the other, the Stupak situation shows one of the problems we now have as the majority party. Here we have a scion of the "Family" on C-Street playing shenanigans with critical Democratic legislation at the eleventh hour...and he was joined by 63 other Dems in getting the amendment passed. In fact, many of these look to be CYA votes by ostensible pro-choicers to shore up their moderate bona fides.

Even more troubling, 21 of the final 39 Democratic votes against health care reform voted for Stupak -- i.e., they voted to screw up a bill they had absolutely no intention of supporting in the end. (Conversely, twenty Dems in GOP-leaning districts did the right thing -- they voted against Stupak and for passage. They are listed here.) Simply put, these 21 are why primary challenges were invented.

Until congressional Democrats learn that bucking their left is just as -- if not more -- dangerous than prostrating themselves before the right, they're going to continue to play these reindeer games. (To be clear, in almost all cases, it's not like these holdouts' issues with the bill came from the left.) And until these often craven middle-of-the-roaders feel the wrath of the stick as well as the carrot, we are going to remain locked in this dismal feedback loop where important bills are in danger of being endlessly watered down into "moderate" mush. (See also: no Single Payer, no Medicare +5.) And that's just not change we can believe in.

Aside from the Recovery Act, the House hasn't held as important a vote all year. And, if certain Dems can't find a way to support critical Democratic legislation -- legislation tempered to meet their approval, in fact -- when the time comes, then don't expect the progressive base to have their back just because they have a D by their name. The time to suffer such fools has passed.

In any event, Round 1 completed. Round 2, the Senate...

"In short, it's no time to be despondent about the fate of the public insurance option. For sure, pegging rates to Medicare and obligating Medicare providers to accept these rates would be far preferable, and a public plan with negotiated rates may do less to keep the insurers honest and drive down costs. But it's still immensely valuable to give Americans an out -- another choice -- to let the insurers feel the heat of not being the only game in town. The fierce and continuing opposition of the insurance industry suggests that they think that a public option will prove a serious counterweight in an increasingly consolidated private market."

In TNR, Jacob Hacker and Diane Archer make the case anew for a public option, specifically the one that made it into H.R. 3962. If all goes well, the House bill -- recently endorsed by the AARP and the AMA -- will get a vote tomorrow. (Yep, it's a work day.) Update: Or later. Here's the hold-up.

"One of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), said: 'The American people wanted change in our energy and climate policy. And this is the change that the people are overwhelmingly asking for.' He called it 'the most important energy and environment bill in the history of our country.'" After much wrangling and a half-hearted GOP attempt at filibuster (which is only a prerogative of the Senate), the House passes the Waxman-Markey climate bill, 219-212. (Eight Republicans voted for it, 44 Dems opposed.) The "cap-and-trade" bill "would establish national limits on greenhouse gases, create a complex trading system for emission permits and provide incentives to alter how individuals and corporations use energy." [Key provisions.]

There is some concern that the bill has been watered down too much out of political necessity: "While the bill's targets may seem dramatic, they are in fact less than what the science tells us is required to avoid catastrophic warming. The 2020 target in particular is far too weak and quite easy and cheap for the country to meet with efficiency, conservation, renewables and fuel-switching from coal to natural gas."

Still, environmentalists remain hopeful. "It is worth noting that the original Clean Air Act -- first passed in 1963 -- also didn't do enough and was subsequently strengthened many times." And, while the bill -- which (sigh) gives away 85% of the new emission allowances (the heart of the "cap-and-trade" market hopefully soon to emerge) to interested parties -- looks to "set off a lobbying feeding frenzy," groups like the NRDC seem to agree that "[t]his is the best bill that can actually get through committee."

Of course, now the bill has to get through the Senate, where the usual lions lie in wait. ""Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma said 'It doesn't matter,' he declared flatly, 'because we'll kill it in the Senate anyway.'" And even some Dems are fatalistic about its prospects. "Mississippi Rep. Gene Taylor (D) voted against the measure that he says will die in the Senate. 'A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that will never become law,' Taylor told The Hill after the gavel came down." Looks like Sen. Reid has his work cut out for him.

"When 22 senators started working over the first health care overhaul bill on June 17, the news cameras were pointed at them -- except for NPR's photographer, who turned his lens on the lobbyists. Whatever bill emerges from Congress will affect one-sixth of the economy, and stakeholders have mobilized. We've begun to identify some of the faces in the hearing room, and we want to keep the process going." Clever, clever: Also on the health care front, an NPR photographer initiates a game of find-the-health-care-lobbyist. "Know someone in these photos? Let us know who that someone is."

"'This is landmark legislation that is going to make the credit card marketplace more transparent and more fair for millions of consumers,' said Travis B. Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America. 'In particular, it's going to prevent credit card companies from suddenly and unjustly increasing interest rates which is pushing many consumers with credit card debt into bankruptcy.'" The Senate passes legislation aimed at reining in the more blatant and arbitrary instances of credit card usury by a vote of 90-5, with a bill expected on President Obama's desk by Memorial Day.

This sounds like a clear step in the right direction...but funny how times change, isn't it? It doesn't seem like all that long ago that many of these same Senators passed the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which dug the financial hole deeper for millions of Americans in the name of an easy buck for the credit card industry. Better late than never, I suppose.

"'There will be people in districts all over the country that will wonder why, when there's a good bill to get the economy moving again, we still seem to be playing political gotcha,' White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in an interview." Well, so much for the post-partisan era. Despite several attempts at across-the-aisle diplomacy by the new administration, the House passes President Obama's stimulus bill 244-188 without a single Republican vote. Sigh.

Perhaps a little history lesson is in order. Journey with me, if you will, back to 1993, the last time a new Democratic president tried to work with this same crew of jokers on a new, recession-busting economic plan. As you may remember, Clinton's 1993 budget also passed the House and Senate without a single GOP vote. Let's see what the Republicans had to say back then (courtesy of some old, off-line research of mine):

Dick Armey (who, btw, made an embarrassment of himself on national television last night): "This bill would grow the Government...shrink the economy" and "will mean fewer jobs for ordinary Americans." [Congressional Record, 8/5/93]

Newt Gingrich: The bill will "kill jobs and lead to a recession" that would "force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." [Houston Chronicle, 8/7/93, 1993; AJC, 8/6/93]

Bob Dole: The bill "would take America in the wrong direction." [WP, 8/4/93]

Ronald Reagan (yes, they wheeled him out with talking points): The bill will "only cause the deficit to increase and will likely wreck any hopes for economic recovery." [“Just Say No to Clinton’s Package,” NYT op-ed, 8/3/93]

Rush Limbaugh: True to form, the GOP's poster boy bet the DNC $1 million on the air that three of the following five things would happen by 1996: 1. The deficit would grow. 2. Unemployment would rise. 3. Inflation would swell. 4. Interest rates would surge. 5. The President's approval rating would fall below 45 percent. [ James McTague, “Off to the Races,” Barron’s, 3/18/96]

Well, I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the untold economic devastation that was the remainder of the Clinton years. (If you're keeping score, Rush went 0-for-5, and never paid up.) As it turns out, just as with Boehner this time around, the GOP had decided beforehand they weren't going to vote for any Clinton bill. As Bob Woodward notes in The Agenda (p. 109), Dole told Clinton this three weeks before the bill was even proposed.

Then as now, the modern Republican party doesn't seem to understand the first thing about basic economics (their right-wing dogma precludes any grasp of Keynesianism, I guess.) They don't seem to "get" rudimentary American history. (I've seen so many dumb things written about Herbert Hoover and the 1937 "Roosevelt recession" -- which was caused by spending cuts and fiscal retrenchment by the FDR admininstration, not "over-regulation" -- by right-wingers of late that it's hard to even know where to begin.)They don't seem to understand basic politics. (The American people have obviously voted for action, and a path away from Dubyanomics. Getting in the way of this bill won't "reboot" their party in any way, shape, or form.) At this point, it's an open question whether they can distinguish their asses from their elbows.

So...can we please stop spoon-feeding these guys now? The GOP has proven yet again that they're not looking to play ball. If they want to be on the wrong side of the problem as usual, let them. It's useless to spend any more time bending over backwards to accommodate their lousy, discredited ideas and inchoate, faith-based economic beliefs. It's time to move on.

"'It's just astounding -- the very arrogance,' said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform and a close observer of state politics. 'And yesterday he was saying there's not a cloud in the sky.'" Poised on the brink of a new Democratic era in Washington as we are, what better time to see the cobwebs cleared out of some our own party's shady corners? First indicted and pretty clearly crooked congressman William Jefferson, much like his GOP counterpart Ted Stevens, went down to a surprising defeat in Louisiana against GOP challenger Anh "Joseph" Cao. And, of course, in today's big news, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been charged with all manner of crooked schemes by former Libby prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, including brazenly trying to pawn off Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder. ("[It's] a f**king valuable thing, you just don't give it away for nothing.")

Well, good riddance to both. Any way you cut it, this is addition by subtraction for our party. (And for the potential conspiracy theorists out there, Slate's John Dickerson has a good post on why the President-elect "comes off as good as he could possibly have hoped for: He's behaving well even when you don't think anyone is watching." And, with a tip of the hat to Al Smith and Tammany Hall, Politico's Ben Smith ably discusses how Obama kept his independence from the Chicago machine back in the day.)

"'If you turn the clock back two or two and half weeks, you could make a plausible argument that if a couple of things go our way we will lose three to four Senate races,' said one Republican strategist. 'Now we will lose six to eight.'" Reeling from both the economic collapse on Wall St. and the ensuing shenanigans surrounding the bailout -- which passed on its second try yesterday, despite continued opposition from a majority of the House GOP -- the Republicans prepare to be ousted en masse in a month. "Polling in most Senate races over the past 14 days has shown a five-point decline for the Republican candidate, the strategist said."

Update: "'Before the economic crisis, we had a number of races moving our way,' said Matthew Miller, communications director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. 'But now we’re seeing Republican numbers plummet.' GOP officials largely agree. " Is 60 in the Senate now in sight?

"African-Americans continue to suffer from the consequences of slavery and Jim Crow -- long after both systems were formally abolished -- through enormous damage and loss, both tangible and intangible, including the loss of human dignity and liberty, the frustration of careers and professional lives, and the long-term loss of income and opportunity." The House looks set to pass a resolution apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow. Well, better late than never, I suppose.

"The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. 'The oversight process has not kept pace -- it’s been coöpted' by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. 'The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.'"

In related news, The New Yorker's venerable Sy Hersh reports that the Dubya administration has been stepping up covert activities in Iran...and Congress is once again going along for the ride. "In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership...were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy."

"'Both parties talk a good game on cutting earmarks, but at first opportunity, the House larded up,' said Stephen Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group. 'This is just another broken promise.'" With another big defense bill imminent, congressional earmarks are sadly back in vogue. "In the Senate, Lieberman led the way with his participation in 14 requests worth more than $292 million, some of them involving more than one lawmaker, the watchdog group data show. Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) made 48 requests, many with colleagues, worth more than $198 million. Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) led Republicans by participating in requests totaling $188 million and $182 million, respectively."

"There is widespread agreement among Democratic and Republican observers that the GOP is headed for a loss of seats in the fall. But the depth of those losses remains a point of real debate, as more and more Republican districts appear to be vulnerable while the GOP campaign arm continues to struggle to match its Democratic counterparts in fundraising." In both the House and Senate, it seems, 2008 is looking to be a rough year for the GOP.

"'If you have a single ounce of self-preservation, you'll vote no,' implored Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) last night." The House creates a new independent ethics panel, 229-182. As the WP notes: "Even with two House members under indictment, two others sent to prison, and several others under federal investigation, nearly half the House did not want to submit the body to the scrutiny of a panel not under its control." Nevertheless, ethics watchdog groups seem pleased with the bill. Said Common Cause's Sarah Dufendach: "For the first time in history, you have nonmembers able to initiate investigations. They're doing oversight. They're the new police." (And to tie everything back to the current theme, Sen. Obama advocated an similarly independent Office of Public Integrity for the Senate in his ethics reform package. Sen. Clinton, someone with considerably more than "a single ounce of self-preservation," voted against it.)

"I think that the Clinton administration (sic) has fairly ruled that out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama. I think that either way is impossible.'" Sinbad aside, you really don't want to tick off Speaker Pelosi. Calling a joint Obama-Clinton ticket "impossible" in an interview with New England Cable News today, Speaker Pelosi makes her displeasure obvious with the Clinton campaign for hyping McCain over the Senator from Illinois. "I wanted to be sure I didn't leave any ambiguity." Play with matches, Sen. Clinton, you were due to get burned. Update: Lest anyone missed the import, Pelosi says it again: "I do think we will have a dream team, it just won't be those two names...Take it from me, that won't be the ticket."

At long last, some movement on the persecuted prosecutors front. As the Republicans walk out in a huff (after disrupting Tom Lantos' memorial service -- classy), the House votes to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress. "The citations charge Miers with failing to testify and accuse her and Bolten of refusing Congress' demands for documents related to the 2006-2007 firings."

"The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income...If the Democrats stand for anything, it's a fair allocation of the responsibility for paying the costs of maintaining this nation. So far, neither the Democratic candidates for president nor the Senate Democrats have shown much eagerness to advocate this fundamental principle. It seems the rich have bought them out." Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich laments the cooptation of the Democrats by the super-rich. "It turns out that Democrats are getting more campaign contributions these days from hedge-fund and private-equity partners than Republicans are getting. In the run-up to the 2006 election, donations from hedge-fund employees were running better than 2-to-1 Democratic. The party doesn't want to bite the hands that feed."

Score another one for legalized corruption (and lament anew what passes for Democratic leadership these days): Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells private-equity firms they don't need to fear a tax hike this year. "[P]rivate-equity firms -- whose multibillion-dollar deals have created a class of superwealthy investors and taken some of America's large corporations private -- hired dozens of lobbyists, stepped up campaign contributions and lined up business allies to wage an unusually conspicuous lobbying blitz [against a tax hike]...Several prominent lawmakers expressed surprise to find that the managers' profits, known as carried interest, were taxed as capital gains, for which the rate is usually 15 percent. That is less than half the 35 percent top rate paid on regular income."

Some good news on the domestic policy front: Pushed forward by a veto-proof majority in Congress, Bush signs a Democratic Pell Grant increase into law. "The increase in financial aid is designed to come from cuts in subsidies that the government makes to banks, totaling roughly $20 billion...Bush at one point threatened to veto the bill on grounds that it included hidden costs and was an expensive expansion of federal programs." In addition, an expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program is now on Dubya's desk after passing the Senate 69-30 and House 265-159, and also looks to become law despite the White House's original opposition. "Bush and GOP leaders said the measure would push children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care, while creating an 'entitlement' whose costs ultimately would outstrip the money raised by the bill's 61-cent increase in the federal tobacco tax. But Republican opposition is increasingly isolated."

And if passage of affordable college education and child health care bills by Dubya -- however reluctantly -- isn't through the looking glass enough for ya, check this out: "The world must cut emissions or sacrifice the planet, Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State, told a meeting of governments on Thursday, in the most strongly worded statement on global warming yet made by the US administration....Her words reflected how far US rhetoric on climate change has moved in the past six months."

Update: Ah, there's the Dubya we know and...know. Despite its bipartisan backing, Bush vetoes the child health insurance bill, arguing that it was an attempt to "federalize" medicine. "'I think that this is probably the most inexplicable veto in the history of the country. It is incomprehensible. It is intolerable. It's unacceptable,' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who pleaded with Republicans to help overturn the veto."

"More than nine months after taking power, about all that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have achieved on the Iraq front is to unfairly share in the blame for mismanaging the conflict...Pelosi, in particular, erred in unduly raising antiwar expectations when she took over as the first Democratic speaker in a dozen years. It was the Gingrich Revolution in reverse, this time with Democrats failing to appreciate the balance-of-power realities of a congressional showdown with an unyielding president, however wounded." Salon's Walter Shapiro puts forth an explanation why Democratic attempts to change direction in Iraq have failed.

"They are trying to change the whole vernacular so that earmarks aren't earmarks anymore," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense." (Or, put another way, "When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.") Under the current Congress, it seems, "earmarks" have now become "congressionally directed spending" but, alas for real reform, the intent -- to get pet projects into the public agenda by roundabout means -- continues. "Members of Congress are now resorting to less obvious tactics that allow them to get money to favored beneficiaries without acknowledging support for what others consider to be earmarks...Government watchdog groups and a few dissident lawmakers have noticed these sleights of hand and have begun to complain. They say the approach deceives the public about how many special spending projects are being handed out, noting that lawmakers' contacts with agencies usually are conducted out of public view."

"'We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats,' said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. 'The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control -- it's mind-boggling.'" Um, why did we put these jokers in office again? Surely not to support such flagrantly unconstitutional intrusions as this. Folding completely to White House pressure, a Democratic Senate voted 60-28 and a Democratic House voted 227-183 to sanction Dubya's illegal wiretapping procedures. 'The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the monitoring, under certain conditions, of electronic communications between people on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens, and people 'reasonably believed to be outside the United States,' without a court's order or oversight." The Dems' fallback position? They included a six-month sunset provision in the bill, so they'll get a chance to revisit and repeat their capitulation to the executive throne early next year. But can we expect any more leadership from the congressional Democrats then? Really, this is beyond disgraceful. "'The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body...is a sad day for the U.S. Senate,' Feingold said. 'We make the policy -- not the executive branch.'"

"'We have kept our promise to drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C.,' Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, adding that the legislation is 'historic.'" "'These are big-time fundamental reforms,' said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21." Noted Common Cause president Bob Edgar: " If there is a positive side to Jack Abramoff and the wave of congressional scandal, this is it."

Yes, this could be big. In the wake of the broiling Stevens scandal, the House votes 411-8 to pass a comprehensive new ethics bill: "Secret 'holds' in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing his or her tactics, would end. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish convention parties thrown in their honor. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted." In addition, "bundles" -- small campaign contributions packaged together -- will now have to be disclosed, along with political contributions by lobbyists and the identities of the lobbyists themselves.

Of course, the bill still has to pass the Senate, where some conservatives are threatening to force a filibuster vote (in part due to the weakening of earmark rules, which is admittedly rather annoying.) But that was before Stevens' unfortunate run-in with the FBI, so we'll see. Right now, I'm cautiously optimistic that the right-wing will have to fall in line. As Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center put it: "It may not be a grand slam, but it's a home run...There is no credible excuse to oppose this legislation."

"'Inhumane deeds should be fully acknowledged,' said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee...'The world awaits a full reckoning of history from the Japanese government.'" The House passes a resolution calling for Japan to apologize for its WWII "comfort women" program. [Text.] "Lawmakers want an apology similar to the one the U.S. government gave to Japanese-Americans forced into internment camps during World War II. That apology was approved by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan in 1988." Well, I'm all for offically recognizing historical sins in the past -- *cough* slavery *cough* -- but, unfortunately, no mention was made in this bill of our own possible complicity in Imperial Japan's ugly system of forced prostitution. The resolution might carry more rhetorical force if it did.

"'We're sitting on the doorstep of a definitional moment,' said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus." Faced with their own low poll numbers, the Democratic Congress readies a flurry of late-term legislation involving homeland security (implementing most of the 9/11 commission recommendations), ethics (gift bans and increased disclosure requirements), and child health care (expanding insurance coverage for children of the working poor.) "Republican leaders plan to stand in the way...But against such philosophical stands, there is a stark political problem: How many Republicans are really going to oppose legislation expanding insurance coverage for children, tightening ethics rules and bolstering homeland security?" More than one might think, I'd wager.

"Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement." Faced with continued White House stonewalling and armed with a new report that underscores the adminstration's malfeasance, the House Judiciary Committee issued contempt citations to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten for their failure to honor House subpoenas on the persecuted prosecutors matter earlier this month. And, on the Senate side, Dems -- with a document trail on their side -- call for a perjury investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the same day a subpoena is issued for consigliere Karl Rove. Dubya flunkies, meet the rule of law. Update: More grist for the perjury mill: FBI Director Robert Mueller contradicts Gonzales' prior testimony.

"'I think sometimes you've stepped on one side of the line and then not wanted to step on the other,' said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'This broad claim of privilege doesn't stand up.'" A belated persecuted prosecutor update: After Dubya apparatchik Sara Taylor's tortured performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee (which included lots of shaky claims of executive privilege, stories that don't hold up, and some rather depressing confusion over oath-taking), Dubya orders Harriet Miers not to testify, thus prompting the House to move forward on a contempt citation for Miers (and thus increasing the likelihood of a legal foray into the still-murky waters of executive privilege.) [Oath link via Medley.]

"Congressional Republicans have been renowned -- and often criticized -- for harnessing the clout of special-interest groups and lobbyists to advance their agenda...After the 2006 elections, left-leaning groups now conduct their own, similar meetings to advance the Democrats' cause." The WP delves into the new Democratic tinge of the K-Street lobbying world. Hmm. Well, I guess I'll take a left-leaning lobbyist over a right-leaning lobbyist any day of the week and twice on Sunday, but I would hope the Pelosi House keeps this new K-street bunch at further remove than did their predecessors. Both Democratic reps and liberal interest groups have displayed their reluctance to commit to real campaign finance and lobbying reform in the past when the tide's swinging their way, and I fear, once the cash starts flying around in earnest, that this liberal-leaning slope will get just as slippery in very short order. You don't wear the ring, people. You destroy the ring.

"'How many more suicide bombs must kill American soldiers before this president offers a timeline for our troops to come home?' asked Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a freshman Iraq war veteran who lost nine fellow paratroopers this week in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. 'How many more military leaders must declare the war will not be won militarily before this president demands that the Iraqis stand up and fight for their country? How many more terrorists will President Bush's foreign policy breed before he focuses a new strategy, a real strategy? This bill says enough is enough.'" By a vote of 218-208 in the House and 51-46 in the Senate, the Democratic Congress -- living up to their promise in 2006 -- calls for a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. Dubya has said several times that he'll veto the bill, and is expected to do so in short order.

By a vote of 241 to 177, the House votes to give DC a full (voting) seat in Congress. But, Eleanor Holmes Norton shouldn't practice her ayes and nays just yet -- the bill still has to make it through a recalcitrant Senate, where a Republican filibuster is likely, as well as past a White House inclined to veto the bill. Nevertheless, said DC mayor Adrian Fenty, "This was a statement about our country's principles, values and morals. That we would no longer be the only democratic-represented country in the world where the citizens of the nation's capital did not have a vote in the national legislature."

By a vote of 218-212 and with only two Republicans joining the majority, the House votes on a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: "The bill would establish strict standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops before their deployment and lay down binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government, such as assuming control of security operations, quelling sectarian violence and more equitably distributing oil revenue. If progress is not made toward those benchmarks, some troops would be required to come home as early as July. In any event, troop withdrawals would have to begin in March 2008, with all combat forces out by Aug. 31, 2008." For now, and as with the persecuted prosecutors, Dubya is trying to play the partisanship card, and, in any case, the bill has a tough road to hoe in the Senate, where similar legislation received only 48 votes last time around. But, give them credit: While navigating a few defections on either side of the issue, Speaker Pelosi & co. put money where their mouths were last election season. Indeed, the WP deems the bill "one of the toughest antiwar measures ever to pass a house of Congress during combat operations."

"'This is a terrible mistake by the Democratic leadership, to take someone with serious ethical allegations against him and put him on one of the most sensitive and important committees in Congress,' said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.), the ranking Republican on the committee." The House GOP begin making a stink over William Jefferson's appointment to the Homeland Security Committee. I hate to say it, but I'm inclined to agree. Jefferson is an ethical embarrassment, and he should've been backbenched on everything until his bribery investigation concludes. Surely some other Dem on the committee could've taken up the slack with regards to the FEMA issue.

Although the House passed it last week by a margin of 246-182, the Democratic resolution opposing Dubya's surge fails to win an airing in the Senate. Although seven Republicans joined the Senate Dems in advancing the bill, it fell short by four votes of the 60 required to initiate debate. "Both sides instead are girding for the next phase, a confrontation over war funding, with some Democrats determined to exercise the power of the purse to influence Iraq strategy."

Another boon from a Democratic Congress: The House moves closer to mandating paper trails for electronic voting machines. "'We are closer to paper-trail legislation than we have been before,' said Doug Chapin, director of Electionline.org, an elections clearinghouse."

"'We stand together to tell this administration that we are against the escalation, and to say with one voice that Congress will no longer be a blank check to the president's failed policies,' said freshman Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), who was a captain with the 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad. 'The president's plan to send more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong.'" The House begins three days of debate on a resolution opposing Dubya's proposed "surge." "The Democratic resolution is not binding on the administration, and both sides of the debate agreed that the real fight will come next month, when Democrats are to move to attach to a $100 billion war spending bill binding language that would limit future deployments to Iraq and begin to bring troops home."

Following up on one of the first orders of business of the "100 Hours," the Senate passes a minimum-wage increase 94-3 for the first time in almost a decade...but not before burdening the House bill with sundry small-business tax breaks to appease the GOP. "House leaders have demanded that the tax measures be stripped from the bill...Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he may have other plans for the $8.3 billion that the Senate would use for business tax breaks."

"'Times have changed. I don't want to be someone who they say is too stubborn to change too,' said Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), whose 92 percent conservative rating did not stop him from voting with Democrats on the homeland security and minimum-wage bills." The delightful success of the 100 Hours thus far deserves its own post, one which I hope to get to before that time elapses. But, in the meantime, I must say, it's nice to watch the House GOP finally crack into pieces, and to discover that many rank-and-file Republicans seemed more than eager to break from the right-wing extremism of Boss DeLay's leadership. Come on board, you won't hurt the horse!

"Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." I'm still furiously playing catch-up, so I'm obviously a day or two behind on blogging this...Then again, Dubya's just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I'll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush --- sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission -- calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what's being billed as a "surge." (Re: "escalation.") When you get right down to it, Dubya's basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: "Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I've dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging..."

Here's the thing -- A massive troop increase would've made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then -- and a quicker restoration of order and basic services -- would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops -- many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended -- isn't going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we've been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam's hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything -- until now -- to rein in Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can't handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran...who says Dubya isn't a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn't having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya's plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight -- While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya's move (most notably John McCain, who's been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

"For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. To our daughters and our granddaughters, the sky is the limit." On a day marked by celebration and the temporary cooling of partisan rancor, the Speaker Pelosi era officially begins in Washington. And, true to their word, the Democratic House got an early start on their "100 Hours" platform, passing a comprehensive ethics reform package 435-1 on Thursday (right-wing nut-job and former Clinton nemesis Dan Burton was the sole opposing vote) and a "pay-go" commitment to a balanced budget (as well as an end to anonymous earmarks) on Friday. "'The one thing we can say about George Bush and his economic policy is: "We are forever in your debt,"' Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) told his colleagues on the House floor. 'On day number two, Democrats have said, "Enough is enough with running up the debt of this country. We're going to put our fiscal house in order."'"

As they prepare to take back the House for the first time in twelve years, the Dems look to freeze out any GOP involvement in legislation, at least for the first few weeks. "House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans."

"'When the president talks about staying the course, he never mentions cost as a factor,' Spratt said. 'But it is a factor, particularly when you get costs over $100 billion a year.'" Facing very little room to work with, the Dems attempt to sort out the fiscal fiasco Dubya has created over the past six years and counting.

"'It's a real tangled web between the congressman, the nonprofit, the defense contractors and the lobbyists,' said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. 'It's hard to say where one stops and the others start.'" In troubling news that should test the commitment of the incoming Dem majority to real lobbying reform, the WP takes a long hard look at John Murtha's lobbyist-tinged relationship with the Pennsylvania Association for Individuals with Disabilities (PAID...an unfortunate acronym, to be sure). "'It sounds like DeLay Inc.,' said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Democratic-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington."

After suffering some bad press for backing away from the 9/11 recommendations last week, Speaker-Elect Pelosi announces two new oversight committees as a form of compromise: "a new panel within the Appropriations Committee to oversee the nation's intelligence agencies [thus maintaining Murtha's fiefdom] and a House task force to examine establishing an outside ethics panel." And, in related news, the House Dems announce their proposed rules changes. They "include a ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists, preapproval from the ethics committee on all lawmakers' travel funded by outside groups, a ban on the use of corporate jets, and mandatory ethics training."

Unfortunately, crooked Dem congressman William Jefferson won his runoff in Louisiana, forcing Speaker-elect Pelosi into another touchy committee assignment situation. And, in related ethics news, the Dems put a moratorium on earmarks and extend current funding levels on various spending bills until next fiscal year (Oct. 1), so as to avoid a nasty budget fight right out of the box in January. ""We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress."

"We think this is extremely crucial...[but there are] a lot of old bulls in both parties who just don't want to do it." Speaking of which, paging Tommy Carcetti...Finding it's harder to shake out the old system than anticipated, the incoming Dems are already backing away from a key 9/11 panel suggestion, one that would centralize congressional oversight and funding of intelligence matters in the intelligence subcommittee (to be chaired by Reyes, a.k.a. not-Hastings/Harman) at the expense of the armed services and appropriations defense subcommittees (the latter of which will be chaired by also-ran Murtha.) "Democratic leadership dust-ups this month severely limited the ability of House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) to implement the commission's recommendations, according to Democratic aides."

Looking to avoid another contentious fight after the recent Hoyer-Murtha melee, Speaker-elect Pelosi sidesteps both Jane Harman and Alcee Hastings for the House Intelligence Committee head. "Harman, a moderate, strong-on-defense 'Blue Dog' Democrat, had angered liberals with her reluctance to challenge the Bush administration's use of intelligence. Hastings, an African American, was strongly backed by the Congressional Black Caucus but was ardently opposed by the Blue Dogs, who said his removal from the bench disqualifies him from such a sensitive post." As with Hoyer and Murtha, Hastings' questionable ethics record is more of a concern to me than Harman's moderation, but a third choice is fine with me. Update: Pelosi chooses Silvestre Reyes for the post.

"Look, someone told me she hasn't liked him since 1963, and it has had zero effect on how well they have worked together. We don't have to guess at this. We have seen it. They can and will work well together as we move forward." In what's being billed as an early but probably not-very-significant defeat (although perhaps it should be) for Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, her backing of her old friend John Murtha for Majority Leader seems to have backfired, as the Dem caucus instead chose moderate Steny Hoyer by almost 2-to-1. "'He had been doing the tough work,' said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.). 'It's just mind-numbing -- all those fundraisers, the travel, sleeping in hotel rooms. It needs to be rewarded.'" Well, given Murtha's record on the ethics issue, I'm all for Hoyer too. Now -- please -- let's start concentrating our fire on the other side (And that goes for Carville (Emanuel) v. Dean as well -- be cool, James.)

"'If John Murtha was running for dog-catcher or President of the United States, Nancy Pelosi would support him,' one Pelosi ally told TIME." Not a week after Election Day, the battle for the No. 2 spot in Congress roils top Dems, with Speaker-elect Pelosi drawing consternation for her endorsement of John Murtha as House Majority Leader (over more conservative rival Steny Hoyer.) More troubling than the leadership fracas, it seems that Murtha, for all his clarity on Iraq, has apparently been no friend of ethics reform in the past: "Murtha...has battled accusations over the years that he has traded federal spending for campaign contributions, that he has abused his post as ranking party member on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, and that he has stood in the way of ethics investigations. Those charges come on top of Murtha's involvement 26 years ago in the FBI's Abscam bribery sting." Nope, that's not good.

Every single Dem incumbent returned to office. At least 26 more seats in the House. The nation's first woman Speaker. Six new governorships. At least four Senate seats. And, if all goes well in Virginia (which, at 5am EST, is looking likely -- Webb's up 8,000, which is a pretty solid lead heading into a recount) and Montana (which seems positive for us, albeit less so -- Tester's up 5,000 with 85% reporting), perhaps even control of Congress...Yessir, all-in-all, it was a pretty grand night for us. So, Dubya and Karl...how you like them apples? Update: Make that 28 seats in the House and 5 in the Senate....soon to be six. Congress is ours!