Hang up on the "d-trip"

I recently returned from Washington, DC, where, as I expected, I got an earful from public interest advocates about what a disappointment Nancy Pelosi is as Speaker of the House. This almost always happens. Democrats get into power, we have a brief surge of joy at their arrival and then they disappoint us. Or, more accurately, they disappoint the people working most closely with them, with the highest expectations. And then they tell the rest of us.

Putting aside my spiritual interest in the power of expectations and how much freedom can be gained from letting go of them, I am really freaked out by what I've heard. Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are allowing bad legislation to come to the floor of their respective houses and pass with a small minority of Democrats supporting it. An unholy alliance between the Republicans and a group of about 40 House Democrats and 12 Senate Dems is enough to pass all sorts of bad legislation.

And pass it they have. The most recent outrage is, of course, allowing legislation to pass which would expand executive power (currently concentrated in the hands of known criminal Alberto Gonzalez) to authorize wire-tapping. Not only is this expanded authority blatantly unconstitutional, a violation of separation of powers as well as 4th amendment privacy rights, but it is exactly what having the new majority in Congress was supposed to protect us against!

When the Republicans ran the Houses of Congress, they wouldn't let ANYTHING come to the floor that didn't have a majority of their own party supporting it--period. This power to control the agenda should be exercised here--it's imperative for the good of the country.

One way to get this message across to Pelosi and Reid is through their pocketbooks. If you've ever given a dime directly to a candidate for House or Senate, chances are your name, phone number and address are known to the Democratic party campaign committees--the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC--known to insiders as the "D-triple C" or "D-trip") and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (the DSCC--known to me as D-send).

If you're like me, these committees periodically call your home number and ask for money to preserve the Democratic majority. If you're like me, you never give money to the Democratic Party per se, only directly to candidates. Nonetheless, one of these calls is the perfect time to vent your rage at the party's leadership.

Here's what you say, "What good is a Democratic Majority if you let Republicans control the Agenda? I'll contribute money to you when you start acting like Democrats. Don't send Bush Republican legislation!" and hang up.

Do it a lot. It'll get their attention. What the hell, do it when anybody calls. It can't hurt.

Round I to the Democrats in Congress

Probably a function of distance from Washington, but I'm impressed with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's maneuvers on Iraq this week. By using Bush's certain veto to create strong party discipline and send a $124 billion military spending bill to Bush laden with a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the Democrats have put the Republicans in a tight position:

If Republicans vote against the package, they are simultaneously:
a) undermining the troops by refusing to support new spending for all the things the troops need to keep them out of harms way--thereby jeopardizing them with their base;
b) going on record as opposing a sensible timetable for withdrawal from Iraq thereby leaving them vulnerable with swing voters who oppose the war.

By supporting the package (which almost none of the Republicans did), they:
a) "undermine the troops" by bringing them home (something I've never understood but elements of the Republican base are rabid about);
b) undermine the President (see above).

Pelosi no doubt used her liberal San Francisco bona fides with the left wing of the Democratic party, coupled with MoveOn support for this strategy, to bring most of them along to vote for huge war spending, despite the pressure from some peacenik quarters not to do so.

As deplorable as a $124 billion war infusion is, the knowledge of a certain veto by Bush allows most Democrats to participate in this brilliant strategy protected from the possibility of genuinely having helped fund the war.

After the veto is a different story of course, all bets are off and the party factions will probably scatter to their respective corners. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.