Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 7, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

DEMS AT WORK....Sam Rosenfeld picks up on Amy Sullivan's arguments that congressional Democrats are more effective than most people think and carries it a step further:

Much of her focus is on the mainstream media narratives that continue to portray Democrats as invariably weak, divided, and feckless. But MSM cluelessness is an old story what's frankly more troubling and frustrating is the unyielding scorn and hostility that Democratic activists and netroots folks heap on the Democratic congressional leadership.

Take the question of caucus discipline. The lack of comparative context underlying liberal critics' incessant carping on this front is glaring compared to both recent and much more longstanding historical precedent, the current Democratic opposition has not only been disciplined and unified, but effective.

He's right. I've been pretty impressed over the past year with Harry Reid, who's been remarkably sure-footed in both his public statements and his parliamentary efforts to keep Bill Frist off balance. I've been less sure about Nancy Pelosi, but Sam makes a pretty good case for her too.

Take immigration, for example. House Democrats obviously oppose making illegal immigrants into felons, but check out John Podhoretz's political primer in the New York Post last week:

Back in December, the House of Representatives began debating the first draft of a tough immigration bill that included language effectively turning every illegal immigrant into a putative felon. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the co-sponsor of the legislation, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, offered an amendment that would change the felony to a misdemeanor.

....The Sensenbrenner amendment failed to pass the House, even though 156 Republicans voted to soften the penalty. Why? Because 191 of the 201 House Democrats voted against it.

They voted, in other words, to keep the language that would make being an illegal alien a felony. They did so because they understood that, as the bill moved closer to becoming law, they could use the felony provision as a weapon against Republicans.

Cynical? Sure. But Podhoretz also recognizes it as "canny political planning," and he's right. The felony provision is a Republican proposal, and if Republicans can't get their own caucus to soften it then they're the ones who will pay the price. But that only happens if Democrats stick together and don't let Republicans off the hook for the actions of their own members.

And they did.

Kevin Drum 3:11 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I agree that democrats are more effective now that they have accepted the fact that they have no chance of taking back the house and senate. Now that they only concentrate on the few competitve races that they have a chance in or defending their remaining seats, they are doing much better in this defensive mode.

Posted by: daveyo on April 7, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

House Democrats obviously oppose making illegal immigrants into felons...

From what I heard, Democrats don't mind making felons into citizens, though, considering the negative response to a Republican proposal to make convicted felons ineligible for citizenship under any new program.

I suspect that if the Republicans had made the same move you describe, preventing the other party from repairing a bad piece of legislation, you would have been all over them for playing politics with a critical issue.

Good luck with that in committee.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 7, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

The unfortunate fact is that we're confronted with too many examples of exactly the opposite--from Alito's cloture vote to caving in on the pre-war intelligence investigation. (Yeah, Reid made a stink, but has anyone heard anything at all about that since? No.)

Posted by: Derelict on April 7, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

They voted, in other words, to keep the language that would make being an illegal alien a felony. They did so because they understood that, as the bill moved closer to becoming law, they could use the felony provision as a weapon against Republicans.

Oh, Kevin, now you're making me agree with tbrosz.

Apparently the "poison pill" aspect has some truth to it. Yes, make sure the dumbest part of this bill stays in place. I doubt that anybody who's paying attention to this will give much credit to Dems or Repubs (with good reason).

You're choice: the "do nothing about it" party or the "line 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em party". Nice choice. Hey, who are the Greens running?

Posted by: alex on April 7, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, tbrosz, nice try. Yep, the illegal immigrants Republicans have a problem with aren't the Mexicans, but the criminals.

I mean, that convicted felon Solzhinetzyn managed to get into the US, which threw them all into a tizzy. And I think convicted felon Nelson Mandela was welcomed with open arms, which was again really upsetting to them.

But by all means, continue to try turning the issue into something other than the appeal to racist nativists that it obviously is.

Posted by: theorajones on April 7, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

The democratic base has been very impatient with Reid and Pelosi.

But I think the reason is pretty clear: there still a lot of distrust from the failure of Gephardt and Daschle (not to mention, Biden, Lieberman and the rest of the preeners).

There are still many issues that tick off the base, including:

The run up to the Iraq War the vast majority of Democrats were opposed to the war, but the party leaders caved - and for what were transparently political reasons.

Hoyer and others on the the bankruptcy bill, trade stuff, censure and a few other matters.

Corruption - the leadership blew off Dean's advice to make this a big issue. And still no ethics complaints. That looks stupid now, doesn't it?

Kerry's spectacular failure as the nominee. He got the nomination and stopped attacking Bush.
And leaving millions of donated dollars in the bank.

"Free" - trade. Most democrats are uneasy about the corporate trade agreements. They might not articulate why they don't like them - but they don't like them.

Dean - many of the activists like that guy a lot, but Pelosi and Reid still seem to condone a steady stream of potshots from DC democrats at him. It wouldn't be that hard for Pelosi and Reid to publicly tell people that they either support the chair of the DNC, they shut up, or they're not democrats.

Robert and Alito - two right wingers on the Supreme Court for years. Just wonderful.

etc.

Overall, Reid and Pelosi have pulled off some successes, but it certainly isn't cleaning the table.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 7, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Why haven't the Dems come out and called for impeachment? Surely leaking the identity of an undercover agent is grounds for impeachment. Or treason? Am I off base?

Posted by: rob on April 7, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah,

Forgot one other item, most Democrats probably don't really know that Dean, Reid and Pelosi are the only the elected democratic national leaders. ie. elected by fellow democrats to lead the party.

What they see are the democrats who get invited to yap on TV: Hillary Clinton, Lieberman, Biden, Hoyer, etc. And they don't like 'em that much.

Remember most citizens don't know the basic details of national politics.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 7, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure about most of Rob's list, but I do think the Supreme Court nominations are one reason the base isn't pleased-as-punch with the Democratic leadership. It's not that Dems could have blocked the nominations. Most likely, they couldn't. It's that the opposition was so...half-assed. No unified line of attack. No storyline put forward that explained the issues at stake in meaningful terms.

I have a friend who works on the Senate Judiciary Committee for the Dems, and he confirmed what seemed apparent during the hearings. Individual senators used the hearings a way to get some air time, but most were hopelessly intellectually outmatched (in terms of Constitutional law) by the nominees, and didn't really care to engage in meaningful debate anyway. Sigh.

Posted by: Peter K. on April 7, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect that if the Republicans had made the same move you describe, preventing the other party from repairing a bad piece of legislation, you would have been all over them for playing politics with a critical issue.

You suspect? Of course, that's the case. And that's fine. It's called politics. We're not playing patty cake.

Posted by: Tim on April 7, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

theorajones:

Your statement makes no sense at all unless you are operating under the racist assumption that all illegal immigrants previously convicted of felonies are, of course, going to be Mexicans.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 7, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Tim:

You suspect? Of course, that's the case. And that's fine. It's called politics. We're not playing patty cake.

Okay, that's fine. Still, the admiration for this technique seems odd coming from Kevin, who just finished a post below complaining that someone had accused him of playing politics with a critical issue.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 7, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

but I do think the Supreme Court nominations are one reason the base isn't pleased-as-punch with the Democratic leadership.

Feingold voted FOR Roberts who everyone knew was a right-wing extremist yet Feingold gets equated to God by many of the netroots. They chastise people for voting for cloture, but have little problem with Feingold voting FOR Roberts. Part of the reason why I don't listen to the netroots much--that and they are offensive.

That Dems get anything done in the House is miraculous. Netroots folk should try to actually meet and talk with House members--they cannot even get space to have unofficial hearings, microphones get turned off by committee chairman. They are equally as frustrated with the current situation, but they don't get any credit by the "keyboard activists."

Posted by: gq on April 7, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

The immigration gambit only takes you so far -- and no farther.

Reid and Schumer just killed a compromise immigration bill in the Senate that Kennedy supported, because (as the MINORITY, mind) they didn't want it to be amended.

But when it comes back in June, it will be amended in a bunch of ways.

Then it will pass with 75 or 80 votes.

So I dunno that stalling for six weeks is such great framing for the good guys. It will put pressure on the Conference, sure.

But hollering that a bill which could have passed in April has to be rushed through Conference in the summer has limited utility, especially when Reid and Schumer vote FOR it, even amended.

Don't sell Republicans short -- they're not as dumb as you might think. There are ways to craft a compromise in Conference that won't lose their base, and in the Conference itself they won't need Kennedy as much as the full Senate does. In the Conference, REPUBLICANS will get to frame the debate as it will play out right before the election.

If the last legislative news of this election cycle is that Kennedy and the Democrats are holding up an immigration bill that is important to our national security because it doesn't do ENOUGH amnesty (even though it contains, say, guest worker visas and worksite enforcement and border stuff and even a limited legalization path): just why is that smart?

Ya think a few more demonstrations with Mexican flags are a great image for the voters, along about October 15th?

Posted by: theAmericanist on April 7, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, but I think this example is not shining a good light at all on the Democratic Party.


Why couldn't they have voted for the admendment on changing the penalty to a misdemenor and then loudly point out that the Republicans wanted to make it a felony?

This poison pill strategy is going to backfire because most people are going to see them as not opposing what they should have opposed in principle.

But instead we're supposed to be impressed with their grand efforts to pull a "gotcha!" sometime down the road once this bill gets signed into law or something?

I really don't see the so-called 'good strategy' behind this stunt (and it is a stunt, BTW).

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on April 7, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

For the first time in history the judicial committee voted a straight party line for a supreme court. That sounds pretty unified to me.
I agree, no one really knows who is the leader or spokesperson for the democratic party. Kind of hard to get the message out, without a clear spokesman. Yet I believe what is overlooked is that all of these dem. senators had been use to being the majority party. They just have never regrouped and accepted that they will not be taking back the senate.

Posted by: daveyo on April 7, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

I hate to agree with some asking about Feingold but that is a great example of missing the details. Feingold has been all over the map.

The netroots went absolutely ga - ga about Feingold's censure proposal - endless cheers. All despite the fact that there is no evidence that Feingold tried to coordinate the proposal at all with his any other Senator or representative, let alone his own leadership. How's that being a team player?

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 7, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Peter K, if the average senator of either party isn't outmatched on the issue of constitutional law by a Supreme Court nominee, then there's a serious problem with the nominee (Harriet Miers would have been an example).

I think a lot of the anger among the Democratic base is about the Supreme Court, but it comes from unrealistic expectations. When you don't have the presidency or the Senate, you really don't have a lot of cards to play in Supreme Court nominations. The court was lost in the 2004 election. People weren't just crying wolf back then when they said the election of Bush would mean a rightward shift of the court.

Posted by: KCinDC on April 7, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Along the same lines as the 3:57p post by Dr. Morpheus...

They voted, in other words, to keep the language that would make being an illegal alien a felony. They did so because they understood that, as the bill moved closer to becoming law, they could use the felony provision as a weapon against Republicans.

Are we to believe that the Republicans will not simply note the Dems vote if any attempt is made by the Dems to flaunt the felony issue back at the Repubs?? The voting population does not in my mind consist of politically astute individuals who closely follow the political machinations of Congress.

This will simply backfire on the Dems.

Posted by: pencarrow on April 7, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

I certainly agree that Reid and Pelosi, well, Reid at least, are better than they're portrayed by MSM. But that's not good enough for me... Feingold may turn out to have done the right thing.

Posted by: PW on April 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

I watched Nancy Pelosi on NewsHour last week and was impressed with how she stressed the need for President Bush to step in and referee the split between the House and the Senate. Bush is afraid to take a side in this issue - piss off the conservative base or the pro-business gravy train? Forcing Bush to take one side or the other weakens him.

Posted by: Barringer on April 7, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Holy shit! they figured out how to vote strategically? There may be hope for them yet!

Posted by: GFW on April 7, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

The netroots went absolutely ga - ga about Feingold's censure proposal - endless cheers.

The netroots has their pet projects of the moment and everything else be damned. Spending resources to oust Lieberman typifies their problems. They'd rather lose symbolically than win with compromise. I care more about child poverty than Bush listening to me talk to my dad about his bum leg, but there is no outcry amongst so-called bleeding-heart liberals about that.

Posted by: gq on April 7, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

BTW - in Supreme Court hearings there's no law that only Senators may ask questions. And certainly no law saying that Senators couldn't get constitutional scholars to write the questions.

In other words there was no reason not to ask good hard questions in the hearings. But no, almost every member of the committee asked horrible, droning non-questions.

And it patently seemed to be ego. They wanted their time on TV. Biden (him again!) was the worst.

But more generally it seems that the Democratic leadership and consultants seem to have an aversion to doing things to make their base happy. And some lack of confidence in their own set of ideals.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on April 7, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Feingold is the sort of politician that McCain pretends to be. He's a maverick. He follows his conscience and cares nothing for party discipline. This is both an excellent and infuriating quality. On the one hand, he was the only one with the guts to fight back when the Patriot Act was shoved down our throats without debate, and the only one with the guts to call for censure. On the other hand, he followed some arcane golden rule philosophy to cast votes to confirm Ashcroft and Justice Roberts, and he didn't bother to coordinate his censure move with the rest of his caucus.

Every party needs a few Feingolds. Just not too many.

Posted by: ajl on April 7, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Go you righties, Wipe the spittle off your chin and type type type america is listening,Let them hear how big you brains are. 32% and falling.

Posted by: Right minded on April 7, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK
Reid and Schumer just killed a compromise immigration bill in the Senate that Kennedy supported, because (as the MINORITY, mind) they didn't want it to be amended.

So, a compromise failed because one side (the Republicans) didn't want to accept the compromise, they wanted a nominal compromise, that they would then be free to rewrite.

And this is somehow the Democrats fault?

Posted by: cmdicely on April 7, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

The entire House bill is bad policy. This is one way to make it more likely to lose down the road, by making it unpalatable even to moderate Republicans.

That's why it's an astute move, pencarrow.

Posted by: es on April 7, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Part of the reason Dems and libs look bad in treatments by the MSM is the clueless dopiness of its practitioners when talking about comparing the two sides. I sent the letter below to Ellen Goodman after she wrote a dumb piece about how "the blogosphere" owes Jill Carroll an apology and didn't even point out that it was only the *right-wing* blogosphere that talked trash about her:


Ellen:

I usually like your columns and am mostly a centrist. However: in your recent piece about how the blogosphere screwed up by attacking Jill Carroll before we knew more about her situation. You fell into the trap noted by many (usually liberal) media critics of thinking that even-handedness of criticism means equal results, when in fact objectivity means that the same standard may show one side more in error than another. Almost all or all of the accusations against Carroll were made by right-wing bloggers and commenters, yet you acted like the blogosphere in generic terms was at fault. (BTW Imus and his pals are basically Republicans even though he supported Kerry out of disgust for Bush as such.)

This mistake parallels the situation where people (recently, it was Cohen) say how todays screw-ups show that we cant trust government, without acknowledging that Republicans control all three branches of government and their corruption and incompetence are mostly responsible (compare with the 90s.)

Please revisit this subject with renewed appreciation of the situation.

[signed ...]

Posted by: Neil' on April 7, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK


Rosenfeld is both right and wrong.

Increased Dem discipline and effectiveness is admirable.

Parliamentary maneuvering is all well and good. It just isn't good enough.

Why would I yield the completely justified scorn and hostility for a party that demands, but never gives? That capitulates, apologizes, retreats, and never frames the debate, never takes the offensive, never calls a spade a spade, continually allows their base and their colleages to be erroneously vilified, and refuses to say what they're for? Like the Constitution? Like the Law?

Hell, all they'd have to do is staff bake sales on the Capitol grounds to raise money for GI body armor. For veterans benefits. For Iraq vet mortgage bills. To pay off the debt -- not just the deficit. But NOOOooooo. Can't get their point across to save their lives. They should be roasting McCain on a spit over his torture cave-in: first he was for it, then he's against it, now it's still in place due to legalistic language and empty gestures.


Parliamentary gestures is an empty victory. A meaningless feather in the cap, b/c losing votes means crap -- just as they told Russ Feingold on censure.

It doesn't absolve them of many other failings -- including:

* a refusal to stand with Feingold

* a willingness to attack strong Dem candidates, rather than support them (Hackett and others)

* a refusal to capitalize on Bush's weakness

* a congenital unwillingness to fulfill their pledge to uphold the Constitution, and hold Bush accountable

* knee-jerk cowardice when it comes to taking a substantive stand or sticking up for their own base

* abject failure to turn Bush incompetence to their advantage and reap political gains.


Posted by: SombreroFallout on April 7, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Horray for Reid! He might not have any core principles but at least he can stick it to Bill Frist!

Posted by: Norman on April 7, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

The problem is that most of the whackivists, both net and non, have the attention span of a gnat and the tactical planning skills of Gengis Khan's delirious grandmother. Anytime Dems try to do anything really smart or savvy, we have deal with a million outraged egos who think we should do this this and this immediately (nevermind that all the suggestions are contradictory, and generally involve the suggestors doing nothing at all). For instance, all this push for a "Contract for America" for Dems. Okay. It's not a bad idea. But rolling it out now, and yelling at the leadership for not rolling it out RIGHT NOW is asinine. The Puibs rolled theirs out as close to the election as they could. Why? Because anytime you actaully propose anything, you give people time to pick it apart and find things they don't like.

In politics, this is known as talk-too-long rule. That is, no matter how good a politician you are, the more specifics you give equals more chances for more and more people to find things in your proposals with which they disagree, or even decide to get all outraged about (hoping to press you closer to THEIR agenda by doing so).

Posted by: plunge on April 7, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK
tbrosz 3:23 PM: From what I heard, Democrats don't mind making felons into citizens
From what I've heard, Republicans don't mind if their politicians turn into felons, as long as the Johnny Reb wing of the party continues to rule. Posted by: Mike on April 7, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Since Justice Stevens has repeated that he plans to retire under a Republican Pres. as he was apppointed by one and at 86 (as of April 20) it will be interesting to see how the minority Dem's will respond when George W. appoints a 3rd conservative judge. What would be the best procedure for not permanently loosing the supreme court?

Posted by: daveyo on April 7, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Please point out that we are in fact playing patty cake (though not in so many words.) We're good, gentle people.

The admissions committee is following this closely.

Posted by: Pretentius on April 7, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

more Dems "at work":

http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=1346

Posted by: republicrat on April 7, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

So I think we're all agreed (excepting the total loonies, of course): Harry Reid is pretty ace talent. Nancy Pelosi... probably beats a lot of the alternatives. All in all, life could be a lot worse. (Life could be, for example, the year 2002, with Dickless Gephardt and Tom Dashole driving the bus.)

Posted by: Cal D on April 7, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

The problem is that most of the whackivists, both net and non, have the attention span of a gnat and the tactical planning skills of Gengis Khan's delirious grandmother. Anytime Dems try to do anything really smart or savvy, we have deal with a million outraged egos who think we should do this this and this immediately (nevermind that all the suggestions are contradictory, and generally involve the suggestors doing nothing at all). For instance, all this push for a "Contract for America" for Dems. Okay. It's not a bad idea. But rolling it out now, and yelling at the leadership for not rolling it out RIGHT NOW is asinine. The Puibs rolled theirs out as close to the election as they could. Why? Because anytime you actaully propose anything, you give people time to pick it apart and find things they don't like.

In politics, this is known as talk-too-long rule. That is, no matter how good a politician you are, the more specifics you give equals more chances for more and more people to find things in your proposals with which they disagree, or even decide to get all outraged about (hoping to press you closer to THEIR agenda by doing so).

Posted by: plunge on April 7, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

Actually plunge, the problem is your contemptuous ad hominem attacks on core Democratic supporters by slamming them as "whackivists." Since when did being a Constitutional defending, values-voting, church-going, fiscally responsible Democratic loyalist qualify someone as being wacky or extreme?

And how in hell do you presume to be in a position to 'school' the base you abuse?

But let's leave aside your eat-your-own-young political sensibilities, and deal with just how elementary & sad your roll-out timing example is. Aside from beings incredibly obvious and baselessly patronizing -- it's off-point.

You're rolling out some cheap "Contract" calculated by polls and focu groups to pander, spin, and manipulate.

It'll lose (more) elections.

This is your brilliant tactical superiority?

What's needed is not more badly calculated posturing, in fearful expectation of your interminable and inevitable loser's fate, but rather a substantive program based on actually-held beliefs and principles, including Democratic obligation to uphold the Constitution, hold Bush accountable, and make the case for impeachment.

The laughable part of your post? The political calculation -- yours, the DLCs -- is stillborn. It's lost election after election. Brought ridicule on the Dems and Bush on the country.

Your ignorance and incompetence is just beyond the pale. Do you know any of people whose character you assassinate?

Posted by: SombreroFallout on April 7, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Point being, plunge, a rollout you actually believe in wouldn't be vulnerable to mere "picking apart."

Do the damn work of articulating a sound, principled position, and you might just earn the respect of Independents and Republicans.

With Bush at 36%, the Dems should be harvesting Republican voters, not just Independents.. But nooo. No effort to exploit the situation. No effort to press the advantage.

Gosh, you'd almost think the Dems were trying to lose elections.... but, they wouldn't do that . . .

Would they?

Posted by: SombreroFallout on April 7, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

the negative response to a Republican proposal to make convicted felons ineligible for citizenship

Why would it be a good idea to make felons ineligible for citizenship? Would it be a good idea to strip American felons of their citizenship? How many convicted immigrant felons currently seek citizenship? What tends to be the profile of those individuals - do they tend to be big-time drug lords seeking extra protections for their next trial, or rather check forgers, burglars and so forth who may have reformed their ways and are looking to go straight in society? Might it be possible to let the citizenship application process distinguish between the former and the latter, leaving it up to people who actually know something about these individuals to make a decision, rather than condemning them in ignorance?

I know Republicans consider ignorance a virtue, but as I understood it Christians are supposed to believe in the possibility of redemption, right?

Posted by: brooksfoe on April 8, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Also, how many convicted felons living in the USA illegally and currently seeking citizenship can you fit in a VW beetle?

Posted by: Cal D on April 8, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK
ince Justice Stevens has repeated that he plans to retire under a Republican Pres. as he was apppointed by one and at 86 (as of April 20) it will be interesting to see how the minority Dem's will respond when George W. appoints a 3rd conservative judge.

If Stevens was planning to resign under Bush, its likely he would have done so already; the fact that, nearing 86, he hasn't suggests he may well have rethought that plan with Bush in office, or at least considered minimal, technical compliance, like submitting a resignation that becomes effective in the last minute of Bush's presidency.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 8, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Daschle tried it too. He that lives by demogoguery, poison pills and focus groups might succeed for a while, but the American people will see through it eventually. I hope before November of this year.

Posted by: wks on April 8, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats aren't weak and ineffective?

That's a good one. You're being ironic, right?

Posted by: The Fool on April 10, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly