Sweet, Sweet Oversight

House Democrats once again postpone a vote on holding Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers in contempt of congress for refusing to testify in the US Attorneys matter. There's some kind of nominal rationale for this, but an anonymous "top Democratic insider" says:

When we have the votes, we’ll go ahead with this. Right now, the votes are just not there.

Basically, we seem to have some fraidy-cat Dems out there who for some reason don't think picking a fight with the White House over their gross distortions of the rule of law would be a smart idea and then we have a weak leadership that for some reason doesn't want to bring them into line.

Comments

Greenwald took them on today. *Do* remind me not to do anything so monumentally stupid that Glenn feels the need to smack me down.

Posted by Jen | January 23, 2008 3:13 PM

They just want to play out the Bush administration now and then forget all about it.

The bi-partisan kissing up on the stimulus package might have something to do with this.

Posted by mq | January 23, 2008 3:15 PM

Hillary will save us. She's coming along now to put these republicans in their place with some of the glower-power she's used on Obama. "Don't mess with Hillary, boys," the republicans were heard to say, "she's going to erupt into a righteous rage and intimidate us into submission with her senatorial kung-fu."

Posted by Chronic | January 23, 2008 3:23 PM

We really shouldn't refer to it as the Democratically controlled Congress when the working majority is Republicans and blue dog Democrats.

Posted by JackD | January 23, 2008 3:45 PM

I cannot wait to hear again from the wise men that when enough Dems are elected things will change. yeah sure, my ass.

Posted by della Rovere | January 23, 2008 3:55 PM

it is certainly true that there are a fair number of chickenshit democrats in congress whose party affiliation makes limited sense, but that's not an excuse for the leadership to cave like this time and again.

among the other costs this imposes is that when the democratic congressional committee calls me looking for money, i yell at them for a couple of minutes about spinelessness (particularly on the related matter of telecom immunity) and make it clear that there will be no money from me to the party as a party this go-round.

broadly speaking, this reminds me of why i didn't favor the dems winning congress this go round; lots of chickens are coming home to roost, and now the dems fingerprints are on all of them.

Posted by howard | January 23, 2008 4:21 PM

How can we get rid of ALL the leadership in this country...

Good god...where in the world are all the good leaders?

Oh...that's right...making zillions in *free* enterprise.

Public financing for elections...bring back some common freakin' sense.

HRC's Iraq vote could be excused if:

1) She had read the NIE report and formed a salient argument why she disagreed with it.

2) Wasn't using her *experience* in the WH as a selliing point...will she read the reports then?

3) Hadn't followed it up with her Kyl-Liebermann vote.

4) Wasn't so concerned with voting in favor based on the President should have the power...read Executive branch power.

I don't like Obama's coal vote, and I wish his instance that nuclear is off the table until the waste/water consumption was solved. I love his innovative use of technology though, which bodes well for his receptiveness to promoting/hearing new approaches, trains of thought.

Overall, which of these two candidates would do more harm to my nation? Which has the potential to be truly transformative?

No brainer...

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 23, 2008 4:27 PM

Well, I'm no "top political insider," but his guidance does sound like Sun Tzu, doesn't it?

Pick your battles, and fight only the ones you can win. Better to delay than to lose. And so on.

This seems to be standard political advice in Congress, regardless of party, so there must be something to it.

Posted by Kit Stolz | January 23, 2008 4:53 PM

Yeah, not having the vote when you won't win it is smart. But then the question is why the votes aren't there.

Posted by Alanc9 | January 23, 2008 5:05 PM

Kit Stolz, I'm no expert in SunTzu, but I assume that in addition to advising warriors to pick their battles, he also advised them to at least win a few.

Posted by thesheriffisani | January 23, 2008 8:05 PM

The 2006 elections were a waste of time. The Democratic party in Congress is waste of protoplasm. They will return invigorated to destroy the agenda of a Democratic, or, if it does that will, to acquiesce in the agenda of a Republican one.
Primary challenges are a waste of time. Progressives should find and fund an independent challenge to Harry Reid in his next GENERAL election. They won't win, but he won't either.
The way to get cowards to do what you want is to demonstrate that you mean when you say you'll hurt them.

Posted by JMG | January 23, 2008 8:50 PM

Harry Reid's popularity in Nevada itself right now -- according to the one poll I've seen on the subject -- is already dismal for some reason. I'm not big on punishing Democrats for insufficient liberalism (or for plain lack of spine) by deliberately arranging their replacement by Republicans -- but if the Dems have the big Senate lead by 2010 that virtually all analyses predict to be inevitable, then pushing Harry over the cliff in Nevada in that year, even if it requires replacing him with a Republican, might be worth it, given his amazingly horrendous performance as Majority Leader. The very last straw on that subject, for me, came today:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/23/lt-i-gt-now-lt-i-gt-reid-s-getting-tough-on-filibusters.aspx

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 23, 2008 9:42 PM

yeah, i just gave dnc.org an obscenity-laden rant over Reid disgraceful performance. not another fucking dime from me until they get rid of that cocksucker.

Posted by cleek | January 23, 2008 9:52 PM

BTW, for Hillary supporters, while discussing the Marc Rich pardon with someone on Slashdot, I ran across this BBC article on the OTHER pardons Bill Clinton performed in his last hours as President.

If this doesn't show you who the Clintons are, nothing will.

Clinton pardons: Cast of characters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1184118.stm

Money quotes:

Carlos Vignali, 30, had his 15-year sentence for conspiracy to sell cocaine reduced to time served, and walked free on Mr Clinton's last day in office. His father, Horacio, is a rich and powerful leader in the Los Angeles Hispanic community who has made large donations to the Democratic party. A number of high-profile Los Angeles figures, including the archbishop, the man who is now sherrif and two current mayoral candidates appealed for clemency for Vignali, but several have now said they should not have done so.

Almon Glenn Braswell, a Miami-based businessman, was convicted in 1983 of fraud and perjury in connection with a mail-order treatment for baldness he sold. Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles, where his business is based, were stunned by the pardon because it could throw a spanner into the works of the current investigation of Braswell on new charges. Mr Clinton said he was not aware that Braswell was facing a new investigation, and that his pardon was only intended to apply to the 1983 conviction. Braswell's lawyers argue it applies to the present circumstances as well, but LA prosecutors say they will proceed with their investigation anyway.

Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton's younger brother and a Miami lawyer, accepted nearly $400,000 from Braswell and the Vignali family to act on their behalf. When news of the payments became public, he returned the money at the Clintons' insistence. Bill Clinton denied knowing Mr Rodham had taken money for the clemency work, but not having discussed the cases with him. Senator Clinton denied any involvement in the pardons whatsoever.

Roger Clinton, the former president's younger half-brother, was pardoned for a 1985 cocaine-related offence. Roger Clinton pleaded guilty to the charge and served more than a year in prison. The presidential pardon erases his criminal record - but he was arrested and charged with drink driving in California a month after the pardon. He also faces a charge of disturbing the peace for allegedly challenging a nightclub doorman to a fight.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 23, 2008 10:22 PM

For those correctly rebelling against electing more "Democrats" to Congress, could I suggest the use of some discrimination? Support the progressive Democrats, not Democrats in general.

Posted by JackD | January 23, 2008 11:16 PM

Jesus, people, the alternative is Republicans. Primary challenges, yes, but if you can't see the difference between Dem mediocrity and Republican evil you must have been locked in a basement for the last seven years.

Posted by mq | January 24, 2008 1:00 AM

The trouble, my dear MQ, is with Democrats who do absolutely nothing to try to block said "Republican evil" -- and Reid is definitely Exhibit A in that regard, with Jay Rockefeller as Exhibit B. Granted that small rural states are going to elect Democratic Senators more conservative than the average Dem Senator, but actually then placing them in major party leadership positions is a bit much.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | January 24, 2008 8:51 AM

Agreed on Reid. But the point is, you shouldn't lose sight of the difference between "not blocking evil" and "taking the initiative to do evil".

Posted by mq | January 24, 2008 10:17 AM

Launching a general election challenge against a Democratic candidate is a bold move. It should not, in my opinion, be done as just a stick in the Dem's eye. Do you really think we benefited from the Nader run in 2000? His being on the ballot almost certainly cost Gore Florida even if those idiots didn't intend to vote for him.

Ousting Reid could be an exception. It sends a very clear signal to Congressional leadership and it would not necessarily cost the Dems much political power in Congress.

Posted by mpowell | January 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Could we get the names of these Dems that are not in line yet? Then we could send them some emails and phone calls.

Posted by disgusted | January 24, 2008 12:54 PM