Majority of the Majority

Progressives have been mightily unhappy with the performance of the newly elected Democratic Congress. While there have been some successes such as the minimum wage increase, ethics reform and the expansion of SCHIP, the children's health care program, there have been some notable failures and setbacks.

The failure to change course in Iraq and the miserable kneel down to Bush on warrantless wiretapping are two of the biggest failures. And yet these things happened with majorities of Democrats voting against them.

When Dennis Hastert was Speaker of the House, he had a rule. He called it the Majority of the Majority. What was this rule and how could it help the Democrats legislate as Democrats? Follow me below the fold...


In a little noticed speech in 2003 Hastert said:

The job of speaker is not to expedite legislation that runs counter to the wishes of the majority of his majority.

What is the significance of this rule? How did Hastert use it? The rule first gained wide spread notice in late 2004. That is when the House scuttled a vote on a Conference Report on the Intelligence Reform Bill. Here is what the Washington Post had to say:

Hastert elected to keep it from reaching a vote, even though his aides said it could have passed with a minority of GOP members and strong support from the chamber's 206 Democrats.

Hastert was, of course, roundly criticized by House Democrats back then. Then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

(Republicans) like to talk about bipartisanship. But when the opportunity came to pass a truly bipartisan bill -- one that would have passed both the House and Senate overwhelmingly and would have made the American people safer -- they failed to do it.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has apparently not changed her opinion of the Majority of the Majority rule. After the Iraq supplemental funding bill was passed without withdrawal time lines in May, despite 61 percent of House Democrats voting against it, Pelosi said:

I’m the Speaker of the House. I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority.

Something broader than the majority of the majority? Suppose the Democrats enforced the majority of the majority rule back in May? No supplemental Iraq funding bill without time lines would have been brought to the House floor for a vote. This would have necessitated a decrease in troop levels or a complete withdrawal, something 66 % of Americans support.

Something broader than the majority of the majority? How about the Constitution of the United States? 77% of Democrats opposed the so called Protect America Act giving the Bush administration more warrantless wiretapping powers. Under the majority of the majority rule, this bill would not have even come up for a vote.

Democrats have it within their power to make change in America. They were elected to the majority in 2006 to make change in America. If they would use the majority of the majority rule, we would have change in America.

Don't Get Too Attached to Your Candidates

A couple of things happened yesterday that moved me to write this diary. I had just finished my Candidate Review Series Recap. I went through 6 weeks of research and analysis. I even did some navel gazing. I got a chance to see most of the campaigns in action. And I still couldn't come to a decision.

That puts me in the minority of Dems. It also makes me worry very much about something. So, what am I worried about? Follow me below the fold...


The first thing to occur happened away from the keyboard. At least my keyboard. We have a very active and very well organized volunteer Obama campaign presence here in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida. As someone who has some small experience in campaigning, I took the first opportunity I had to drop in on one of their meetings in my hometown, St. Petersburg.

Most of the meeting was taken up with the group members relating their experience on the campaign walk the Obama campaign conducted this week end. Some of us in the room did not participate. That's because the Obama campaign picked a date that was in direct conflict with the Florida Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson weekend. It was see Nancy Pelosi and 2,000 Democratic activists, or go knock on some doors. Well, I can and have knocked on doors plenty of other times. Nancy Pelosi won.

As the folks who walked told their war stories, it became quickly apparent that this was, indeed, an amateur, volunteer organization. But their enthusiasm was endemic. The conversation then moved on to the Obama campaign's participation in the St. Petersburg Pride Festival at the end of the month. This Festival is the largest GLBT Pride festival in Florida, and is a very big deal in St. Pete. Again, having some small experience in this sort of thing, I offered a few suggestions intended to make the Obama group's participation more effective and more fun.

It was then that the first really interesting thing happened. I was challenged by an acquaintance sitting next me as to whether I had gotten off the fence and picked a candidate. It was obvious she had not read my Candidate Review Recap, because I relayed in it that I had not. She then asked me what I was doing at their meeting, as if I wished their campaign ill.

Here is something I want to repeat from the first of my Candidate Review series:

I am going to support the Democratic nominee. Period.

So before a nominee is chosen, I will do what I can, as I have in the past, to help any of the campaigns that I can. I will not work against any campaign, only for them. That was pretty much my answer to my acquaintance.

The second event happened in cyberspace on DailyKos. I returned home to read this comment from my friend Boofdah on my Review Recap Diary:

If she (Hillary) gets the nom I hate to say this, but we're in a world of hurt. :-/

It's a relief that at least (so far), we have a couple of really great local candidates, like this guy, to get behind and do grassroots work for, in case my preferred Presidential candidate (see my sig) doesn't get the nod. I hate to be a sullen poor sport; but I
honest-to-God can't get excited about volunteering for HRC. :(

Obama-rama!

We have recently been through this in Florida. In last year's governor's race, we had a fierce primary battle. Adherents to both sides were fervently attached to their chosen candidates. The blogosphere was filled with vituperative comments flying from both sides. At the end of the primary, all too many of the supporters of the loser could not bring themselves to work for their party's nominee.

Did any of this lead to the ultimate defeat of our party's nominee? Probably not. Did it contribute to the loss of our party's nominee. Absolutely.

So, what is the answer to this. One of the great things about Democrats is our passion. No one should wish for that passion to be diminished. I certainly do not.

I'd like to see a passionate discussion. I'd like to see what thoughts are out there about how best to be advocates for our candidates, while at the same time recognizing that any one of our candidates is infinitely preferable to any one from the other side.

After all, isn't the ultimate goal to get one of our candidates into the White House?

The Big Lie - Iraq - Again - Part II

So many lies, so little time. I was going to write next about the lie that all these horrible consequences would necessarily follow a withdrawal of US troops from combat duty in the Iraq Civil War. I still intend to deal with this topic. However, a new Big Lie has emerged from the Iraq War Supporters.

I am sure you've have heard it. Any mention of placing conditions , or restrictions on the supplemental funding for the war brings forth immediate cries of "micromanagement" from the Iraq War Supporters. Is this really true, or is it just one more Big Lie?

Come below the fold where we'll deconstruct this one and perhaps find some Truth....


Let's start off by defining micromanagement. Dictionary.com gives us this:

mi·cro·man·age : –verb (used with object), -aged, -ag·ing.
to manage or control with excessive attention to minor details.
[Origin: 1985–90]
—Related forms
mi·cro·man·age·ment, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v
1.1)Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

House Republican Leader John Boehner had this to say about a recent plan by John Murtha to place restrictions on the use of funds in the upcoming Iraq supplemental funding bill:

“His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to ‘stop the
surge.’ So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations
bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to
micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to
do.”

Not to be outdone, Condoleezza Rice said:

proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to "the worst of micromanagement of military affairs."

Even Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline program is getting in on the act. They quote :

ROY BLUNT, REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN: It's hard to imagine a group less capable of making tactical decisions about specific troop deployments than 535 members of Congress.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Lateline, in the same story, also had this:

NANCY PELOSI, DEMOCRAT HOUSE SPEAKER: No more blank cheques for President Bush on Iraq. Our taxpayer dollars must go to protect our troops, to keep our promises to our veterans and to provide for the safety of the American people. In light of the facts, President Bush's escalation proposal will not make America safer.

and this:

TOM LANTOS, DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN: We are not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We are attempting to referee a religiously based civil war, which saps our strength and destroys our fabric as a society.

So what is all this talk really about? Does Congress in fact have the power to set policies that control how the military operates? Has it been done before?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power to ...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States

So it would appear that Congress does indeed have the power to govern the military. In fact, Congress has done just that from the inception of the republic. There is 5 USC CHAPTER 99 - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL System passed in January 2005 (For those of you not paying attention, this was in the Republican controlled Congress). Then there is 10 USC TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES. This entire title of the code is devoted to the governance of the armed forces of the United States. It covers everything from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps.

So Congress has indeed exercised its powers under the Constitution

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

They have done it under Democratic and Republican controlled Congresses. They have done it before there were Democrats and Republicans. And they should continue to do so now.

So, when you hear your Republican friends talking about Congress micromanaging the Iraq war, just point them to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. If that doesn't work, direct their attention to 10 USC TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES. If none of that works, you know you've got the type of Republican who voted for Allan Keyes for the Illinois Senate seat now held by Barak Obama.

2007: Que Sera Sera Ist Quarter Picks

Cheers to Bill in Portland Maine for taking a look back at 2006 in his Cheers and Jeers Diary on DailyKos. At this time last year, who' a thunk it?

But as 2006 draws to a close, I find myself looking ahead to what 2007 will bring. So, I am dusting off my cracked and off center crystal ball and taking a swing and probably more than a few misses. But as the old song goes:

Que sera, sera,

whatever will be, will be,

the future's not ours to see,

Que sera, sera.

So, here goes ...

Cross posted from Florida Kossacks

January 2007

Barack Obama will announce his candidacy for President of the United States on Oprah.

Hillary Clinton will go on Oprah and Oprah will tell her not to run.

The Chicago Bears and San Diego Chargers win their conference championships and will meet in Super Bowl XLI.

The Florida Gators beat Ohio state University and secure their second national championship in the last 12 months to go along with their NCAA hoops championship.

The House of Representatives will refuse to seat either candidate from FL-13 and a special election will have to be held to fill the seat.

February 2007

Nancy Pelosi is named Valentine of the Decade as the first female speaker of the House. And oh BTW, her 100 hour program sails thorough Congress and is signed into law by the President.

The Chicago Bears led by a strong performance by former Gator QB Rex Grossman win the Super Bowl in a thrilling over time game.

Kathleen Sebelius announces her candidacy for President of the United States on The Daly Show.

March 2007

Spring Training begins in Florida. The special election in FL-13 has more money spent than in any other House election ever. Jennings wins going away. All the votes are cast by paper absentee ballots.

The first Army brigade of US troops withdraws from Iraq to mark the beginning of the phased withdrawal of all US troops.

Nude dance king Joe Redner is elected Mayor of Tampa, pledging to run a completely transparent government.

OK, that's the first quarter of 2007. I think that's enough for now. All snarky comments are welcome, if I can snark back. Also, suggestions for the 2nd quarter of 2007 greatly appreciated.