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.

Bill Young Fails to support the Troops - Again

Once again Congressman Bill Young (R-Fl-10) has failed to support the troops. It was horrific to learn that Young knew of the wretched conditions for the troops at Walter Reed Hospital and did nothing. Now just yesterday, Young has failed to support our troops once again.

Young voted no yesterday on the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. This bill reads in part:

1) the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 ... authorized the President to use the Armed Forces ... in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by the Government of Iraq at that time;

(2) the Government of Iraq which was in power at the time the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was enacted into law has been removed from power and its leader indicted, tried, convicted, and executed by the new freely-elected democratic Government of Iraq;

(3) the current Government of Iraq does not pose a threat to the United States or its interests; ...

Requirement- The Secretary of Defense shall commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq by not later than April 1, 2008.

Young voted with 190 other Republican Members of Congress to keep our troops in the middle of the civil war in Iraq. So once again, Bill Young has failed to support our troops.

I'm not sure if Young believes that the current Government in Iraq is still a threat to the national security of the United States or not. What I do know is that if Young really believed in supporting our troops, he would have voted to get them out of Iraq as quickly and as responsibly as possible. Instead, Young voted no.

He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

The title of this diary is a clause from Article. II, Section. 3 of the Constitution for the United States of America. This is a particularly apropos time to take a close look at the meaning of this clause. What are the real duties of the President of the United States? What are the real duties and responsibilities of the Congress of the United States? Why does this matter now more than ever?

The answers (?) to these and other questions are below the fold...


This clause bears repeating right at the outset

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Article. II of the Constitution deals with

The executive Power

which

shall be vested in a President of the United States

It contains only four sections. This is in contrast to Article. I. dealing with

legislative Powers herein granted

which has ten sections.

Section. 8. deals with the powers of Congress. Among these are the power

To raise and support Armies, ...

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

So what is this diary really all about? Why is any of this at all important right now? Over at RockRidge Nation, George Lakoff and Glenn W. Smith have posted an important piece titled The Framers Got It Right: Congress is the Decider. In this piece Lakoff and Smith posit

Congress would find it easier to act courageously if the public understood the constitutional stakes. And that public understanding requires correct and persistent framing by Congress itself. What needs to have been framed — indeed what still needs to be framed — is Congress's constitutional responsibility and power to set the course on military missions like Iraq. (emphasis added)

To prove this point they quote David J. Barron of the Harvard Law School

Congress possesses substantial constitutional authority to regulate ongoing military operations and even to bring them to an end.

They also quote Louis Fisher, Constitutional Specialist, Library of Congress

The legislative judgment to take the country to war carries with it a duty throughout the conflict to decide that military force remains in the national interest...In the midst of war, there are no grounds for believing that the President's authority is superior to the collective judgment of its elected representatives. Congress has both the constitutional authority and the responsibility to retain control and recalibrate national policy whenever necessary.

Lakoff and Smith go on to argue

Congressional leaders have neglected to remind the nation what the Constitution says. They have allowed the president to reframe the Constitution, usurping their power for himself. The Framers framed it right. The Congress irresponsibly let the president reframe the Constitution.... Opponents of the president's Iraq policies should have framed the issue immediately when Democratic leaders took control in January 2007. The message should have been: Congress defines the strategic mission; the president's job is to carry it out. He is refusing to carry out his mission.

Lakoff and Smith point out the frames successfully used by the Bush administration that have made the Congress afraid to execute their powers. They also point out the framing traps that proponents of bringing the Iraq Occupation to an end should avoid. They also provide useful frames to help the public understand the true nature of the situation, including this

Progressives must point out that it is the president, with an enabling Congress, who commenced a foolhardy adventure with no clear exit strategy or way to "win." That same president has refused to properly prepare or adequately equip soldiers — and now he is blaming Congress. When Congress passed a supplemental spending bill with reasonable timetables attached, he refused it. The betrayer is the president. Say it over and over: The president has betrayed our troops and the nation.

This reminds me of something my good friend alonewolf has been saying. I am going to paraphrase what alonewolf says Congress and Democratic candidates should be saying about authorizing this misadventure in Iraq

We gave him the keys to the car. We didn't tell him to drive it into a ditch.

Like any parent whose child drives their car into a ditch, Congress should, no must, take away the keys to the car.

Read the Rockridge piece. They give some good ways where we can help to make that happen.

Candidate Review Wednesday: Overview

This time 4 years ago, I was firmly committed to Florida's favorite son, my former boss, Senator and former Florida Governor Bob Graham. I had taken a look at Howard Dean and liked what I saw. I was not enamored of John Kerry (more on that later) and I thought John Edwards suffered from premature ejaculation (er, uh, candidacy).

This cycle, I am much more conflicted. There is not one candidate who stands head and shoulders above everyone else, in my opinion. Maybe the best candidate isn't even in the race. Maybe the best candidate is ineligible to run again. There are at least two candidates who I would be equally happy to have as my party's nominee. This is the embarrassment of riches we seem to be suffering this year.

Today, I am launching a series of diaries to try and get the fencepost out of my ass. This series is going to be a little bit like examining my navel, something I have successfully avoided doing to this point in my life for the most part. I hope at the end of the day to have developed a coherent reason to support one candidate over all the others.




There are a couple of caveats I should make here. I am going to support the Democratic nominee. Period.

I want to become a paid employee of, or consultant to, the campaign I end up choosing to support. I could repeat my pattern from the last presidential cycle and spend my energy on the Congressional level. That happened after my first choice, Bob Graham, decided he couldn't sustain a viable campaign. This cycle though, I hope I wind up catching on with the ultimate nominee.

There are two top level criteria I am going to use to evaluate the candidates. The first is their ability to win the nomination. The second is their ability to win the general election. You can't have one without the other. That's what happened to Howard Dean in Iowa last cycle. Iowans came to the conclusion that Dean could not win the general. They also came to the mistaken conclusion that John Kerry could, so what do they know?

In my attempts to evaluate candidates chances to win the nomination, I am going to look at these factors:

• Values projected in the Message
• Stance on issues
• Fundraising ability
• Staff competence
• Primary strategy
• Does this candidate make me feel it?

I am going to go back to square one and do my own research on all these factors. I am a devotee of values based decision making, so I am going to start with that navel gazing thing. I am going to have to come up with a set of criteria to evaluate how each candidate's message resonates with my values (That's the first and the last criteria on the list above.) Those criteria are, by their nature, subjective. The other criteria are more objective in nature. At the end of the day, it is going to come down to my gut feeling as to which candidate makes me feel it more.

That's how I intend to proceed. It should be an interesting journey.

Iraq Withdrawal - Post Veto Frame

Our Fearless Leader, Georgie W, today reiterated his plan to veto the Iraq Supplemental Appropriations bill passed by Congress this week. You know, the one with the goal of removing US troops from Iraq by the end of March 2008. What's to worry, you say. The American people are on our side on this.

Well, maybe. They are on our side, if we don't stick our foot in our mouth. Or let the other side frame the debate. Is this a slam dunk? Hardly.

Follow me and you'll get my take on how to play the next inning.


We have got to come out of the gate saying:

The President just refused the money needed to get our troops home safely from Iraq. He is now playing politics with the troops lives by refusing to take this money and refusing to plan a safe redeployment.

The numbers seem to be on our side. 71% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq. 64% believe we should set a timetable for withdrawal. 57% believe Congress should have the final say on Iraq troop levels. Sounds pretty good, huh? Well, not so fast, Skippy. Take a look at this:

"The Democrats in Congress have proposed to fund the Iraq war only if the U.S. sets a timetable for troop withdrawal, too. George W. Bush has stated he will veto that proposal. If George W. Bush does veto it, what should the Democrats in Congress do next: should they try to withhold funding for the war until George W. Bush accepts a timetable for troop withdrawal, or should they allow funding for the war, even if there is no timetable?"

56% say Congress should allow the funding after the veto.

That is why we must drive home this point:

Bush refused the money.

Congress gave him the money he asked for, along with reasonable conditions for its use. Bush did not want to be bound by those conditions, so he refused the money. We must not allow the debate to be framed as Congress withholding the money. Congress voted for the money. George Bush refused the money. He is putting our troops lives at risk by refusing the money and refusing to plan a safe redeployment of our troops.

Just say yes, Georgie.