Pelosi Should Take the Backseat

 

 

Madam Speaker

She the votes to win; that seems certain. She makes no secret of that. But are those votes true barometers of her ability to steer the ship of the Democrats at this point, or are those votes largely chits being called in because of the amount of money Ms. Pelosi has raised for her fellow Democrats? By late October 2010, Ms. Pelosi had put her powerful fundraising skills to work for the benefit of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, at the tune of $57M, a significant portion of the overall amount raised. She directed this money to just about any candidate that asked, and she undoubtedly made it clear that the money came with strings. Always does, doesn’t it? After all, money is politics, but simply following the money to guide one’s vote – while ignoring common sense – is bad policy.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House in January 2007. Her tenure was not the longest, but it was not the shortest either. More importantly, by all accounts, this congressional session was one of the most productive sessions in recent memory, and much of that is due to her leadership, drive and political skill. Congratulations, Madam Speaker. That is a great legacy.

However, in two short years, Ms. Pelosi led the congressional Democrats from one of its strongest positions in recent history (256-178) to its greatest midterm electoral defeat in history (loss of 60 seats, with Republicans holding 242 seats to the Democrats’ 193). This demise has the hallmarks of being a swift one, especially given the acclaim with which she took the position as the first female Speaker and the subsequent election of Barack Obama, who as a primary candidate received an early and strong endorsement from Ms. Pelosi.

Generally in life, such a rout would require an examination of the causes and a reconsideration of the leadership structure. If a business fails, this typically happens. Sports franchises go through these shake-ups. But seemingly not the congressional Democrats. Oh, apparently they have done some soul-searching, but the blame for the historic losses seems to be left squarely on the 9.5% unemployment rate – as if the unemployment rate is some sort of ethereal creature pulling the levers in the voting booth. In a clear statement that reeks of defensiveness, Ms. Pelosi found herself having to say:  “We didn’t lose the election because of me.” Really? Yes, there were a number of factors, but to not acknowledge your part in the rout is a classic case of living in denial. She ought to remember her own words from 2008 when the Democrats enjoyed their second straight increase in congressional seats: “The American people have called for a new direction. They have called for change in America.” So what did they ask for this time? New carpeting in the Capitol? In actuality, these types of ads from the Republicans – however repulsive – were effective:

So where is the change? Well, in the classic Pelosi move, she helped engineer the ascension of Rep. Jim Clyburn to a new, as-yet-unnamed, position. All this to make sure there was no fight over the #2 position with Steny Hoyer. So , there’s the change! This was not too hard since Mr. Hoyer’s base, the moderate Democrats, were decimated in the 2010 elections, making it impossible for him to challenge Ms. Pelosi. Many analysts point to the very legislation that Ms. Pelosi helped pass as the catalyst for the stunning losses in 2010. Sorry, Mr. Hoyer.

Ms. Pelosi said that her supporters “understand [the Republicans] made me target because I’m effective.” Yes, some would say that her effectiveness was in passing some legislation – namely the health care bill – that runs counter to popular support. While there is some private consternation over her decision to seek a leadership position, there does not appear to be a groundswell of opposition to Ms. Pelosi’s election as the House minority leader. Too bad.

This would be a good time for the Democrats to show that they are ready to govern as opposed to just passing legislation. Don’t get me wrong – a Democratic Party in the lead is better than a Republican Party – but that is why Pelosi should sit in the back.

Good News for Illinois?

 

 

Well, it depends….

Anytime Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan has a say in the future of Illinois, we need to worry. After all, he will one day have to answer to the fact that he has led the Illinois House through one of the most tragic periods in state history, and he needs to be held partially responsible for our fiscal mess, political backwardness, and general sad state of affairs. Yes, our previous two governors – one Republican in jail and one Democrat the laughing-stock of the nation and on the verge of going to jail – have much blame on their hands. But it has been Madigan who has been the constant through this period.

Illinois needs a reset button. But until then, politics as usual. In that context, despite the wave of Republican victories across the nation and in Illinois, the Illinois Democrats still have some good news. They still run things in Springfield. Part of that power will bring the ability to redraw the congressional districts around the state, presumably to favor as much as possible the Democratic base.

Good news for Democrats; good news for Illinois if Madigan and Quinn do the right thing. Do what is right for Illinois – yes, redraw the boundaries, but start to figure out how to get the entire state out of the ditch.

Murray Wins Senate Race in Washington

Whew. Much-needed victory. Murray Wins Senate Race in Washington – NYTimes.com.

Looking for the Center

Evan Bayh has some sensible ideas…..and sensible is what we need. He may be suggesting some ideas that are a bit too on the conservative side, but his inclination – find and own the center – is what Democrats need to do. Many of those Democrats who were voted into office in 2006 and 2008 – and many who lost their spots in 2010 – were moderates. This country needs more of them….read here

Green Party Monster Bash – Again

[Amended to include results of Illinois gubernatorial race]

When will members of the Green Party learn?

This post will undoubtedly get me in trouble with some my environmentalist friends, but it needs to be said. My environmentalist credentials are solid enough – try to reduce driving, increase our recycling, reduce energy use where possible, etc. I honestly believe that global warming is real and needs to be addressed, and there is plenty of research and data to support this view. I do, however, believe that we need to approach environmental issues with a balance that takes into consideration economic and social needs, but that is just reflecting my generally pragmatic viewpoint. So, all said, I definitely feel that we need to be very environmentally conscious and that our policies need to reflect a concern for the future of the planet.

That said, does the need to address these issues justify the Green Party’s ongoing attempts to make a dent in the national electoral map even when they are confronted by failure after failure? They may argue that winning is not the goal of their candidacies, but is rather merely an attempt to get a “green” agenda into the national debate. But how many failures need to occur before they realize that such a goal is a destructive use of resources?

Was the election of 2000 not enough of a lesson? Because of Nader and his Green Party candidacy, Al Gore lost Florida and therefore lost the edge to combat the Republican takeover of the presidency. Yes, if Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he could have won the election even without Florida. We all know the story, and Gore’s loss cannot all be blamed entirely on Nader. But, the numbers do not lie – simple math shows that the Green Party’s fantastical candidacy in 2000 left us with eight years of George Bush during which we saw some of the most abusive assaults on the environment since the green movement began. How does this sit with members of the Green Party? My guess is that their self-absorption in trying to combat the “two-party” system leaves them blind to their misguided priorities.

Yes, the Green Party lives on. In the process of trying to achieve something via the ballot box, the Green Party continues to squander realistic attempts to achieve real environmental progress. When will they learn? The election of 2010 has provided another set of examples – albeit smaller that the 2000 fiasco, but no less destructive.

A more thorough review of Tuesday night’s election results could probably bring forward even more examples, but a quick review of two races clearly shows the impact of the Green Party – an impact that clearly helps the Republican Party, not the party that can actually do the most for the environment.  That impact does not seem to align well with the platform of the Green Party.

I have heard the arguments – can we assume that all Green Party voters would vote for a Democrat if left no other option? Of course not, but I cna bet that a good portion would cast a ballot for a Democrat before a Republican……

Illinois Senate:

Republican Mark Kirk: 1.765M votes

Democrat Alexi Giannoulias: 1.694M votes (71K less votes than Kirk)

Green Party LeAlan Jones: 117K votes

Assuming that 75% of those Green Party votes went to the Democrat, Giannoulias wins. One more Democrat in the Senate.

Colorado Senate:

Democrat Michael Bennet: 799K votes

Republican Ken Buck: 783K votes

Green Party Bob Kinsey: 36K votes

Bennet wins…but this was too close. Assuming that 75% of those Green Party votes went to the Democrat, Bennet still wins but by a broader margin. Democrats should not have to fight to their left in these tight elections. In a similar vein…

Illinois Governor:

Democrat Patrick Quinn: 1.721M

Republican Bill Brady: 1.702M (19K difference)

Green Party Rich Whitney: 99K

I understand the Green Party’s desire to break the two-party system, but they need to get real. Even the upstart Tea Party produced winners in the election process. Not the Greens. They are just producing more Republicans who can further erode the environment.

Stay green, but join the Democrats so that they can actually win with better margins and do something to help you.

Laughable Views on the Constitution?

The news is out: Christine O’Donnell, Republican candidate for US Senate to represent Delaware (her third attempt), seemed to suggest in a debate that the Constitution does not make reference to the separation of Church and State. The audience had a good laugh. The video is all over the place:

CBS

YouTube (extended; includes her position on Intelligent Design – not be be confused in her mind with creationism)

ABC News

But, you know what…she’s actually correct. We should all know that the Constitution does not contain the words “separation of Church and State” or anything close to such a phrase. Thomas Jefferson used those specific words only in a letter in 1802 when he was president, years after the ratification of the US Constitution. O’Donnell’s opponent, Chris Coons, did what most people typically do in this situation – he quoted the “Establishment Clause” of the Bill of Rights (First Amendment) which famously prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion or preventing the “free exercise thereof.” Nothing really about “separation,” right? By its very nature, government (federal, state or local) could not possibly operate without somehow intersecting (and potentially interfering) with religious freedom and exercise.

So why are we laughing? She’s correct, isn’t she? Of course she is not correct. All fair-minded people know that the Constitution is silent on MANY topics and that we have spent over 220 years interpreting, amending and understanding the intent of the document and its purpose. We also know that this process has established some very strong “knowns” such as the right to a fair trial, the right to own private property, and equal protection under the law. Institutions and ideas that are so strong that “we the people” consider them bedrock principles in this country. The “separation of Church and State” is one of those; there may be disagreement as to what it actually means, but there is generally no debate that it is not a “founding” principle. So, we laugh when we hear someone question its existence.

But no one should be laughing. This little incident, which will be “spun” by the O’Donnell-Palin wing of the Republican Party into a comment “taken out of context,” actually points to something truly not laughable….that there are people running around (and running for office) thinking that because The Constitution does not specifically say it, there is not a requirement for separation. Their logic has been used to infiltrate school boards and local governments in an attempt to push Intelligent Design and other religious concepts into school curricula and scientific “debates.” Since “separation” does not exist, a government should be able to allow for the equal treatment of these topics. People who make this argument cannot (and will not) tell the difference between scientific theory and religious principle; and they do not acknowledge that a proper “wall” does exist between a priest and public school teacher.

We need to stop laughing. We need to be concerned. O’Donnell can be ignored as a “wing nut,” but not the rest of them.