Dems have the majority but no authority?

[QShok]

What is going on? Did we just elect a bunch of gutless DINOs???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901317_pf.html

Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion
Neither Party Has an Appetite for Overhauling Congressional Oversight of Intelligence

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2006

It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers....


Shok

[namvet73]

1. Bush will veto bills introduced by Democrats saying...

That's NOT, NOT FAIR!

[QShok]

4. Veto power.

Bush can't veto bills "introduced" to Congress. Bush can only veto bills that pass both houses of Congress.

It hasn't been a month since we won the election and they're breaking campaign promises already. Promises made should be promises kept. Please write your rep.

Shok

[w4rma]

2. The DINOs were in the *bipartisan* commission. At least one good Dem resigned from it.

Remember that the commission was formed when Republicans had total power over every branch of the government. The Republicans had much more power than the cover up DINOs on the commission.

[earthside]

3. No 'Moral' Authority

Until the Congressional Democrats clearly and unequivocally accept the concept of impeaching Bush and Cheney for placing themselves above the law -- and declare that they will be cutting funding for anymore deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq -- then these Democrats will lack even the moral authority to accomplish very much.

Yesterday on Hardball was some newly elected Congressman from Pennsylvannia, Carney was his name I think, and he was a terrible disappointment. He wouldn't directly talk about what to do in Iraq, and then he said raising the minimum wage was the most important thing the new Congress could do. That is big time loser talk.

Iraq is the big issue -- period. If the Democrats insist on dealing with domestic issues and try and shove dealing with Iraq into the background, then they are going to lose the political initiative right off the bat.

Dems need to put Bush and Cheney on notice ... the Dems are going to take the lead on Iraq and peace, and aggressive investigations will take place to determine if Bush and Cheney should remain in office.

Otherwise it is going to be a long and depressing two years.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. But they can't do that.

Trying to impeach Bush and Cheney will achieve no more than praying for them to be struck my lightning - the votes simply aren't there, and there's no way the GOP are going to break ranks to the necessary degree; all an impeachment attempt would do would be to gridlock the Government for two years and then hand control of it back to the Republicans on a plate.

Don't set your hopes or your demands on impeachment, because even if every one of them set their heart on it, the Dems *couldn't* deliver it; it's not in their power to do so.

[earthside]

10. That's Just Politics

I'm talking about creating moral authority for themselves ... and that means doing the right thing.

This constant political strategizing is what has given the Democrats the reputation as being spineless and timid. Sometimes you can win by losing -- if you are daring enough to lead based on principle.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. No, it's just maths

There's nothing spineless about not doing something that's provably impossible.

The reputation the Dems have that does them most harm among the electorate as a whole, as opposed to among DUers, is that they are negative, not that they are timid - the perception that the Dems' weakness is that they don't attack Bush enough is one not widely held outside the far left.

Generally, the result of losing is that one loses.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Is "reorganization" of Congress even constitutional?

just asking

[QShok]

7. Yes

Congress was established by the Constitution but its basic rules and organization is self-determined. Power sharing deal of 2000 is one example.

Shok

[no_hypocrisy]

8. It depends.

1. With democrats controlling both houses, * can't expect to introduce bills attached to his agenda and expect them to be voted into effect. All he can do is play defense by way of veto. And that can be politically dangerous as it will be ascribed to the republicans generally if it's a popular goal like cutting the price of Medicare drugs or restoring Habeas Corpus.

2. The republicans remaining in Congress may not be as likely to be as rightwing as in the past and therefore moderates may be willing to cross party lines on certain votes, so a bill may be veto-proof depending upon what it is.

[drm604]

9. This seems like an attempt by Weisman to frame this incorrectly.

Couldn't "creating a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations" be considered a reasonable first step toward "a wholesale reorganization of Congress"?

You don't just come in on day one and say "okay, Congress is hereby reorganized".

[some guy]

12. this is a nothing story

same as it was a nothing story when it got posted in LBN :eyes:

" Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.

"I don't think that suggestion is going anywhere," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.)... "

Let's wait and see what actual elected DEMOCRATS say about this, okay?