![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"you're supposed to be the good guys. you should act like it."
Yes.
How the Democrats Can Step Up
By David Ignatius
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A23
It's too late for the Democrats to forge coherent positions on Iraq or tax policy before the November elections. But fortune has presented them with a mission that can be summed up in a simple sentence: They must be the party of accountability and reform.
The pollsters report that nearly two-thirds of the country now believes that America is heading in the wrong direction. The events of the past several weeks offer a devastating argument for the Democrats of why that is so. With the Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches, arrogance has become a way of life. In a series of widely disparate cases -- from ignoring the ethics problems of former House majority leader Tom DeLay to refusing recommendations to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to covering up the egregious conduct of Rep. Mark Foley -- the Republican leadership's instinct has been political self-protection rather than accountability and effective government.
The Democrats are talking about a culture of corruption in Washington, but what are they going to do about it? That's the question Democrats should address over the next month if they want a mandate for change. If they win the House of Representatives, will the Democrats embark on a two-year binge of investigations and score-settling? Or will they get serious about solving the country's problems?
The challenge for the Democrats, if they do triumph in November, will be to break out of the partisan straitjacket that constricts American politics. That has been the real inner demon of the Republicans -- they appeared to care more about their party and its prerogatives than about the country's welfare. The Democrats, in recent years, have drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and they need to stop.
The Democrats' first priority next year should be ethics reforms that address the gross misconduct that surfaced in the DeLay and Jack Abramoff scandals. They should start by seeking GOP co-sponsorship for new legislation on lobbying and campaign finance. The Republicans will try to paint Democrats in the next Congress as liberal fanatics bent on revenge. The Democrats should answer with a spirit of bipartisanship -- an offer to work with the Republicans on effective oversight of the executive branch and congressional reform. If a Democratic victory in November becomes an exercise in "payback," the public rightly will be angry.
To see how far the Republicans have strayed from accountability, it's useful to recall their response to the DeLay scandal. At every opportunity, they tried to evade, obstruct and bully. When the House ethics committee admonished DeLay in late 2004 for ethics violations, the GOP leaders stonewalled. First they changed the Republican caucus rules so that DeLay could remain as leader even if he was later indicted. The leaders were forced to back down on that one, but they then fired the conscientious Rep. Joel Hefley as chairman of the ethics committee and purged two other Republican members and several staffers. The effect was to gut the committee, which didn't function at all during 2005.
Even after the Abramoff influence-peddling investigation brought a string of indictments, the GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass lobbying reforms. "These are the worst congressional scandals in three decades, and Congress has done absolutely nothing about it," argues Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign watchdog group Democracy 21.
The case of Rumsfeld partakes of the same circle-the-wagons spirit that has sapped the GOP. Rumsfeld should have resigned after the Abu Ghraib scandal in mid-2004. (Imagine what that signal of accountability might have done to help America's image.) But by early this year, it was obvious even to those in the Bush White House that Rumsfeld had to go. They were moving to ease him out this spring when a parade of retired generals called publicly for his resignation. I'm told that the White House, fearful of being seen as caving in to pressure, backed off at that point and left Rumsfeld in place.
And now we have the Foley scandal, which, even by Washington standards, is a remarkable piece of hypocrisy and cronyism. For at least a year senior House Republicans knew or should have known that Foley had inappropriate communications with House pages. They did nothing -- and the only possible explanation is that they were afraid of political damage. Indeed, they allowed Foley to remain co-chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children until the day his revolting messages were disclosed.
The Democrats will benefit from the GOP meltdown to the extent that they offer the country a genuine alternative: In place of scandal, reform; in place of partisanship, cooperation; in place of arrogance, accountability.
And before anyone goes caterwauling about the liberal media, let's not forget that yesterday more or less the same points were made by your own George F. Will.
How the Democrats Can Step Up
By David Ignatius
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A23
It's too late for the Democrats to forge coherent positions on Iraq or tax policy before the November elections. But fortune has presented them with a mission that can be summed up in a simple sentence: They must be the party of accountability and reform.
The pollsters report that nearly two-thirds of the country now believes that America is heading in the wrong direction. The events of the past several weeks offer a devastating argument for the Democrats of why that is so. With the Republicans in control of the executive and legislative branches, arrogance has become a way of life. In a series of widely disparate cases -- from ignoring the ethics problems of former House majority leader Tom DeLay to refusing recommendations to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to covering up the egregious conduct of Rep. Mark Foley -- the Republican leadership's instinct has been political self-protection rather than accountability and effective government.
The Democrats are talking about a culture of corruption in Washington, but what are they going to do about it? That's the question Democrats should address over the next month if they want a mandate for change. If they win the House of Representatives, will the Democrats embark on a two-year binge of investigations and score-settling? Or will they get serious about solving the country's problems?
The challenge for the Democrats, if they do triumph in November, will be to break out of the partisan straitjacket that constricts American politics. That has been the real inner demon of the Republicans -- they appeared to care more about their party and its prerogatives than about the country's welfare. The Democrats, in recent years, have drunk deep from that same poisoned chalice, and they need to stop.
The Democrats' first priority next year should be ethics reforms that address the gross misconduct that surfaced in the DeLay and Jack Abramoff scandals. They should start by seeking GOP co-sponsorship for new legislation on lobbying and campaign finance. The Republicans will try to paint Democrats in the next Congress as liberal fanatics bent on revenge. The Democrats should answer with a spirit of bipartisanship -- an offer to work with the Republicans on effective oversight of the executive branch and congressional reform. If a Democratic victory in November becomes an exercise in "payback," the public rightly will be angry.
To see how far the Republicans have strayed from accountability, it's useful to recall their response to the DeLay scandal. At every opportunity, they tried to evade, obstruct and bully. When the House ethics committee admonished DeLay in late 2004 for ethics violations, the GOP leaders stonewalled. First they changed the Republican caucus rules so that DeLay could remain as leader even if he was later indicted. The leaders were forced to back down on that one, but they then fired the conscientious Rep. Joel Hefley as chairman of the ethics committee and purged two other Republican members and several staffers. The effect was to gut the committee, which didn't function at all during 2005.
Even after the Abramoff influence-peddling investigation brought a string of indictments, the GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass lobbying reforms. "These are the worst congressional scandals in three decades, and Congress has done absolutely nothing about it," argues Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign watchdog group Democracy 21.
The case of Rumsfeld partakes of the same circle-the-wagons spirit that has sapped the GOP. Rumsfeld should have resigned after the Abu Ghraib scandal in mid-2004. (Imagine what that signal of accountability might have done to help America's image.) But by early this year, it was obvious even to those in the Bush White House that Rumsfeld had to go. They were moving to ease him out this spring when a parade of retired generals called publicly for his resignation. I'm told that the White House, fearful of being seen as caving in to pressure, backed off at that point and left Rumsfeld in place.
And now we have the Foley scandal, which, even by Washington standards, is a remarkable piece of hypocrisy and cronyism. For at least a year senior House Republicans knew or should have known that Foley had inappropriate communications with House pages. They did nothing -- and the only possible explanation is that they were afraid of political damage. Indeed, they allowed Foley to remain co-chairman of the House caucus on missing and exploited children until the day his revolting messages were disclosed.
The Democrats will benefit from the GOP meltdown to the extent that they offer the country a genuine alternative: In place of scandal, reform; in place of partisanship, cooperation; in place of arrogance, accountability.
And before anyone goes caterwauling about the liberal media, let's not forget that yesterday more or less the same points were made by your own George F. Will.
no subject
When I've seen the debates where Dems have said "we will hold this administration accountable," I'm waiting for them to wink to the camera as if to say "you know what I mean, folks: impeachment, special prosecutors, forcing resignations of the people you and I don't like." I don't know if that is what they are really thinking, but I wouldn't be surprised if many people on the left and the right interpreted "accountability" pledges in the same way.
Unethical behavior is not a partisan issue, so any reform plans the Dems would offer would be - like campaign finance reform - a dog and pony show. Just enough to appease the rubes who vote, but not enough to keep them from going on with business more or less as usual.
Rumsfeld should have resigned because he is a distraction. He should have "taken one for the team," and tendered his resignation. He should have made Bush accept it. Rumsfeld's ego is preventing that, though. David Ignatius needs to rewind his brain a bit, though...there were many people calling for Clinton to resign, yet he stayed in office. Did he pen a similar article at the time requesting that Clinton go? If so, hurrah for him for being consistent.
The problem with the Dems that I've seen in "debates" so far (and it is a problem that has plagued them in the last several election cycles): they have no ideas. Saying the party in power is wrong is not an idea or a particularly attractive platform. In those few moments where they have stated what they would actually do if elected, they haven't said anything that distinguishes them from the Republicans.
I've said for a long time that what they really need is their own version of a Contract With America. Shed the impression that they are merely obstructionists (which would probably require them gagging Pelosi), and start offering alternatives.
I tell ya, as a Republican, I want the Dems to take control of either the House or the Senate. With each passing day, though, I am losing confidence that they will be able to do that.
no subject
1.) Clinton != Rumsfeld in any way. Many people regarded what Clinton did as wrong. Many partisan people called for his resignation. Simply put what Clinton did, while morally suspect, did not rise to a crime against the State and a breach of his oath of office. Rumsfeld on the other hand has mismanaged the situation in Iraq and elsewhere enough that 4 retired Generals (who can speak without threat of charges of insubordination, heck, even those who aren't retired have criticized the situation) whom if I recall correctly spanned the political spectrum, called for his resignation. But, as usual, Bush ignores common sense in favor of cronyism - need we go back to "doin' a heck of a job, Brownie" for more proof.
2.) I don't see how you think there can be accountability without investigations, and, frankly, if those investigations into the numerous sketchy things being done by this administration yield proof that Bush has violated his Oath, then yes Impeachment might be an option. But more than anything, I believe truly that the Dems want there to be at least one check on this administration.
3.) At this juncture, I don't think the Dems need any idea other than the one they have which is "provide a check to this administration run amok." Many ideas have been floated, but unfortunately the unchecked bully pulpit of complete control of all three houses is allowing people to hear three choruses of the same thing with only the occasional descant of dissent breaking through. Three coordinated voices say the Dems don't think we should be listening to terrorists at all, when the Dems (and Mod Reps) are actually saying we just want you to get a warrant. Three coordinated voices say the Dems want to pull out of Iraq, when in fact most Dems (and Mod Reps) are saying either "Shit or get off the pot. Be in it to win it, or pull out, but staying the course isn't working."
4.) If we're going to talk about dog and pony shows how about the tendency of the Republicans to drag out the FMA regularly on a 2 year cycle that just happens to coincide with elections?
I have no problems with conservative values. I share many of them when it comes to fiscal issues. But the elevation of partisanship in this country was brought about by the Republicans since '94. There was a time, not terribly long ago, when the Country, Constitution, and its Institutions were to be protected. Now, it's the Party's power that is to be protected.
no subject
What crime against the State and breach of his oath of office is Rummy guilty of? I'm not a cheerleader for Rummy by any stretch of the imagination, but is the fact that retired generals accuse him of mishandling the war a crime against the State or a breach of his oath of office? I was merely stating that, in recent history, politicians have not stepped down because there were people screaming for him/her to. And if you read my post, I further stated that Rummy should step down, but his ego is preventing him from doing it. Bush's cronyism shouldn't come in to play - he should resign on his own.
I don't see how you think there can be accountability without investigations
I wasn't stating that there could be. I was stating that accountability does, indeed, imply investigations. It is the author of the article who stated:
"If they win the House of Representatives, will the Democrats embark on a two-year binge of investigations and score-settling? Or will they get serious about solving the country's problems?...The Democrats should answer with a spirit of bipartisanship -- an offer to work with the Republicans on effective oversight of the executive branch and congressional reform. If a Democratic victory in November becomes an exercise in "payback," the public rightly will be angry."
Any investigation will be viewed as payback by half of the population, so I am questioning whether or not David's idea is even plausible.
Three coordinated voices say the Dems want to pull out of Iraq, when in fact most Dems (and Mod Reps) are saying either "Shit or get off the pot. Be in it to win it, or pull out, but staying the course isn't working."
Recently on Iraq, here's how I have heard the debate (not listening to W, because he's a broken record):
Rep Candidate: My Dem opponent wants to cut and run. I don't. We need to pressure the Iraqis to take a greater role in their own security, and we will draw down the troops as the situation warrants.
Dem Candidate: My Rep opponent wants to stay the course. I don't. We need to pressure the Iraqis to take a greater role in their own security, and we will draw down the troops as the situation warrants.
To be fair, I have only seen a handful of recent debates from the higher profile races, and all have been on the Sunday talk shows. Which speaks to my earlier point that the two positions are indistinguishable.
If we're going to talk about dog and pony shows how about the tendency of the Republicans to drag out the FMA regularly on a 2 year cycle that just happens to coincide with elections?
Surely you're not suggesting that only Republicans are guilty of this type of tactic? If you interpreted my "dog and pony" statement as partisan, then you interpreted it incorrectly. I am saying that any reform offered by Congress (and signed by the President) will be weak and practically meaningless. It'll be done to hush the masses and add to their c.v. for when they next hit the campaign trail.
no subject
He's putting the cart before the horse, isn't he? Sure most Americans don't agree with the country's direction, but even so, you have to give them exciting reasons to vote Democratic.
It seems like Dems lately just wait for Republicans to screw up and then shout about how much better they are.
That's way too passive. The best thing to happen to democrats in 6 years was Clinton's "interview" with Chris Wallace. And that's just sad. Even his wife has become a wallflower.
It's not enough for Dems to say, "They're wrong about X, Y, Z." You have to get on the offensive and say, coherently and exactly, what they would do about it.