Pelosi's less than stellar moment at Netroots Nation

House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
explainsthe role of government to a challenging
Netroots Nation crowd (PBG June 22, 2013)

"The fact is, you should reject any notion that President Obama's action have anything to do with what President Bush was doing...
"We protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That's our oath of office, so we have that responsibility." - House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, to the Netroots Nation conference, Saturday, June 22, 2013

Politicians have a way of talking, when they think they know more than we do about what's good for our country. They treat us like we are petulant and impulsive children and they have to be the stern parent, explaining they are doing what they are doing because they know. They get it and we don't. "When you're the parent," they seem to be saying, "you can make the rules. In the meantime, this is my house and you will do what I say." Hours after Politico published Emily Schultheis' article, about the lack of anti-Obama sentiment at Netroots Nation, the annual progressive conclave in San Jose, California, this weekend, a ruckus erupted over the NSA revelations that have been in the news lately. And the group's vehemence was aimed at the highest ranking politician to attend the conference, House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE>>>

Fiscal cliff compromise a wolf in elephant's clothing

Here we go again. The Republicans are skipping down the path toward obstructionism, aiming to get away with doing the least by convincing us it is the most they can do. It isn't. They will give it another sham title like "Tax Reform." It won't be. They're saying it will increase significant revenue by being "fair" to the middle class and the "job creators." It won't, and it isn't.

"The math tends not to work," said President Obama, at his first post-election press conference, last Wednesday. While he agreed with recent statements by Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), that "there are loopholes that can be closed, and we should look at how we can make the process of deductions, the filing process easier, simpler," the president added, "what I'm not going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need it, which would cost close to a trillion dollars."

By focusing only on closing loopholes and changing the tax code, the Republicans are actually taking aim at middle class households. The top two percent aren't the only ones who benefit from deductions.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

-PBG

The Wiretapper in the Mirror: Congress Wimps Out

In today's debate over the warrantless wiretapping bill - aka changes to FISA -Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) who spoke against passage, expressed the concerns of both sides when she called it "lipstick on a pig" .

In speaking for the bill's passage, California Republican Dan Lungren said that "it's not the Mona Lisa, but it is a pretty good paint job." More like a snow-job. The only thing that's getting painted over here is the Fourth Amendment. The fact that Congress sees capitulating to the Executive as the proper way to do the country's business flies in the face of checks and balances and doesn't serve "We the People" at all.

In contrast to Lungren's calling this "a great day," at least Speaker Pelosi had the sense to say that it was not, and yet she voted for it.

What really peeves me about this is that it is so obvious to the rest of us why the Congress' approval ratings are abysmal. They are not doing the people's business. They are doing business people. They were voted into office to make waves, and yet you could skip Dennis Kucinich across the water and still not make the White House lawn wet.

There is an outrage growing in the electorate. If Senator Obama really wants to be an agent of change, he must step up and vote against this bill when it gets to the Senate. Getting the country's business done is not an excuse for doing bad business.

Please let your senators know that they must not pass this bill.

-PBG

So Much to Talk About

Holding On to My Voice

It has been a long time since I last posted, and I have a lot on my mind. Part of the time I was sick with that flu thing that's been going around. Now, my wife has it. I used a lot of my free time to edit a tribute video for a friend's 50th birthday, and I have actually had sporadic employment.

The NY Times McCain Story
I'm going to start with a brief response to the NY Times story last week about McCain's 2000 campaign: I don't care. As far as it being fodder for the fall presidential race, it would be like the canon is firing oatmeal: it's a little sticky but easily washes off. Neither the close ties to lobbyists nor the implied ties to one lobbyist in particular matter to me. Except for the assertion that he has, in the past, had lapses of judgment, it's not news. Special Interests glom onto politicians like remoras on a shark, like hookers on conventioneers. It's the nature of the business. Besides, what's the relevance to this year's race?

I'm less interested at what someone running for president did eight years ago than I am with the unconstitutional, criminal behavior over the last eight years that the Bush administration is apparently going to get away with.

Bad Pelosi
Nothing about the present Congress disappoints me more than Nancy Pelosi's stubbornly keeping impeachment "off the table." It's like that old parlor trick. She's pulled off the tablecloth but the grounds for impeachment remain in place. I understand not wanting to create a quid pro quo impeachment scenario between the Legislative and Executive branches when they are run by opposite parties, but a violation is a violation, and perjury over infidelity is not the same thing as violations of the Constitution and our civil liberties.

Good Pelosi
On the other hand, I applaud the House for refusing to rubber stamp the domestic surveillance bill, albeit by hanging their hat on the immunity clause for the telecoms involved in warrantless wiretapping. I am sorely disappointed in the Senate for passing it, though.

How many times have the senators in the presidential race had to defend their awkward voting record? You'd think that after the Iraq War vote and the vote authorizing torture and the continued funding of the war, the majority would get tired of the backpedaling and move forward with resolve toward stopping an insane administration bent on the disintegration of the country's dignity and respect. By continually agreeing to an incompetent president's self serving requests, the Senate enables the continued degradation of America's standing in the world, even as they try to blame it all on Bush.

The B-Movie Nightmare Ticket
Speaking of senators running for president, I want to make it clear - and I hope that the majority of Democrats are with me on this - that despite Wolf Blitzer wanting to make it so, Obama and Clinton are not a "dream ticket," no matter (you should pardon the expression) who is on top. The only way that it could resemble a dream is if they were both president, that is, a hybrid - Clibama, if you will, or Obinton. That's something, though, that could only happen in a Hollywood movie, which may be why the LA debate crowd were so enthusiastic about it.

Don't Make Me Ralph
Finally, I hope I am right in believing that only a modicum of seething is appropriate over the news that Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race as a third party candidate. I trust that it is too late for even him to have an impact. As he said this morning on Meet the Press:

"If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans
this year, they ought to just wrap up,
close down, emerge in a different form."

Ya think?

-PBG

Dialog for Peace

Thank you, Nancy Pelosi, for being forward thinking and courageous in visiting Damascus.

Political solutions are not properly presented on a dingy platter of empty diplomacy, especially when a reluctant administration only presents a pissed-on tray covered with the paper doily of dogmatic idealism.

It is true the al-Assad is more bitter enemy than best friend, and not undeservingly so. His interests and ours nearly always diverge. Yet Syria must be engaged in dialog, not in spite of its roles in Lebanon and Iraq, but because of them. This is not some banana republic-like "rogue" regime. The Assads have run Syria for decades. You'd have to be smoking some pretty cosmic Lebanese hash to think they are going anywhere.

Any diplomatic engagement must be viewed as a positive step. It's "a more practical approach," Ziad Haider, a Lebanese journalist, told the New York Times. Practical, he says, because it represents change, the prospect of a US foreign policy not "based on demands and ideology."

So thank you, Ms. Pelosi. It is a shame that the 2008 presidential candidates appear to be afraid to take the stand that you have taken here. I hope that in twenty months, when - God willing - we get back in the White House, we will be presenting attractive options to all the players in this seemingly intractable region.

Those who advocate the current paradigm of the silent treatment think that other countries quake to find themselves on our shit list. It's obvious to me that this policy prolongs distrust and potentially breeds more anger and resentment toward the United States, when we should be looking for ways to mitigate their powerful hatred. But more than resentment, I think they and the rest of the world are disappointed in the misguided policies we have allowed our government to pursue in our name. I know I am.

It is time to clean the idealistic crud from the diplomatic tray. I don't know what morsels of the diplomacy we proffer to the Syrians or Iranians they will find to their liking. What I do understand is that our commitment will be much better demonstrated by offers presented respectfully, on a gleaming silver tray, than by Bush's ridiculously parental tone in threatening to use the platter as a blunt object on our enemies' backsides. That's no offer at all.

If your cause is peace, your dogma must be dialog.

-PBG

When They Stand Up, We'll Stand Up...Again!

or
Pay As You Go: Balancing the Body Count

Sometime this week, Bush will share his "New Way Forward" with us, at least, as much as he is willing to. It's already known that he will order more troops into the melee for a free and independent Iraq, part of the overall Tumult on Terror, but according to this Sunday's New York Times, US troops "will be sent only if the Iraqis also increase their own forces."

So it's time for a little Orwellian revisionism. Let's put the phrase uttered by our concussive Commander-in-chief in 2004, "When they stand up...," into the the true-memory machine. I think he said - wait, I thought it was - geez! My head is spinning...can't think...ugh...seem to remember "...we'll stand down," but OW! The pressure to conform! My brain, my memory, somehow changing...and yes! It makes so much less sense to me now! I play the tape again, and I hear it clearly through the mud: "When they stand up," so far so good, "we'll stand up...AGAIN!"

Whew! So that's what a change in course looks like to our Yaley Cheerleader-in-Chief.

Let's follow this new course across to Nancy Pelosi's House. There, in the middle of a conversation about the "pay-as-you-go" budget proposals, "The New Way Forward" flies up the steps, fills the rotunda, and blows through the caucus conference. Nancy, Steny and the rest sway slightly in their seats while the breeze of this fresh Iraq policy scatters papers about the room and lifts their hair like a gale through a palm tree.

When the wind settles, the group, dishevelled but proud, in chorus boom from the Capitol, "You got your Iraq policy in our budget policy!"

And across the Mall, a whiny twang comes screaming from the White House portico, "Don't you go gettin' your budget policy in my Iraq policy. Heh. Heh."

But behold, someone in between the two, standing atop the Washington Monument, will respond with a triumphant poke at the sky, "That's it! Pay-as-you-go! The policy for fighting the budget and fighting the war! Yes," the guy who thinks he has the pulse on policy will exclaim, "we'll balance the budget with one and balance the body count with the other! It's genius!"

And then a god - who doesn't believe in beltway compromises that sound like they make more sense than they do and accomplish less than they sound like - will send a strategic bolt of lightning and crisp the finger poking fool.

Ahhh, to dream.

But seriously, escalating the war is not the way to elevate the lives of the people whose country and citizens our soldiers have destroyed and killed. We should be escalating the pace of withdrawal and elevating the notion of responsible leadership, but you can't teach a new government something your own government doesn't understand itself. It's so hard to tell these days which government could use a "New Way Forward" more, whatever that means. I guess it's better than the "Old Way Forward". At this point, I'd just settle for either a "New Way" or any "Way Forward."

-PBG