Tag Archives: Al Wynn

Pelosi Prefers Congress the Way It Is

(To be fair, I think we should point out that we still need those 15 Rep. votes, even if we get the 8 Dem votes. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

About an hour ago, my inbox was graced by an email from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, subject line “Heartless.” Inside, she took President Bush to task over SCHIP and his abandonment of the “compassionate” part of conservatism.  It used dramatic language like “forbid” and “cruel veto pen” while suggesting:

This was perhaps George Bush’s most heartless act ever — knowing that he could help deliver health care to millions of American children — then, wiping out that hope with a stroke of his veto pen.

We may not be able to change the President’s mind. But, if we work together — make it our mission between now and October 18th — we can find the 15 Republican votes we need to make the President’s cold-hearted veto pen powerless.

That’s right.  With my help and yours, maybe Congress can find its way out from under President Bush’s thumb.  All we need to do is convince Republicans.  And yet, there are eight Democrats who voted against SCHIP.  Should we not also be trying to convince them?  Change their minds?  The Speaker doesn’t seem to think so.(flip)

On the front page of DailyKos right now is a bit about Nancy Pelosi’s plans to fundraise and campaign for Al Wynn in his primary against Donna Edwards.  It juxtaposes this with her comments from yesterday saying that wanting to end the war immediately is irresponsible and that it is “‘a waste of time’ for them to target Democrats.”

But the two together and you get a rather strange assessment of Congress.  She doesn’t think that constituents should make their views known on major issues facing the country.  She also doesn’t think, apparently, that voters in MD-04 should replace Al Wynn, regardless of whether he actually represents their interests well.  It’s a depressing and hollow attempt to deny the responsibility of Democrats in failing to make any demonstrable progress towards ending the Iraq catastrophe.  On the one hand, she has to cover herself because any failures of the Democratic caucus ultimately will come back to her.

But she’s said that members of Congress will not listen to the voters. Period. It’s a waste of time. And trying to replace members of Congress who haven’t performed as well as their constituents demand, then constituents should lower their expectations.  And that’s what it all comes around to- a sentiment we’re all familiar with here.  Apparently it isn’t that Democrats aren’t accomplishing enough, it’s that we aren’t selling them short enough.  If people would just stop expecting anything from their government, everyone would be much happier.

Well I say nuts to that.  She declared Democrats in Congress to be leaders…except nobody’s going anywhere.  She declared that the “common folk” are irresponsible and shouldn’t be listened to.  She’s signed onto the inviolable sanctity of incumbency, but also declared that the best representation ignores the will and desires of the people.  And most of all, she’s declared that her caucus is exactly how she wants it.  Given what she’s done with it thusfar, I wonder whether it much matters how she wants it.  It’s time to start getting over the notion that “not worse” isn’t the same as “better.”