Nancy Pelosi Must Go
An Open Letter to the DNC Chairman
With the mid-term election just around the corner one can almost hear the glee of the Democrats watching the Republicans self-destruct at a dizzying speed. It may not be limited to Democrats who feel a sense of relief to see at long last cracks in the armor of the Republican-Conservative-Rightwing-Evangelical juggernaut. But before running away in ecstasy with their unexpected, and unearned, political fortune (subject, of course, to the surprise tricks the “evil genius” Karl Rove is expected to play), the Democrats must demonstrate their clear new vision and high principles that will undo what has gone wrong during the swashbuckling Republican days. Such a demonstration is critical especially to the Independent-minded voters like me, who are expected to hold the key to this election and beyond, in order that they may not trudge to the polling booth merely to vote against the Republican Party or agonize over the familiar election-time dilemma of choosing 'the lesser of two evils'.
The wisdom of paying special attention to independent-oriented voters, regardless of their party affiliation, is obvious. Unlike party members, who are more or less indistinguishable in their outlook from sports fans, to whom winning is everything, Independents stay away from partisan obsessions and assess a candidate for the good of the entire nation. One has only to look at the Republican party members. After having seen the calamitous mess in Iraq for three and half years, most Republicans still give unwavering support to the war and their party leaders who started it. George W. Bush, the warmonger-in-chief, is America itself to the welcoming crowd chanting “USA! USA!” as he appears waving his raised right hand. Recalling a not-so-distant past, an Independent mind shudders at the thought of what America would be like with such devoted party members making up a majority of the population.
By showing a party platform that will win the hearts and minds of the Independents the Democrats can lay the foundation for their power beyond 2006. And one of the first things for the Democrats to do is to dump Nancy Pelosi as their leader. A few illustrations will suffice to show her disqualification.
Rueful leadership failure
I would imagine quite a few jaws dropped when 60 Minutes, the weekly CBS newsmagazine, depicted the scene of an election strategy session held by “buoyant” House Democrats giving Pelosi the full credit “for bringing them so close to retaking the House with her strategy of not letting one Republican attack go unanswered.”
Wow! I wondered how many staged rehearsals would have produced this showcase before it was presented to the credible, longest-running reality show on television. Before the partisan enthusiasm goes out of control, however, let's do some fact checking from the list of what has done in the Republicans, which in turn lifted the Democratic Party out of obscurity: the Iraq quagmire, Abu Ghraib, warrantless eavesdropping, Katrina, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, Foley .... I seldom cease to be amazed at the boundless malleability of the human mind but I am at a loss to figure out which of these Republican-killing events has yielded any credit, no matter how small, to the minority leader or, for that matter, her party. The only clue I can come up with to explain the conduct of these flatterers with their readiness to give credit where it is not due is to associate them with the Medieval courtesans and jesters competing for a benevolent wink from the favor-dispensing queen.
If anything, truth be told, the Democrats should share a large part of the responsibility for the calamity in Iraq -- the hottest issue in this election year. For starters, some 81 Democrats collaborated with the Republicans voting for the resolution authorizing the armed invasion of Iraq. More critically, the minority leader and her party failed in using the means within their easy grasp in order to save the country from perhaps the worst military misadventure since its Founding.
Yes, it is commendable that Pelosi was able to round up126 of her party members and join the six gutsy Republicans who broke ranks with their rubber-stamping colleagues and one Independent to vote against the resolution. But a true leader under the circumstances would not have stopped at merely pressing the nay button, which she knew well would have no practical effect on stopping Bush and his cabal from sending our young men and women to the searing desert to kill and be killed. Rather she should have led her flock for an all-out battle to stop the war of choice using all means available, including chaining themselves to the podium. There was one device that could have made a difference: filibuster, at the cost of no more than a few sleepless nights and sore throat in an ornate air-conditioned hall.
Think of the reward of stopping the mad rush to war, of undoing its consequences: all the lives perished, all the bodies maimed and minds impaired, and all the resources wasted. And who'd have the right word for the poor Iraqis who traded a brutal dictator for a veritable living hell, if there ever was one? Some of the ravages done by the Republican majority can be reversed with a Democratic majority, like the mangled habeas corpus protection that set back America to pre-Magna Carta age, but not the war in Iraq and all it has wrought. Would it have been really too much for their constituents to expect their Representatives to stand up for the Republic at a crossroad? And the sacrifice required of them would have made no dent on their elevated social status conferred by their constituents, their seven-figure salary, ample perks and generous healthcare benefits for their family.
The least the Democrats should do at this point in time is to show their humility of recognizing that their new political windfall, if it comes, owes in its entirety to the mistakes of the Republicans and their power corrupting abysmally.
To impeach or not to impeach
Ms. Pelosi recently created a stir with her unflinching intention to sweep the subject of impeaching George W. Bush “off the table” if the Democrats gained a majority in the House. Her spokesman amplified the theme by clarifying that the subject matter had “never” been his boss' interest. One is struck first by an absence of any indication that she had given due consideration, before publicizing her preemptive unilateral move, to the dissenting opinions of her peers representing 434 other Congressional districts as important as hers. The intensity of her opposition to impeachment has taken to the level of personal revulsion. What has led her to this position?
It is obvious that her attitude on this subject does not originate from public opinion. A majority of Americans has repeatedly come down solidly in favor of impeachment if Bush lied into the war on Saddam. Resolutions urging the Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings have been passed by state legislatures (including Pelosi's home state of California), city councils, and grassroots civic organizations. A broad spectrum of scholars and legal experts have catalogued far more serious "high crimes and misdemeanors" against Bush junior (war by deception, warrantless surveillance, prisoner torture) than against Richard Nixon (“third-rate burglary”) or Bill Clinton (lying about personal sexual peccadillos).
One apparent reason why Ms. Pelosi is so strongly turned against impeachment may lie in her fear of criticism from the right. Indeed her distaste for impeachment began to crystallize on the heels of sharp swipes from Republican hacks that a Democratic majority would be used to pursue her “liberal” agenda and impeach their president, sounding as if a regicide was in the offing. As a reward for her goodwill gesture forswearing impeachment, conservative watchdogs gave Pelosi a nice pat on the back, complimenting her distinct flare and calling her “a chocoholic with a great giggle”.
Considering the gravity and magnitude of the dire aftermath caused by rash Bush administration policies, it should be mandatory to conduct, at the minimum, a fitting investigation. Pelosi should know all the critical questions of national security and well-being related to the events leading to 9-11 and to the hasty invasion into Iraq plunging America into humanitarian, moral and financial morass unseen in its history. Isn't it proper , Madam Minority Leader, to wait for the result of the investigation before determining whether an impeachment should be on or off the table?
In the same 60 Minutes segment, telecast on October 22, 2006, the CBS reporter, Lesley Stahl, worried that Pelosi “may have trouble reining in the Democrats’ appetite for revenge.”
"No,” Pelosi assured her without missing a beat, “impeachment is off the table."
"And that's a pledge?" Stahl wanted to nail down her quarry.
"Well, it's a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it's a pledge,” Pelosi was tentative for a moment before firming up. “Of course it is. It is a waste of time."
Let's look at some of the memorable key words in this dialog: rein in, appetite for revenge, waste of time. First off, Ms. Pelosi need not overly worry about wasting time. The Democrats as majority will be accomplishing more than they thought possible simply by blocking the Republicans from further messing up things -- not only the war on terror but just about everything they touch (opposite of King Midas): FEMA, Social Security, drug prescription plan, environment, minimal government (small enough to drown it in the bathtub), conservative spending .... Anyone who is not entirely persuaded may imagine how much better off this country would be today if there had been no Republican-run Federal government in the last six years! The waste from the war on Saddam alone may pay for the do-nothing Congress for a long, long time (I confide I haven't done the math here). Could Ronald Reagan, the perennial darling and yardstick of American Conservatism, have foreseen this far down the road when he upheld Government not as the solution but as the problem?
Here between the two interlocutors the question of impeachment was tossed around as something negative, bad or contemptible, if not condemnable, for any decent person to engage in. Remarkably, the reporter showed no inclination to follow the well trodden 60 Minute way of challenging its quarry; she instead expended her zeal to reinforce Pelosi's desire. The CBS correspondent, too, deserves a pat on the back from the rightwing media monitors for leading her query in as good a direction as any card-carrying conservative could. It may have seemed out place for the reporter to ask Pelosi what was wrong if she were to 'let loose' those concerned Congressional members who want to probe all the soul-searching questions related to the Bush White House wherever the truth might lead.
Or, looking from another perspective, it might illustrate how thorough a job the Conservatives have done to drumbeat the word “liberal” into a taboo label with the power to leave an indelible mark of extreme shame and lasting psychic damage on its target as if stricken with a disabling phobia.
Whoever might have said that Truth is in the eyes of the beholder, let's try to cheer up with a fantasy dialog that could have been in the 60 Minutes rendition:
Stahl: I've been hearing you are dead-set against impeachment, saying the subject is quote off the table unquote.
Pelosi: That's correct. To leave no doubt I can swear on that. I mean, it's a pledge, 'cause it is a waste of time.”
Stahl (rolling her eyes in disbelief): All right, look what you are up against (she begins to list all surging voices for impeachment ). The Democratic Judiciary Committee has already held a hearing on this. A former U.S. attorney general has a Web site laying down the whole works of high crimes and misdemeanors against Bush.
Pelosi: I know it. Look how far they've run with their pet project.
Stahl: That's not all. The Center for Constitutional Rights has put out a 140-page pamphlet with “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush” ready to do.
Even a former Republican presidential counsel in the Nixon White House called the case against Bush “Worse Than Watergate”.
Pelosi: That's their opinion. I mean ...
Stahl: Some people suspect you are suffering from L-A-S, the Liberal Aversion Syndrome, which makes you scared to death of being called by that label, 'Liberal'.
Pelosi: What about you, Les? I thought you're one of 'em. I mean a liberal.
(Gaffaw and giggle, respectively.)
One more question that was passed over was whether Pelosi had been pledging away something beyond her authority.
The devil and a thug at the United Nations
Pelosi raised an eyebrow or two not so much because of her passionate defense of George W. Bush against the Venezuelan president, who called Bush the Devil at the UN, as because of her choice of words. "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar,” the Democratic House minority leader burst out at a special news conference, “but all he is an everyday thug."
A grammatical slip aside (where's Bill Safire?), the Pelosian statement or, more aptly outburst, raises a number of questions about its author. What had Chavez done for Ms. Pelosi to let out such an emotional charge as to label him a thug, a word defined as a ruthless ruffian, before any high Republican political figure had had time to gather thoughts for proper response? Some critics saw the Polosi's conduct so demeaning as to dub it “Republican boot-licking” on her part. As a short-hand answer, here again, Pelosi might have been sending a subtle signal to her partisan critics to show off that she, too, was just as loyal and deferential to their, and her, president as any Conservative counterpart.
To answer the question more substantively, let's look at some facts about the two characters in this episode, Chavez and Bush. Yes, Chavez has been doing some strange things we are not used to, like spending billions of dollars in his country's oil money to alleviate poverty and give housing to slum dwellers -- the first of its kind in intent perhaps since the micro-credit initiative in Bangladesh. His beneficence perked out to the poor beyond the Venezuelan border, as far as the Bronx, New York and across the the United States to help out the poor with discounted oil for the winter. This deed is in good contrast to that of Bush, who has already marked a legacy of his presidency by fathering the largest number of billionaires, thanks to his ever persistent push for tax bonanza for the rich. And as far as we know, Chavez has no record of invading another country using faked intelligence and forged documents at the cost of so many human lives and moral degradation. Based on these facts, one wonders, what kind of fair and balanced name would Ms. Pelosi bestow on Bush if she thinks Chavez deserves the title thug?
No less important, Ms. Pelosi should be faulted for not spending a moment in the employment of that wonderful human quality called empathy to wonder what could have made a head of state put on such a visceral monologue on the international stage for all the world to watched in rapt attention. The first thing Pelosi would have found is the fact that having been a sore thumb to Bush, the Venezuelan president had his personal safety on his mind at all hours. Chavez escaped the first palace coup, thanks to a breath-stopping maneuver of pluck and wit and, above all, with an abundance of luck, all of which would make a Hollywood version look too real. All indications are, however, that Bush's “if you are not with us” doctrine is continually in operation unabated against him at the cost of many millions of dollars in American taxpayers' money. The plot to get rid of Chavez has since taken on an aura of divine mission, sanctioned by the highest priest of the fundamental American Christian evangelism, Pat Robertson.
Perhaps Pelosi, if incapable of grasping what it means to be in the cross hairs of CIA covert operatives, should read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man written not by an anti-American leftist ideologue but by a pedigreed patriotic rogue-turned whistle-blower. (I only wish I were given the UN podium to hawk this book of revelations to those fervent flag-wavers in our midst to sidestep another preemptive war on the rest of the Axis of Evil.) With a new insight from this book, Ms. Pelosi could fathom the extent of the logistical nightmare and psychological burden the Venezuelan head of state has to bear everyday of having to take precaution in order to evade the kind of fate the CIA “jackals” have meted out to other leaders who defied Washington -- like ending up in a mid-air fireball. I am certain that a chill would go down the spine of the minority leader before revising her name calling.
In summary
All things considered, Nancy Pelosi is unfit for the job she is aspiring for. She is incapable of following the public opinion of the day, much less leading it. Democrats need a leader who is free from the kind of psychic damage sustained by the incessant howlings of Swift-Boaters and other rightwing attack dogs. She behaves like a bullying victim timorously pussy-footing around, ever wary of being hit with another “liberal” this or “liberal” that. With this political leader, fear trumps principle.
What is worse, she is the epitome of what Frank Rich of the New York Times calls “the party of terminal timidity and equivocation” -- a political entity which has excelled in nothing much else but ducking grave issues and cowering in fear of being put down as unpatriotic or weak in terrorism. The fear level has grown to be pathological, long after some two-thirds of Americans have condemned Bush through opinion polls as deceitful, untrustworthy and incompetent in matters of supreme import from the war in Iraq to Hurricane Katrina.
Speakership battle plan 101
But, but, the question is how can a true leader emerge in an institution called the Congress where a leadership change is decidedly more difficult than unseating the potentate in a third-world dictatorship? By all measures, the U.S. Congress is the most anti-democratic island in the vast sea of democracy, operating under a senile seniority-based pecking order redolent of the feudal age. There are seemingly insurmountable obstacles on the way even for anyone who has set aside personal comfort of status quo and resolved to rise up for the Republic in crisis. Just as in a third-world setting, the minority leader has dug in her heels with a fortress of yes-men palace guard around her. But that's no cause for despair. Even a real leader of the majority party can be eased out. Remember Tom DeLay?
Some potential challengers may think the door has already been sealed with the publication of a crowning panegyric in the most influential paper in town, the Washington Post, extolling Pelosi's mastery of the 'tricks of the trade' to promote herself to be an effective majority leader, taking kowtowers under her wing and cutting out the nay-sayers. But then the certified “liberal” newspaper could be just as widely off the mark as when it tooted the horn for the march on Baghdad through dozens of editorials and articles, touting the preemptive war as “an operation essential to American security” even before Colin Powell's infamous rendition at the UN with disimformation. Even the fawning CBS news magazine, cited above, rated the chance of Pelosi becoming the next speaker as “almost” certain, but not quite. So there's no cause for anyone's heart to sink, to balk at a bid to challenge Pelosi. If in a real tight spot, give a call to Hugo Chavez for moxie and wisdom from his harrowing first rendezvous with Fate.
In conclusion
For these and other reasons, the Democrats must front a new leader. Yes, people can learn and change to grasp the seminal importance of impeachment. But how can any decent human being, let alone a majority leader of the Congress, break a doubly confirmed pledge consummated before the all-credible 60 Minutes camera? At best it would be very awkward to face the correspondent in a follow-up confrontation, “Yes, Leslie, I gave my iron-clad word, but that was then, I mean....“
The most basic qualification for the candidate should be to possess an even temperament and emotional balance with a minimum or restrained giggle. It would also be advisable for those who joined the war party to recuse themselves from the candidacy in repentance over the calamitous consequences of their poor judgment on that fateful day in October, 2002, endorsing the war in Iraq.
It is a golden moment for Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to show that he has not settled in the kind of career politicianship he excoriated when he leapt onto the national political stage with a solemn pledge to “take back the country” from the seedy Beltway establishment. If there is anyone that can, it is the energetic chairman who can nudge the disoriented Democratic Party out of the wilderness into a new direction.
Nancy Pelosi must step aside for the good of her party and the welfare of her country at a critical juncture.
(Note: For an abbreviated version published in Daily Kos, click here.)
An Open Letter to the DNC Chairman
With the mid-term election just around the corner one can almost hear the glee of the Democrats watching the Republicans self-destruct at a dizzying speed. It may not be limited to Democrats who feel a sense of relief to see at long last cracks in the armor of the Republican-Conservative-Rightwing-Evangelical juggernaut. But before running away in ecstasy with their unexpected, and unearned, political fortune (subject, of course, to the surprise tricks the “evil genius” Karl Rove is expected to play), the Democrats must demonstrate their clear new vision and high principles that will undo what has gone wrong during the swashbuckling Republican days. Such a demonstration is critical especially to the Independent-minded voters like me, who are expected to hold the key to this election and beyond, in order that they may not trudge to the polling booth merely to vote against the Republican Party or agonize over the familiar election-time dilemma of choosing 'the lesser of two evils'.
The wisdom of paying special attention to independent-oriented voters, regardless of their party affiliation, is obvious. Unlike party members, who are more or less indistinguishable in their outlook from sports fans, to whom winning is everything, Independents stay away from partisan obsessions and assess a candidate for the good of the entire nation. One has only to look at the Republican party members. After having seen the calamitous mess in Iraq for three and half years, most Republicans still give unwavering support to the war and their party leaders who started it. George W. Bush, the warmonger-in-chief, is America itself to the welcoming crowd chanting “USA! USA!” as he appears waving his raised right hand. Recalling a not-so-distant past, an Independent mind shudders at the thought of what America would be like with such devoted party members making up a majority of the population.
By showing a party platform that will win the hearts and minds of the Independents the Democrats can lay the foundation for their power beyond 2006. And one of the first things for the Democrats to do is to dump Nancy Pelosi as their leader. A few illustrations will suffice to show her disqualification.
Rueful leadership failure
I would imagine quite a few jaws dropped when 60 Minutes, the weekly CBS newsmagazine, depicted the scene of an election strategy session held by “buoyant” House Democrats giving Pelosi the full credit “for bringing them so close to retaking the House with her strategy of not letting one Republican attack go unanswered.”
Wow! I wondered how many staged rehearsals would have produced this showcase before it was presented to the credible, longest-running reality show on television. Before the partisan enthusiasm goes out of control, however, let's do some fact checking from the list of what has done in the Republicans, which in turn lifted the Democratic Party out of obscurity: the Iraq quagmire, Abu Ghraib, warrantless eavesdropping, Katrina, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, Foley .... I seldom cease to be amazed at the boundless malleability of the human mind but I am at a loss to figure out which of these Republican-killing events has yielded any credit, no matter how small, to the minority leader or, for that matter, her party. The only clue I can come up with to explain the conduct of these flatterers with their readiness to give credit where it is not due is to associate them with the Medieval courtesans and jesters competing for a benevolent wink from the favor-dispensing queen.
If anything, truth be told, the Democrats should share a large part of the responsibility for the calamity in Iraq -- the hottest issue in this election year. For starters, some 81 Democrats collaborated with the Republicans voting for the resolution authorizing the armed invasion of Iraq. More critically, the minority leader and her party failed in using the means within their easy grasp in order to save the country from perhaps the worst military misadventure since its Founding.
Yes, it is commendable that Pelosi was able to round up126 of her party members and join the six gutsy Republicans who broke ranks with their rubber-stamping colleagues and one Independent to vote against the resolution. But a true leader under the circumstances would not have stopped at merely pressing the nay button, which she knew well would have no practical effect on stopping Bush and his cabal from sending our young men and women to the searing desert to kill and be killed. Rather she should have led her flock for an all-out battle to stop the war of choice using all means available, including chaining themselves to the podium. There was one device that could have made a difference: filibuster, at the cost of no more than a few sleepless nights and sore throat in an ornate air-conditioned hall.
Think of the reward of stopping the mad rush to war, of undoing its consequences: all the lives perished, all the bodies maimed and minds impaired, and all the resources wasted. And who'd have the right word for the poor Iraqis who traded a brutal dictator for a veritable living hell, if there ever was one? Some of the ravages done by the Republican majority can be reversed with a Democratic majority, like the mangled habeas corpus protection that set back America to pre-Magna Carta age, but not the war in Iraq and all it has wrought. Would it have been really too much for their constituents to expect their Representatives to stand up for the Republic at a crossroad? And the sacrifice required of them would have made no dent on their elevated social status conferred by their constituents, their seven-figure salary, ample perks and generous healthcare benefits for their family.
The least the Democrats should do at this point in time is to show their humility of recognizing that their new political windfall, if it comes, owes in its entirety to the mistakes of the Republicans and their power corrupting abysmally.
To impeach or not to impeach
Ms. Pelosi recently created a stir with her unflinching intention to sweep the subject of impeaching George W. Bush “off the table” if the Democrats gained a majority in the House. Her spokesman amplified the theme by clarifying that the subject matter had “never” been his boss' interest. One is struck first by an absence of any indication that she had given due consideration, before publicizing her preemptive unilateral move, to the dissenting opinions of her peers representing 434 other Congressional districts as important as hers. The intensity of her opposition to impeachment has taken to the level of personal revulsion. What has led her to this position?
It is obvious that her attitude on this subject does not originate from public opinion. A majority of Americans has repeatedly come down solidly in favor of impeachment if Bush lied into the war on Saddam. Resolutions urging the Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings have been passed by state legislatures (including Pelosi's home state of California), city councils, and grassroots civic organizations. A broad spectrum of scholars and legal experts have catalogued far more serious "high crimes and misdemeanors" against Bush junior (war by deception, warrantless surveillance, prisoner torture) than against Richard Nixon (“third-rate burglary”) or Bill Clinton (lying about personal sexual peccadillos).
One apparent reason why Ms. Pelosi is so strongly turned against impeachment may lie in her fear of criticism from the right. Indeed her distaste for impeachment began to crystallize on the heels of sharp swipes from Republican hacks that a Democratic majority would be used to pursue her “liberal” agenda and impeach their president, sounding as if a regicide was in the offing. As a reward for her goodwill gesture forswearing impeachment, conservative watchdogs gave Pelosi a nice pat on the back, complimenting her distinct flare and calling her “a chocoholic with a great giggle”.
Considering the gravity and magnitude of the dire aftermath caused by rash Bush administration policies, it should be mandatory to conduct, at the minimum, a fitting investigation. Pelosi should know all the critical questions of national security and well-being related to the events leading to 9-11 and to the hasty invasion into Iraq plunging America into humanitarian, moral and financial morass unseen in its history. Isn't it proper , Madam Minority Leader, to wait for the result of the investigation before determining whether an impeachment should be on or off the table?
In the same 60 Minutes segment, telecast on October 22, 2006, the CBS reporter, Lesley Stahl, worried that Pelosi “may have trouble reining in the Democrats’ appetite for revenge.”
"No,” Pelosi assured her without missing a beat, “impeachment is off the table."
"And that's a pledge?" Stahl wanted to nail down her quarry.
"Well, it's a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it's a pledge,” Pelosi was tentative for a moment before firming up. “Of course it is. It is a waste of time."
Let's look at some of the memorable key words in this dialog: rein in, appetite for revenge, waste of time. First off, Ms. Pelosi need not overly worry about wasting time. The Democrats as majority will be accomplishing more than they thought possible simply by blocking the Republicans from further messing up things -- not only the war on terror but just about everything they touch (opposite of King Midas): FEMA, Social Security, drug prescription plan, environment, minimal government (small enough to drown it in the bathtub), conservative spending .... Anyone who is not entirely persuaded may imagine how much better off this country would be today if there had been no Republican-run Federal government in the last six years! The waste from the war on Saddam alone may pay for the do-nothing Congress for a long, long time (I confide I haven't done the math here). Could Ronald Reagan, the perennial darling and yardstick of American Conservatism, have foreseen this far down the road when he upheld Government not as the solution but as the problem?
Here between the two interlocutors the question of impeachment was tossed around as something negative, bad or contemptible, if not condemnable, for any decent person to engage in. Remarkably, the reporter showed no inclination to follow the well trodden 60 Minute way of challenging its quarry; she instead expended her zeal to reinforce Pelosi's desire. The CBS correspondent, too, deserves a pat on the back from the rightwing media monitors for leading her query in as good a direction as any card-carrying conservative could. It may have seemed out place for the reporter to ask Pelosi what was wrong if she were to 'let loose' those concerned Congressional members who want to probe all the soul-searching questions related to the Bush White House wherever the truth might lead.
Or, looking from another perspective, it might illustrate how thorough a job the Conservatives have done to drumbeat the word “liberal” into a taboo label with the power to leave an indelible mark of extreme shame and lasting psychic damage on its target as if stricken with a disabling phobia.
Whoever might have said that Truth is in the eyes of the beholder, let's try to cheer up with a fantasy dialog that could have been in the 60 Minutes rendition:
Stahl: I've been hearing you are dead-set against impeachment, saying the subject is quote off the table unquote.
Pelosi: That's correct. To leave no doubt I can swear on that. I mean, it's a pledge, 'cause it is a waste of time.”
Stahl (rolling her eyes in disbelief): All right, look what you are up against (she begins to list all surging voices for impeachment ). The Democratic Judiciary Committee has already held a hearing on this. A former U.S. attorney general has a Web site laying down the whole works of high crimes and misdemeanors against Bush.
Pelosi: I know it. Look how far they've run with their pet project.
Stahl: That's not all. The Center for Constitutional Rights has put out a 140-page pamphlet with “Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush” ready to do.
Even a former Republican presidential counsel in the Nixon White House called the case against Bush “Worse Than Watergate”.
Pelosi: That's their opinion. I mean ...
Stahl: Some people suspect you are suffering from L-A-S, the Liberal Aversion Syndrome, which makes you scared to death of being called by that label, 'Liberal'.
Pelosi: What about you, Les? I thought you're one of 'em. I mean a liberal.
(Gaffaw and giggle, respectively.)
One more question that was passed over was whether Pelosi had been pledging away something beyond her authority.
The devil and a thug at the United Nations
Pelosi raised an eyebrow or two not so much because of her passionate defense of George W. Bush against the Venezuelan president, who called Bush the Devil at the UN, as because of her choice of words. "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar,” the Democratic House minority leader burst out at a special news conference, “but all he is an everyday thug."
A grammatical slip aside (where's Bill Safire?), the Pelosian statement or, more aptly outburst, raises a number of questions about its author. What had Chavez done for Ms. Pelosi to let out such an emotional charge as to label him a thug, a word defined as a ruthless ruffian, before any high Republican political figure had had time to gather thoughts for proper response? Some critics saw the Polosi's conduct so demeaning as to dub it “Republican boot-licking” on her part. As a short-hand answer, here again, Pelosi might have been sending a subtle signal to her partisan critics to show off that she, too, was just as loyal and deferential to their, and her, president as any Conservative counterpart.
To answer the question more substantively, let's look at some facts about the two characters in this episode, Chavez and Bush. Yes, Chavez has been doing some strange things we are not used to, like spending billions of dollars in his country's oil money to alleviate poverty and give housing to slum dwellers -- the first of its kind in intent perhaps since the micro-credit initiative in Bangladesh. His beneficence perked out to the poor beyond the Venezuelan border, as far as the Bronx, New York and across the the United States to help out the poor with discounted oil for the winter. This deed is in good contrast to that of Bush, who has already marked a legacy of his presidency by fathering the largest number of billionaires, thanks to his ever persistent push for tax bonanza for the rich. And as far as we know, Chavez has no record of invading another country using faked intelligence and forged documents at the cost of so many human lives and moral degradation. Based on these facts, one wonders, what kind of fair and balanced name would Ms. Pelosi bestow on Bush if she thinks Chavez deserves the title thug?
No less important, Ms. Pelosi should be faulted for not spending a moment in the employment of that wonderful human quality called empathy to wonder what could have made a head of state put on such a visceral monologue on the international stage for all the world to watched in rapt attention. The first thing Pelosi would have found is the fact that having been a sore thumb to Bush, the Venezuelan president had his personal safety on his mind at all hours. Chavez escaped the first palace coup, thanks to a breath-stopping maneuver of pluck and wit and, above all, with an abundance of luck, all of which would make a Hollywood version look too real. All indications are, however, that Bush's “if you are not with us” doctrine is continually in operation unabated against him at the cost of many millions of dollars in American taxpayers' money. The plot to get rid of Chavez has since taken on an aura of divine mission, sanctioned by the highest priest of the fundamental American Christian evangelism, Pat Robertson.
Perhaps Pelosi, if incapable of grasping what it means to be in the cross hairs of CIA covert operatives, should read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man written not by an anti-American leftist ideologue but by a pedigreed patriotic rogue-turned whistle-blower. (I only wish I were given the UN podium to hawk this book of revelations to those fervent flag-wavers in our midst to sidestep another preemptive war on the rest of the Axis of Evil.) With a new insight from this book, Ms. Pelosi could fathom the extent of the logistical nightmare and psychological burden the Venezuelan head of state has to bear everyday of having to take precaution in order to evade the kind of fate the CIA “jackals” have meted out to other leaders who defied Washington -- like ending up in a mid-air fireball. I am certain that a chill would go down the spine of the minority leader before revising her name calling.
In summary
All things considered, Nancy Pelosi is unfit for the job she is aspiring for. She is incapable of following the public opinion of the day, much less leading it. Democrats need a leader who is free from the kind of psychic damage sustained by the incessant howlings of Swift-Boaters and other rightwing attack dogs. She behaves like a bullying victim timorously pussy-footing around, ever wary of being hit with another “liberal” this or “liberal” that. With this political leader, fear trumps principle.
What is worse, she is the epitome of what Frank Rich of the New York Times calls “the party of terminal timidity and equivocation” -- a political entity which has excelled in nothing much else but ducking grave issues and cowering in fear of being put down as unpatriotic or weak in terrorism. The fear level has grown to be pathological, long after some two-thirds of Americans have condemned Bush through opinion polls as deceitful, untrustworthy and incompetent in matters of supreme import from the war in Iraq to Hurricane Katrina.
Speakership battle plan 101
But, but, the question is how can a true leader emerge in an institution called the Congress where a leadership change is decidedly more difficult than unseating the potentate in a third-world dictatorship? By all measures, the U.S. Congress is the most anti-democratic island in the vast sea of democracy, operating under a senile seniority-based pecking order redolent of the feudal age. There are seemingly insurmountable obstacles on the way even for anyone who has set aside personal comfort of status quo and resolved to rise up for the Republic in crisis. Just as in a third-world setting, the minority leader has dug in her heels with a fortress of yes-men palace guard around her. But that's no cause for despair. Even a real leader of the majority party can be eased out. Remember Tom DeLay?
Some potential challengers may think the door has already been sealed with the publication of a crowning panegyric in the most influential paper in town, the Washington Post, extolling Pelosi's mastery of the 'tricks of the trade' to promote herself to be an effective majority leader, taking kowtowers under her wing and cutting out the nay-sayers. But then the certified “liberal” newspaper could be just as widely off the mark as when it tooted the horn for the march on Baghdad through dozens of editorials and articles, touting the preemptive war as “an operation essential to American security” even before Colin Powell's infamous rendition at the UN with disimformation. Even the fawning CBS news magazine, cited above, rated the chance of Pelosi becoming the next speaker as “almost” certain, but not quite. So there's no cause for anyone's heart to sink, to balk at a bid to challenge Pelosi. If in a real tight spot, give a call to Hugo Chavez for moxie and wisdom from his harrowing first rendezvous with Fate.
In conclusion
For these and other reasons, the Democrats must front a new leader. Yes, people can learn and change to grasp the seminal importance of impeachment. But how can any decent human being, let alone a majority leader of the Congress, break a doubly confirmed pledge consummated before the all-credible 60 Minutes camera? At best it would be very awkward to face the correspondent in a follow-up confrontation, “Yes, Leslie, I gave my iron-clad word, but that was then, I mean....“
The most basic qualification for the candidate should be to possess an even temperament and emotional balance with a minimum or restrained giggle. It would also be advisable for those who joined the war party to recuse themselves from the candidacy in repentance over the calamitous consequences of their poor judgment on that fateful day in October, 2002, endorsing the war in Iraq.
It is a golden moment for Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to show that he has not settled in the kind of career politicianship he excoriated when he leapt onto the national political stage with a solemn pledge to “take back the country” from the seedy Beltway establishment. If there is anyone that can, it is the energetic chairman who can nudge the disoriented Democratic Party out of the wilderness into a new direction.
Nancy Pelosi must step aside for the good of her party and the welfare of her country at a critical juncture.
(Note: For an abbreviated version published in Daily Kos, click here.)
posted by sagacityX at 2:21 PM
1 comments
