Harry Reid

This blog has essentially been dormant since the last round of FISA. Speaking only for myself, what went down in February was one of the most demoralizing moments in my political life. I've been out of the picture in large part because the complete and total abdication of leadership by the Democratic Senate caucus, with rare exceptions, left me feeling that the party simply was incapable of functioning at all in line with the interests of the base or even the country. If they were not there for me, if they would not listen to the concerns of tens of thousands of patriotic Americans, if that willful ignorance of what the public was asking of them was to continue to manifest itself in vote after shameful vote, what use would there be in me spending my time and energies trying to make them behave like the leaders that their PACs and fundraising emails make them out to be?

Mssrs. Young and Paine continued to post during the House FISA fight in March, but I can only imagine that they have shared the same feelings of alienation as I.

Proving that it is truly a herpes upon the 110th Congress, FISA is back. Again. With more puss-filled cowardice and contagious fear than ever before.

And again FISA reveals the dank seams of the Democratic Party. The outrages are too many to tally, but I feel I must start at the top -- our party's new leadership: Barack Obama. Earlier this week we learned that Mr. Obama, who had previously pledged to support a filibuster of legislation with retroactive immunity, now thought national security was the unquestionable trump card over the rule of law.

"The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."

It doesn't surprise me that Obama is putting politics ahead of his word. Clearly he is marching in the footsteps of every other Democratic presidential nominee in modern memory when it comes to general election policies. Democrats, you see, can only win by convincing Republican base voters to vote for them. Hence, Obama must now act like a centrist, or, better yet, a Republican. And what do Republicans do? Fuck the Constitution to scare people into voting for them. Naturally that's what Obama does (can you smell the change being disbelieved by OFBs nationwide?).

But the Bob Shrum-style assfucking of the base wouldn't be complete without the left edge being covered. Stepping bravely into the breach on behalf of Mr. Obama are Party Elders Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, who both proclaimed their newly discovered, patchouli-doused, Dirty Fucking Hippie credentials by both rushing to oppose the FISA legislation in full, a position neither man had taken in any previous legislative fights. The result? Obama now has the Democratic "leadership" firmly on his left-flank.

And Lo! He is now a centrist! Let he bathe in the glory that Rush Limbaugh's radio audience shall bestow upon him as he is seen as the third coming of Ronald "I Just Made Russia Illegal, Bitches" Reagan.

Or not. Because that won't happen and only ends up pleasing world-renowned throb wankers like Dan Gerstein. In fairness to Mr. Gerstein, though, everything I have ever learned about politics in America tells me that he is a far more important person to please than the Democratic base as far as the Democratic Party elites are concerned. It's not Gerstein's fault that some Important people are politically clueless enough to think that he's right when he opens his mouth.

Moving on...

It's just been announced that FISA will wait until July 8th, after a pleasant vacation cools tempers and gives our Senators more time to not read the critically important legislation in front of them. What should we expect when the fight resumes next month? More losses. Brutal, craven, embarrassing, disheartening losses. Out of 100 voices in the Senate, there are but two real bright spots: Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold.

This week Dodd delivered what I think easily ranks as one of, if not the, most eloquent and important speeches of the Bush era. There are few things that were left unsaid when it came to assessing how evil and unAmerican the pending FISA legislation is. There were even fewer things left unsaid by Dodd, speaking for over two hours late in the night from the Senate floor, about the abuses perpetrated by this administration, approved explicitly or tacitly by this Congress. Dodd was the voice calling out with utter clarity, "Do not go that way, for I can still see and you are blind." Sadly, his colleagues do not have the most basic survival instincts that would impel them to heed Dodd's words. And so they continue to walk towards the cliff that represents the end of America and the start of a horrible tyranny only previously envisioned in the dark thoughts of McCarthy, Nixon, and Kit Bond.

Standing by Dodd's side, again, is Russ Feingold (a man who if there was any justice in politics would be on his way to accepting the Democratic nomination for presidency in Denver this August). While Dodd's words have focused on right and wrong, legislation and Constitution, Feingold has been the whip on his colleagues. He has offered unflinching criticism of those Democrats who cower in the face of Rovian attack ads. And he has voiced his complete and utter disdain for them, in terms that I cannot recall any other Democratic senator ever using. In a radio appearance on The Young Turks Feingold said:

...Ben Mankiewicz: Alright, well, Senator Feingold, without naming names, and I understand you don't want to single out any of your colleagues, what is the overall reasoning, do you think, what is going on with some of these Democrats who might surprise us? I mean, they're not stupid. Well...not all of them anyway. Why are they buying into a notion of a compromise when there really is no giving on the other side?

Senator Russ Feingold: It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible.

Cenk Uygur: It is incredible. So, I mean, it leads to the question that everybody's been asking. You know, whether it's our viewers, the readers of the blogs, etc. the actual bloggers, everybody that's paying attention is asking: Why are the Democrats doing it? You know, I got three possibilities. One is caving. They think, "Hey if we give into Bush, we're going to win more elections, and we don't really care about the policy, and the fourth amendment in the constitution are an interesting side note, but I want to win more elections." Number two is, they're scared of their own shadow and they didn't get the memo that the Republicans are grossly unpopular throughout the country, and that President Bush is the most unpopular President in the history of the United States. But if they didn't get that memo, you got to question a couple of different things about their judgment. The third theory out there is that they're complacent that people like Rockefeller signed off on some of these abuses and they get money from the lobbyists. So they don't really want to rock the boat.

Senator Russ Feingold: Well my honest belief is that it's the first two. I don't really see it as having to do with political contributions. I don't see it that they really want to cooperate with this stuff. I see it more as the first two things you said. Having to do with political fear, and, you know, calculations about elections to be honest with you. There are many areas that I think are grossly effected by money. I think it is less true of this, and it has more to do with political fear.

In other words, Lead or Get Out Of the Way says Senator Feingold.

We'll see what the butcher's bill looks like next month after the Senate Democratic caucus gives George W. Bush and Dick Cheney everything they wanted and more. My guess is that no matter what Americans do between now and July 8th, the fix is in. Donate to anyone other than Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold at your own peril. Better yet, give to Accountability Now and try to get better people in office who will lead alongside Dodd and Feingold.

Which party wears red?



I worked for a populist Senator who shied from using the word "fight."

I thought that was a stupid choice. That man is no longer a Senator.

Democrats need to brand themselves as the party that fights the robber barons.

Then, more importantly, Democrats need to FIGHT the robber barons.

Americans are a gloriously violent people. We respect fighters. Afterall, we introduced ourselves to the world by going guerrilla on The British Empire. We were only six years old when Jefferson sicced the marines on Tripoli. Hell, we committed genocide. (Which is a bad thing).

Be a fighter. Fight hard and play by the Chicago rules.

What's the point of the Democratic Party? I know that technically its job is to get Democrats elected to office. But what of it?

What is the point if Democrats don't use the power that they gain in holding office?

What is the point if Democrats give their power away?

What is the point if Democrats let themselves get played for suckers over and over again in the most predictable ways.

Salon.com: Democratic leadership: not just complicit but also self-destructive

The signs are unmistakably clear that what was always inevitable -- full compliance by the House Democratic leadership with Bush's demands on warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty -- is now imminent. House leaders spent the week floating their specific proposals for how they intend to comply in full, and yesterday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes went on CNN with Wolf Blitzer, refused to criticize the President or the Senate FISA bill, and repeatedly and meekly expressed his willingness "this week" to give what he called full "blanket immunity" to telecoms (C&L has the video of Reyes' astoundingly weak and incoherent answers in response to Blitzer's Bush-mimicking questions).

What is the point of feigning that you object to a single party government when all you do is help an Executive who thinks he is King.

What is the point of taking the flak that comes from the right wing when you refuse to cave, the threats that Democrats are making us less safe every day they delay -- when you have no intention of keeping up the fight?

What is the point of that when you just give in?

Do they think Republicans won't attack them for stalling?  Now that they've caved entirely, they're admitting that Bush was right and that they were putting America at risk by not letting George W. 19% illegally spy on citizens.

Republicans WILL attack them.  That's what Republicans do.  They consolidate power and use it for the purpose of the party's ideology and to continue it's health. 

If Democrats merely help Republicans do what Republicans want to do, then what is the point of the Democrats?

Democrats don't enforce their oversight powers. Even when the opposition has admitted to committing crimes. 
Democrats instead grant even more power to the lawbreaking Executive. Indeed, doing the very opposite of oversight, they grant retroactive immunity to the criminals for the crimes they committed.

And at the end of the day the Democrats will be attacked for not having completely caved fast enough.

What is the point of the Democratic Party?

Last week Attorney General Mukasey told Democrats to stick their subpoenas up their asses. And the response is, "Here's some more power."  What is the point of the Democratic Party.

Above: Things with more spine than Harry Reid.

I know Thomas Paine and, to a lesser extent, Thomas Young have already addressed today's FISA votes, but I can't let today's insanity pass without comment.

First, let's take a moment and reflect on where we are today. Glenn Greenwald puts the slow legalization of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, first revealed in Decemer 2005, in stark terms:

To be sure, achieving this took some time. When Bill Frist was running the Senate and Pat Roberts was in charge of the Intelligence Committee, Bush and Cheney couldn't get this done (the same FISA and amnesty bill that the Senate will pass today stalled in the 2006 Senate). They had to wait until the Senate belonged (nominally) to Harry Reid and, more importantly, Jay Rockefeller was installed as Committee Chairman, and then -- and only then -- were they able to push the Senate to bequeath to them and their lawbreaking allies full-scale protection from investigation and immunity from the consequences of their lawbreaking.

Think about that for a moment. The Democratic Senate is about to give the Bush administration something that a Republican Senate was not able to do.

What, in the name of all that is holy, could possibly explain this spineless, cowardly behavior?

Here's Our Fearful Majority Leader Harry Reid, putting forth the word to his caucus that shit's heading south and he's getting the fuck out of the way:

If, as appears likely, none of the amendments to strike or modify the provisions of the bill concerning retroactive immunity are adopted, we expect Sen. Reid to oppose cloture and oppose final passage of the bill.

He probably think that is a statement of leadership, that he is calling his caucus to stand with him. Via press release. This is some profoundly weak tea. To borrow the word's of Jesse Lacey, I've seen more spine on jelly fish and I've seen more guts in eleven year old kids.

The definition of insanity, per Benjamin Franklin, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Harry Reid has repeatedly brought up legislation in contravention to his stated wishes for the policy course of the US government. On Iraq funding he allows weak-kneed suggestions for withdrawal to receive primacy over legislation with his (evidently worthless) name on it which sets a firm time table. On FISA, he says he opposes retroactive immunity, but puts forward a bill and a legislative course that guarantees immunity will pass. Either he thinks the rest of the Senate is going to magically over rule his procedural decisions and give him what he actually wants (but hasn't pushed for) or he simply doesn't want what he says he wants, what the Democratic base wants. In either event, the same behavior is not producing different results and Reid needs to drink a double espresso, pop a few NoDoze, and wake the fuck up.

Some people have argued that the Senate Democrats have Battered Wife Syndrome, in denial that their colleagues across the aisle don't share the same love for civil liberties and the rule of law that they do. Others think they might have Stockholm Syndrome, so used to being beaten by the GOP that they identify with the Republicans and seek to join them in their efforts. The reality is that the level of stupidity and ingrain failure is so high, one can only assume that Senate Democrats have a mental defect, courtesy of poor genes. Perhaps Down Syndrome is the best explanation, then, for the failures of Senate Democrats to do their jobs and defeat Republican efforts to shred the Constitution. Going a step further, I'd hazard that some Senate Dems were so captivated by the fun times the GOP was having with their paper shredder and the Constitution, that they rushed over to partake in the production of pretty confetti.

It occurs to me that it is both insensitive and politically incorrect to describe our cowardly Democrats as having Down Syndrome. I'd like to immediately extend an apology to the community of people with Down Syndrome. You are far better, smarter people than the Senate Democrats and I regret comparing you to them.

This is beyond pathetic. This is assuring the destruction of our Republic.

I'm too enraged to write anything thought provoking or witty. The leadership of the Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, cowardly, weak, feckless, cowardly asshats, who all need to be primaried until they die. When they retire from the Senate, we need to primary their retirements. When they die and go to Purgatory (they are too milquetoast, feckless, traitorous and weak to justify their special place in hell, and they sure as shit aren't getting into heaven), I want to primary them there too. Make their lives miserable for all eternity. Seriously, this is beyond pathetic.

How many people failed? The little field where I select who is in the way on my blog form ran out of room before I could add everyone. That's how spectacularly our leadership has failed.

The only thing left to do on this issue is sign the petition over at FDL and pray that the house actually stands up and leads. Of course, that will happen when I start shooting my writing quills out of my nipples, but whatever.

Matt Browner Hamlin has all the gory details on todays spectacular failure of leadership. May God have mercy on their souls.

I should add that Feingold and Dodd were the only ones to rise up and take a stand on this issue in any significant way. (Obama voted the right direction, but never brought it the attention it deserved, which in his position as a candidate he had the ability to really do.) So kudos to them for behaving like Senators instead of little scared children.

I would have written on this subject sooner, but I've spent the last three days vomiting blood and stomach acid in response to the utterly disgraceful result of FISA negotiations that came forward Friday. I've just returned from having my teeth re-enameled by my dentist and will now attempt to think about what Harry Reid has wrought without causing further bodily harm to myself.

Late last week we found out that the Democratic leadership had brokered a deal with the Republican leadership that would allow a slate of amendments to be voted on. The deal determined what the timing of debate on each amendment would be, as well as how many votes would be required to pass. Further, it set forth a loose calendar for when the Senate would debate and vote on these amendments.

The normally very sharp McJoan at Daily Kos was triumphant when describing the agreement in a post titled "FISA Fight: Dems didn't cave!" Everybody dance! Yet, just because you say it doesn't make it true.

First, this can't be about caving or not caving. Is it possible to cave when the legislation you're working with already prevents you from winning? I mean, how much lower could we go than having the SSCI bill as the underlying bill? Adding retroactive immunity provisions that also cut billion dollar checks for the telecom companies, or perhaps adding a provision that would require all Americans to reverse the peep-hole on their front doors to ensure government agents can always look in on what we're up to in the privacy of our own homes would have been a bad outcome of the negotiations in the Senate. But that's just not what this was about.

I'll come back to how we were fucked from word go by Harry Reid in a moment.

Second, one of the areas that Dems are purported to have held strong was in the vote thresholds for key amendments. Amendments on retroactive immunity, sequestration, bulk collection, reverse targeting, and substitution all will require 51 votes to pass. Amendments on minimization, exclusivity, and a four year sunset require 60 votes. All well and good if you think the goal is getting up or down votes, period. But the GOP gave us simple majority on areas that they know we won't come close to winning. They're not conceding anything and we're not gaining anything. They did not cave because they had already won; we didn't not cave because it just doesn't matter. The areas that we have a chance of getting 51 votes were, without fail, bumped to 60 vote requirements. In short, the vote totals are set in such a way that we can't count on passing on damned amendment to make this bill better.

Third, the debate in the Senate started today. Some voting may start tonight, but the majority of the votes will be held tomorrow, on February 5th. Super Fucking Tuesday. This guarantees that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain will not be there. It also makes it possible that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham will not be in the Senate to vote. That's up to four certain Democratic votes and up to three other potentially good votes.

Even if you contend that the entire Democratic caucus will hold together on all simple majority amendments (which is highly unlikely given Harry Reid's inability to whip the caucus), you've immediately gone from needing one to needing three Republicans to vote with the Democrats for amendments to pass. That is, Mitch McConnell succeeded in making passage of the 51 vote amendments at least three times harder by getting the debate to happen early this week and not later in the week. I have zero clue why Harry Reid would concede this schedule. None. It makes no sense and it assured that we will lose.

The only logical explanation for this timing is that Harry Reid does not want to improve the SSCI bill, that he wants to give Bush and Cheney exactly what they want, to the letter without running the risk of anything being added to the underlying bill that would cause Overlords Bush and Cheney to raise an eyebrow in disapproval.

Lastly, the fundamental problem is the underlying bill. The failure to pass a good bill was cemented when Harry Reid decided to bring the SSCI bill as the underlying bill, as opposed to the better SJC bill or the House RESTORE Act. Once Reid chose the horrendous, Dick Cheney-Approved SSCI bill, the fight was lost. Every single Democratic-offered amendment would have to pass to make the SSCI bill start to resemble the SJC bill -- which isn't going to happen. This raft of amendments, this jubilant "deal" bargained late into the night from the Republicans is a nothing more than a smoke screen needed to obscure a complete failure of Democratic leadership.

Getting up or down votes on some amendments will allow unprincipled Democrats like Reid, Durbin, and Schumer to say, "Hey, we tried and we lost. The votes weren't there for us to do the right thing. What more could we have done?" I say: had you done your jobs, we would have won. Had you cared more about the Constitution than what ads the NRSC might run this fall or what asshats like Bill Kristol or Rich Lowery will say if you had the temerity to play a strong hand, we would have won. Had you done something as simple as making the SJC bill or the RESTORE Act the underlying bill, we would have won.

But you didn't do your jobs and you didn't use your power as leaders of the Democratic caucus to ensure that democratic principles win the day.

The end result is telecoms will get immunity, the President will get more authority, and the American people will have to watch what they say on the phone or write in an email, because they can be sure the government will be listening. Somewhere Ari Fleischer is smiling.

After seven painful years of the Bush administration and their Republican yes-men in Congress shredding the Constitution and abusing every iota of power they have been given to run the government, you would think Democrats would realize that there is nothing more dangerous than giving the Bush administration more power. Anyone who has paid attention knows what they do when they have discretion and no oversight, except the handful of impotent, piddling pushovers we're cursed with at the top of the Democratic Senate leadership.

We haven't officially lost yet, but the Democratic leadership in the Senate has done everything in their power to assure that we will. Worse still, they tried to convince us that they stood strong while the Republicans caved. Where I come from, it's not considered polite to piss on someone's head and tell them it's raining. Apparently people aren't so kind in Searchlight, Nevada.

Democrats need to distance themselves from this stimulus package - but they won't.

Democrats should have fought to include some measures that would have helped poor and middle class Americans - but they didn't.

On just about every single thing since the midterms in 2006 when America decided to stop the Conservative Agenda (and stop George W. Bush's ability to destroy any more) Democrats have failed to prove through their actions, that they deserve to govern.

Looking at the specifics of the package that the White House wants - and will get, one wonders what the point was of electing Democrats in 2006 at all.

The egregious part about this stimulus package isn't that about 10% of the households in the United States don't qualify, or that it includes classic "screw the blue states" tricks. The bill does nothing to address the relative disparity with why the poverty line is different around the country.

Democratic leaders are leaving out middle class people that live in high cost areas, ie blue states. I'll note also that this is precisely smack dab in the middle of the demographic status of creative class liberals.

Again, I ask what is the point of electing Democrats when they act like Republicans?

Shorter Harry Reid: "I'm passing the buck on to you, suckers. Donate today."

Harry Reid has been one of the greatest obstacles to Democrats getting good FISA legislation through the Senate. He has inexplicably chosen to make Jello Jay Rockefeller's shit-tastic Intel Committee bill the underlying legislation, eschewing a great Judiciary Committee bill, an even better House bill, and his own powers as Majority Leader to just craft a fourth solution that's even better.

Once the course was set for a bad Intel bill, Reid then used procedural maneuvers to circumvent Chris Dodd's hold on the Intel bill, something that Reid has refused to do to pass civil rights legislation or revise America's torture policies. Dodd's hold just simply didn't count to Harry Reid, so he ignored it.

As the debate in the Senate moved forward, Reid did absolutely nothing to make it more likely for his espoused position of opposing retroactive immunity to win out. Nothing. Every step of the way, Reid made victory for the rule of law harder to achieve.

Now Harry Reid has the gall to email his Senate re-election list, asking his supporters to whip his colleagues to vote "no" on cloture on the Intelligence Committee bill on Monday. He says, "if you care about your civil liberties and our national security, it is vital you tell your Senators to vote no on cloture Monday by visiting" and directs his supporters to a petition. Right next to the petition (and in the email as well), Wanky McCave-In has a big donation button.

I've got a better idea. How about Harry Reid does his fucking job? How about he start using the power he has as Majority Leader to ensure that good legislation has a chance to pass?

Will Reid require his colleagues Clinton and Obama to show up for this vote? Will he put his money where his mouth is and whip his colleagues himself? Or will he just rely on his lowly constituents in the Democratic base to do the hard work of trying to get these self-interested halfwits to do their job and defend the fucking Constitution of the United States?

Reid's email and petition is nothing more than an attempt to put the veneer of leadership on a man whose actions to date don't deserve one iota of support. It's a shoddy attempt to make Democrats he think he's doing what he can and more to fight the good fight against Republican bullies. But it's just not true.

Jane Hamsher's summation of the FISA fight is reveals how little Reid has done to assure victory.

The Democrats were ready to give George Bush everything that he wanted on FISA. They used Senate procedure to tank the Judiciary bill, paving the way for the Intelligence Committee bill (negotiated by Jay Rockefeller and the White House) with retroactive immunity for the telecoms. They were all lined up to vote for it save for a few meaningless tweaks; Dodd was going to filibuster but eventually that would end and Bush would get everything he wanted.

The Republicans decided that wasn't enough. They decided they would filibuster the "meaningless tweaks" just to humiliate the Democrats even further, then filed for cloture on the Intelligence Committee bill and scheduled the vote right before the State of the Union address. The Democrats either swallow the Intel bill whole or George Bush gets up there on Monday night and screams about how the Democrats are letting the terrorists win.

The Democrats are now lined up to block cloture on the very bill they were ready to pass yesterday. George Bush will publicly humiliate them for it in the SOTU, and with the Protect America Act ready to sunset on Friday February 1st, the Democrats will either find a way to extend it for another 30 days or give the Republicans everything they want anyway out of fear of being called soft on terrah.

There's no possible way to look at everything that has and has not happened regarding FISA and come away thinking Harry Reid has done anything worthy of a donation. He has not been a partner to Democrats who are trying to defend the Constitution - he has been an adversary.

The FISA Bill is on the Senate floor now, complete with retroactive immunity from the U.S. Constitution for spying telcos as well as for the Administration that broke the law all those months that they bypassed the FISA court.

The current bill also contains new invasive warrantless eavesdropping powers including datamining. Harry Reid wants to pass it ASAP so the Senators can go to Davos, Switzerland.

The Administration wheeled out Darth Cheney, of all people, to wag his finger at Democratic members of Congress about partisanship.

"We’re asking Congress to update FISA and especially to extend this protection to communications providers alleged to have given such assistance any time after September 11th, 2001. This is an important consideration, because some providers are facing dozens of lawsuits right now. Why? Because they are believed to have aided the U.S. government in the effort to intercept international communications of al Qaeda-related individuals.

[snip]

This cause is bigger than the quarrels of party and the agendas of politicians. And if we in Washington, all of us, can only see our way clear to work together, then the outcome should not be in doubt. We will do our part to keep this nation safe. We will press on despite any difficulty. And we will prevail."

Shorter Cheney: If those pro-law Democrats will only transcend their petty party partisanship and side with the pro-me Republicans, and do 100% of what we want done, then WE will prevail.

No shit you will.

Why would the GOP get the person least willing to cooperate with Democrats, the person who single-handedly could eliminate the legal problem they allege the telecoms have, and the person who stands to benefit most from an immunity provision for telecoms, to head out to pressure Congress? Did the GOP really think this would work to persuade Democrats to put aside all the troubling legal issues to grant him er his funders immunity?

Of course not. The point is merely a dog whistle to the GOP caucus to protect Cheney, and a silent "go fuck yourself" to the Democratic caucus.

And if that's not pathetic enough, consider this: rather than laughing at Dick's little self-serving temper tantrum, as the Dems should, they'll probably cow to him and pass Cheney's immunity.

Obama and Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for not joining Dodd and Feingold. Obama especially, talks constantly about his leadership but when the chips are down he does squat. Nothing. Coward.

What did leadership do in the first day back? Schedule an embarrassment.

Nevertheless, Democrats are feeling the pressure of being viewed as a do-nothing majority. In a show of bipartisanship, and perhaps an indication of desperation, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have sent a letter to President Bush requesting a meeting on the economy. The Democratic leadership is hoping to hold a grand meeting prior to announcing a stimulus package - hoping, no doubt, to both pass an important piece of legislation and to take credit for initiating a bipartisan effort.

"It's a bad situation. You have a polarized Congress with several members of Congress running for the presidency and an institutional battle that's been taking place between the president and the Congress. It's a recipe for not legislating," says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Princeton University in New Jersey. "That said, there's room for Congress to find a [legislative] package that works in everybody's political interest."

This is why historians as pundits are usually so wrong about the current state of affairs. They have no idea what the current political climate is like and they have no idea what it's like to live in America in the middle class. We're back to the days just after Henry Clay politically and economically. There isn't a way to find a 'package that works in everybody's political interest'. The Republicans have nothing to gain from such a deal. Here's why:

1. George Bush is a lame duck. His people have no hope that he'll end his reign liked. He'll stay hated and everybody knows it.
2. GOP is playing major defense in these elections.

Open Seats
Republicans
1. (CA-52) Duncan Hunter
2. (IL-18) Ray LaHood
3. (MS-03) Chip Pickering
4. (OH-15) Deborah Pryce
5. (IL-14) Dennis Hastert
6. (AZ-01) Rick Renzi
7. (MN-03) Jim Ramstad
8. (IL-11) Jerry Weller
9. (AL-02) Terry Everett
10. (NM-01) Heather Wilson
11. (OH-16) Ralph Regula
12. (OH-07) David Hobson
13. (NM-02) Steve Pearce
14. (LA-01) Bobby Jindal
15. (CO-06) Tom Tancredo
16. (NJ-03) Jim Saxton
17. (WY-AL) Barbara Cubin
18. (NJ-07) Michael Ferguson
19. (LA-04) Jim McCrery
20. (MS-01) Roger Wicker
21. (PA-05) John Peterson
22. (CA-04) John Doolittle
23. (LA-04) Richard Baker

Democrats
1. (CO-02) Mark Udall
2. (ME-01) Tom Allen
3. (NY- 21)Mike McNulty
4. (NM-03) Tom Udall
5. (IN-07) OPEN – Julia Carson
6. (CA-12) Tom Lantos

How do you defend against that? The GOP Presidential race is leaving so many rank and file Republicans disappointed and beggared for a party savior. There will be no coattails, there is only something to run against - namely Hillary and the Dem'rat Congress.

What does the GOP have to gain from working with us? Nothing! The only way they gain politically is to not work. Literally. They want nothing to get done. That is the only thing they have to run on, the attempt to say the Democratic Congress has been do-nothing and filled with pork barrel spending for liberal causes like buying Cadillacs for welfare crack-mothers.

The Republicans merely need to keep whispering to reporters that partisanship is so bad now that Dems are in control, that, sniff they wanna cry sometimes. This will keep the media scolding Democrats for not being bipartisan enough.

The other thing Republicans need to do is simple: as little as possible.

Democratic Congressional Leadership needs to make the case that what America needs is more and feistier Democrats. We need to point out that the Republicans are wrong.

This Reid/Pelosi meeting with Bush on 'common ground' and the wasting of precious time with Chris Shay's inane baseball questions is not how it is done.