Maybe Nancy Pelosi Shouldn't Resign As Speaker... Yet.

Over this past summer, Congress has enjoyed some of the lowest approval ratings ever. At one point, they sunk even lower than Dick Cheney's. (Now that's low!) The cries from the right were that this was clear and ample evidence of the citizens' dissatisfaction with the Democratic majority. Seeing as the Democrats held control of the Senate by the slimmest of margins (so slim, in fact, that they let Joe Lieberman caucus with them,) and the entire House was up for reelection as well, November 4th provided the perfect opportunity for the voters to send a clear message to Congress.

And they did.

There are still, as I write this, three Senate races that have yet to be called. Nonetheless, the Democrats have gained six seats, giving them a strong majority of 57 to only 40 for the Republicans. In the House, the Democrats increased their majority from 236 to 254 (with eight still up in the air.)

Apparently, the voters have decided that not only do they approve of the Democrats being in charge, but want them to have more power, so they can start pushing forward with a Democratic agenda. (Why else give them a larger majority? If the voters wanted more "compromise," they would have left the margins as they were.) Plus, a Democrat won the presidential election by a landslide, so there goes the veto threat.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi had the following reaction:

"I don't know what the final number will be," Pelosi said during a Wednesday afternoon news conference on Capitol Hill. "But it will be well over 250. It's a signal of the change that the American people want."

So she understands the significance of the increased majority that the voters have given her. She can finally dust off that Liberal Agenda that's been stuffed in her desk drawer for the past almost two years. Will she have the guts to lead, actually lead, with this vote of confidence from the American people?

It would be a break from recent Democratic behavior, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

.

Nancy Pelosi Should Resign As Speaker

In the current issue of Time magazine, in the 10 Questions section, Speaker Pelosi is asked this:

Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush?

Which seems like a reasonable question, and is one I would have asked the speaker, if given the chance. The speaker's response was totally not what I expected.

I took it off the table a long time ago. You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.

So Nancy Pelosi Admits that the main reason she isn't pursuing impeachment is that the Bush administration isn't cooperating.

This is what passes for leadership in the Democratic party.

By Supporting "Intelligence" Bill, Senate Democrats Show They Have None

In a move that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention for the past five years, 19 Senate Democrats defected from the defense of American civil liberties and Constitutional rights and gave the Bush administration a major victory in the War On America.

According to the NY Times,

One by one, the Senate rejected amendments that would have imposed greater civil liberties checks on the government’s surveillance powers.

That sums it all up right there. The Bush administration's shameless use of 9/11 to promote their agenda of stripping away our rights continues, undaunted by the Democratic majority in the House and Senate. Indeed, many of the Senate Democrats (who are surely concerned more about re-election than actually serving the interests of American citizens) are totally on board. John D. Rockefeller (D-WV):

This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation.

Which I'm sure is totally unrelated to the "$42,000 in contributions that Mr. Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a little slippery to begin with. From Wikipedia:

[FISA] allowed warrantless surveillance within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

It was created to accommodate the sometimes urgent need to gather intelligence. It provided (in theory, at least) protection of the civil liberties of Americans while allowing for necessary surveillance to take place.

The new intelligence bill, which was supported by 19 Senate Democrats, changes the basic structure of FISA.

The bill, which had the strong backing of the White House, allows the government to eavesdrop on large bundles of foreign-based communications on its own authority so long as Americans are not the targets. A secret intelligence court, which traditionally has issued individual warrants before wiretapping began, would review the procedures set up by the executive branch only after the fact to determine whether there were abuses involving Americans.

“This is a dramatic restructuring” of surveillance law, said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies. “And the thing that’s so dramatic about this is that you’ve removed the court review. There may be some checks after the fact, but the administration is picking the targets.”

So now, thanks to 19 Senate Democrats, we no longer have any sort of safeguards against illegal wiretapping. Do you feel safer yet? The bill also, of course, grants retroactive immunity for any telecom company that gave up caller information to be added to the giant NSA database back when the illegal program began.

There is something about this bill that stinks almost as much as the stripping of our rights against unwarranted search and seizure. It will serve to absolve the Bush administration of any charges of wrongdoing stemming from their illegal wiretapping program. Granted, there are a few hundred other criminal charges that could be brought against them, but this one was pretty solid. Bush has tried to deflect criticism by referring to his illegal wiretapping program as a Terrorist Surveillance Program. Wow, who would have guessed they'd try to use 9/11 to justify their criminal activity? Thing is, this program started well before 9/11.

And now, thanks to 19 Democrats in the Senate, Bush gets what he wants, the Telecoms get what they want, the Republicans get what they want, and the rest of us get screwed.