The Challenge
David Shribman points out the challenge facing the Democrats now. He calls winning the election the easy part. The hard part is choosing what to do with the power once you've taken control.
That was the easy part. Taking over the Congress, that is. Let's face the truth here: Scoring a triumph over Republicans who themselves were impatient with the Republican record during an unpopular war was no great achievement, despite the great deal of celebrating that it prompted among Democratic partisans. Indeed, the startling thing would have been if, under these circumstances, the Democrats hadn't prevailed.
But they did, and though only a few days have passed since the big moment, a sobering wave should be passing through Democratic ranks right about now. They have the Congress, the great prize. But power brings responsibility, and even in a system that permits and perhaps encourages divided government, the burden now passes to the Democrats. They have to do something with that power besides reward themselves with chairmanships and patronage and the psychic spoils of office.
That is the hard part, and when the Republicans pulled the same trick a dozen years ago, in 1994, they had an enormous advantage. They had, besides four decades' worth of seething resentment over slights small and large, a roadmap. They had the Contract With America, which was really a contract with themselves.
The Democrats have a plan for the first few days, and much of it involves getting sworn in and swearing not to do as the Republicans have done. That is not good enough. If they are looking at their 2006 victory as a staging ground for 2008, which is the political way of doing things, they are going to maneuver the president into one uncomfortable corner after another for the pure recreational value of it all. If, on the other hand, they look at last week's victory as a chance to change the country, there's going to be a lot less recreation but perhaps some value.
So the first thing they have to do is to choose between those options. Do the purely political and make the president look powerless at a time when American power is being tested in Iraq? Or do the responsible thing and try to govern the country as if the nation had said something Tuesday besides indicating that it was weary of the guys who have been in power for six years and who, tired and tendentious, seem to have run out of gas.
If they take the latter route — if they try to govern from their beachhead in Congress — then they will have to do something more than simply say no to the president.
All the indications are pointing to the Democrats taking office and beginning to look boldly into the past by starting investigation after investigation. Henry Waxman is waxing poetic about how much power he will have to rake the administration over the coals, in fact. They appear to be heading in a direction all right. It just may not be a helpful one for the country.
By Bill Franklin, Saturday, 11 November , 2006 @ 10:33 am
> It just may not be a helpful one for the country.
Was Monikiagate helpful for the country? How many special investigations were there from 1994 to 2000? Let’s not forget the Republicans are the masters of starting investigation after investigation. And you know what? As long as the government is busy with such trivialities, the country will prosper.
By Arlo, Saturday, 11 November , 2006 @ 12:27 pm
You want to think they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. There are so many issue items that the Democrats can pass that are broadly popular and Bush will look bad vetoing them. Remember the “Family and Medical Leave Act” that Bush the elder vetoed and how much that hurt him? It wasn’t even important legislation but it made the president look bad vetoing it. It won’t look like a “do nothing Congress” but rather that a Republican President is obstructing legislation the public wants.
Waxman was pretty good at making those cigarette company executives look bad; wait until he gets ahold of Alberto Gonzales who is going to be put under oath from now on when he testifies before Congress. Everyone in the Bush administration from top to bottom is a proven liar and they’ll get no deference at all. The parade of witnesses saying “I can’t recall” is about to begin but thats not a free pass. Haldeman and Erlichman went to prison for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury.
By Arlo, Saturday, 11 November , 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Good point, Bill Franklin.
“Last year The Boston Globe offered an illuminating comparison: when Bill Clinton was president, the House took 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether Mr. Clinton had used the White House Christmas list to identify possible Democratic donors. But in 2004 and 2005, a House committee took only 12 hours of testimony on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. ” - Paul Krugman column of 10/16/2006
By mokus, Saturday, 11 November , 2006 @ 3:07 pm
What frivolous nonsense. America can’t afford the self indulgent spectacle of show trials for the TV cameras, and trumped up legislation designed to be vetoed. Dems can either address themselves to the challenges facing the nation, or they can reduce themselves an irrelevant embarrassment.
Hope for the best, but if the comments above represent what Dems have to offer, then the Republic is in for a long dark night.
By jpe, Saturday, 11 November , 2006 @ 6:01 pm
I’d love to know how billions of dollars were “misplaced” during the reconstruction - that kind of negligence or misappropriation is exactly the kind of thing Congress should be looking into to discharge its oversight duties.
As the missing billions shows clearly, what we can’t afford is a complacent Congress that refuses to do anything about the rampant incompetence and/or corruption in its midst.
By mokus, Saturday, 11 November , 2006 @ 7:47 pm
I agree, but Iraq is front and center now. Just hold your horses, we’ll get to the UN soon enough.