What happens when liberals take over most of the committee chairs in the House of Representatives? Washington gets nervous:
WASHINGTON — Anxious to chart a centrist course with Democrats’ new majority in Congress, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top deputies are busily working in private and public to rein in the liberal ambitions of some senior party heavyweights –including proposals to reinstate the military draft and end the Pentagon’s ban on gays in uniform.
Pelosi has urged House Democrats, including incoming committee chairmen, to use the first weeks of next year’s congressional term to focus exclusively on proposals on which the party is unified and legislative goals that are within reach, according to Pelosi allies and aides.
Yesterday, Pelosi and the incoming House majority leader, Representative Steny Hoyer, quashed talk of reinstating the draft one day after Representative Charles Rangel said he will file a bill to make that happen. Rangel, a New York Democrat, is in line to become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of the most powerful posts in Congress.
“The speaker and I have discussed scheduling; it did not include that,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat.
Already, House Democratic leaders have extracted a promise from the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, to rule out impeaching President Bush. Conyers is the lead sponsor of a bill that would investigate whether to recommend “grounds for possible impeachment.”
Pelosi has also tempered hopes of reversing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the service of gays and lesbians in the military, after two key Democrats — Representatives Martin T. Meehan of Lowell and Barney Frank of Newton — said last week that they want to repeal the policy.
Though Pelosi believes homosexuals should be able to openly serve, she has made clear that she believes Democrats have more urgent national-security priorities — including changing course in Iraq and investigating war-related contracting.
Pelosi and Hoyer outlined an agenda yesterday for early next year that Pelosi said will relieve “the middle-class squeeze.” It avoids hot-button issues such as tax cuts, gay rights, and abortion for popular issues such as a higher minimum wage, more affordable student loans, and congressional ethics reform.
“These issues are bipartisan in nature,” Pelosi said. “That’s why we recommended them. We thought they were areas that are relevant to the lives of the American people, and that would have bipartisan support.”
I have mixed feelings about this. There are two points in Pelosi’s favor. First, it’s desirable to make a good first impression and gain some momentum by actually accomplishing something. Democrats want to pass some of the things they ran on, like increasing the federal minimum wage, negotiating drug prices for Medicare D, and passing some of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations on security reforms. These are areas where they have the votes and the President might be inclined to cooperate. They might also be able to pass an immigration bill that will be popular with both the Hispanic community and the business community.
Second, it doesn’t profit us to work on divisive issues where we don’t have the votes or where the President is sure to use his veto. Those types of votes are better left for next year when there is some profit in forcing Republicans to make uncomfortable votes, just for the record.
So, I completely understand the strategy that Pelosi has laid out. It makes a lot of sense. At the same time, a strategy is one thing, stifling progressive policy is another. I don’t know if there is ever a perfect time to bring ‘gays in the military’ back up for reconsideration. I can agree that now is not the best time, but can Pelosi tell me when such a time might arrive?
Rangel’s bill on reimposing the draft is actually one I might support, depending on the details of the national service elements, but I don’t think it is anything more than a ‘message’ bill. It won’t pass, and passing it is not the point of forcing a vote on it.
As for impeachment, making Conyers promise not to impeach the President is kind of funny. All that really means is that he will not introduce a bill to create a subcommittee committed to investigating whether there are grounds for impeachment. That’s largely irrelevant since we know there are grounds for impeachment. What there isn’t are votes for impeachment, and those votes will not show up until investigations force the truth out into the open. Why put the cart before the horse?
I do have one question. Does anyone remember seeing articles and editorials that pleaded and begged the Republicans not to act divisively and run Congress from too far to the right? I don’t. Where were the calls for moderation when the Republicans controlled Congress? I’m just saying…I’m beginning to doubt that the liberal media is liberal at all 😉
