AlterNet reader runs out of patience with the Dems

I got a note recently from regular AlterNet reader and commenter Oregoncharles, whom I am now able to identify as Charles Newlin, asking me if I was ready to "eat some crow" given that the Dems have not cut off funding for the war. I told him I was not -- and I'm not -- and asked him if he'd like to argue his case. He took me up on it, and the result follows.

The new Democratic Congress is now well into its 4th month; while we can't expect them to reverse every Bush Administration policy in that time, we should be able to see how well they're going to carry out their mandate from the voters. Since they ran with little in the way of a national program, they were elected mostly as the "anti-Bush". That implies some expectations for real change, especially given Bush's approval ratings in the low 30's and solid majorities who want to see the war over with. So which way are the straws in the wind pointing?

As it turns out, the most important so far was ruling out impeachment. As long as Bush is sitting in the White House with the veto at hand, any attempt to reverse his policies with legislation is dead in the water. The House easily passed their Hundred Hours bills, mostly rather minor and bipartisan. The only one of much significance was the increase in the minimum wage, which affects relatively few people and equally few bottom lines. It was so long overdue that even many Republicans voted for it. The same goes for passage of funding for stem cell research, an enormously popular program. This is a far cry from a liberal answer to Gingrich's Contract On America, and it's a good measure of what they're actually able to do - until Bush vetoes even those minor fixes.

In fact, the veto negates their favorite excuse for avoiding impeachment: that it would tie up the Congress for a year and prevent them from Legislating. In reality, they're just wasting their time passing any bill Bush doesn't like, so they might as well spend it on removing him. Until they do, they're effectively hog-tied. I fear we'll be hearing precisely that excuse during the campaign next year (always remember the campaign next year).This is an issue where Joshua and I disagreed strongly, right after the election. He seemed to think it would be better to leave the Bushies in place, doing all the harm they can, until it would be possible to prosecute them for war crimes in honorable retirement - in 2009. After the next election. I still don't understand his logic (any new thoughts on this, Joshua?), and the consequences for the Congress are ever clearer. That post was a good way to drag out all the possible arguments for impeachment, though.

Besides investigating High Crimes and Misdemeanors, the only action that can't be vetoed is the refusal to pass a bill. This Congress will be judged by the things it doesn't do. Unfortunately, it may already be too late for the most important. (The next opportunity to not pass something is the renewal of Fast Track authority for trade negotiations, essential for the extension of imperial globalization. Unfortunately, this no-brainer is very challenging for the Democrats, as it is driven by their corporate funders. We need to talk to them about it.) They have already passed a funding supplemental that would re-authorize and perpetuate the Iraq War for at least another year. Just for good measure, the House, at least, loaded it up with pork that makes it an easy target for Administration spinners. One of those slices of bacon goes to schools and local governments here in western Oregon, and was inserted to buy the vote of my own Representative, Peter deFazio. Both Peter and our Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, are among the honorable few who voted against the original war authorization; unfortunately, both have since repeatedly voted to authorize the war by funding it.