There has been a lot of urgency on this and other blogs lately about impeachment and the level of democratic commitment to making changes in the war strategy, and in other areas. The intensity of these voices prompts my response today, and some thoughts to share with you.

Kagro’s “warning” about VTDems about to abandon Leahy’s back brought this into focus for me. Kagro – love your stuff, but you got to give folks a little room now and then! Especially when things are moving in the right direction, and I would argue, about as fast as they possibly can and still be effective.

More below…

Think about the nature of political leadership… or any kind of consensus leadership, really. You can usually only move change as fast as a “critical mass” number of the group will move and change with you. I had written on this site that I was opposed to impeachment; that was back before the new congress took their seats. I feel vindicated by my position. Congress has diligently gone about passing a series of needed measures in the house, and serious investigations in the Senate. Because of the way these motions have proceeded and the deliberateness in which the process has moved and taken the time to include a majority along the way, the momentum has built to a place where impeachment IS now really coming closer to the table, and closer to a political reality to consider, and perhaps to achieve.

I think it’s vital to understand that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of leadership and power between the dems and the reps. Republicans rely more on a power structure that builds a hierarchy of authority, and respects that hierarchy. A leader like Bush can pull the BS he has because the people who follow (or instruct) him do so because they are invested in that very structure of power. Their goals are to eliminate the checks and balances on that power so they can have wider rule.

Political power for democrats comes from the people, through consensus, and is much harder to manage. That’s why scandals rock us a lot more. It’s not just that we tend to jump all over each other, it’s because we rely on holding the consensus together, and tough times shake the foundation of that consensus. We don’t have a base of believers of iron-rule autocracy.

There’s a place for voices like Kagro’s and others to demand change NOW!, and in our time and age, this is certainly it. But while we absolutely need to keep the pressure on our elected officials to provide real leadership in these areas, I think they have done a great job, perhaps even the very best job possible, in advancing the critical issues of our day. I think we can help by joining and strengthening the growing consensus that the war is wrong and the Bush Administration has violated the constitution and continue to add momentum to the movement.

Recently, Congressional Republicans maneuvered to deny the people of a major American city representation in Congress.

One blog struck back.

Cross-posted at Rip and Read

Note:While one the surface of it, this story has nothing directly to do with Vermont, it has a lot to do with democracy…so I take the liberty of putting it up.

Besides:  it’s a funny story, and after 7 years of Bush and War, I need all the laughs I can get.

The residents of D.C want a vote in the U.S. House. There are plenty of people who don’t want to give them that vote. After all, if you give a D.C. mouse a cookie, he will want a seat in the Senate. Since voters in the District of Columbia (which is a large, east coast city after all) tend to have problems like poverty, crime, drugs etc, they tend to vote Democratic. So, the last thing Republicans want is to see these inner-city residents sneaking into Congress bringing a lot of those damn Liberal Democrats in through the back door. (Especially at risk would be a Senate divided by the width of a whisker.)

So, when the U.S. House seemed poised to grant D.C. it’s first full representative, Republicans used a little legislative chicanery to send the bill back to committee, where it will, hopefully, die. The reason Republicans gave was that D.C.’s gun laws were too tight.

The Washington Post has the story.

Besides, according to Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, these inner-city people don’t NEED their own Representative to Congress:

I would submit to you that Washington, D.C. is also the only city in the entire country that every Senator and every Member of Congress has a vested interest in seeing that it works properly, that water works, sewer works, and no other city in America has that. [Hear him for yourself here]

Well, according to the Post, the Washington Blog, DCist, picked up on Congressman Gohmer’s….opps: that’s Gohmert….remarks and was delighted to have finally found a representative to whom they could direct complaints.

So delighted in fact, that the blog suggested to it’s readers that THEY call up their new congressman and share their concerns…early calls went to the wrong Republican, but no harm done, he also voted against the bill…but soon, Washington’s residents were eagerly jamming their new Congressman’s phone to complain about crime, garbage removal, and potholes.

As Republican staffers struggled to carry out their new duties, reviews on the DCist comment page were mixed. “I just gave a call to ask about garbage collection. And Man, our rep’s are not very friendly.”

According to the Post, one Republican congressional office was “deluged” with calls.

Now, I know that there is a legitimate debate to be held about why the District of Columbia was excluded from Congressional Representation by the founders.

But I also know that, to men like Gohmert, that is not what this is about. This is about keeping those damn Democrats from getting more votes.

After all, as the Post points out:

Democrats, who recently won control of Congress, have made a priority of giving a vote to the mostly African American city. [emphasis added]In floor speeches yesterday, they described it as an issue of fairness, linking it to laws and court decisions that gave blacks full rights.

Republican’s like Gohmert see it differently, and used the same old Republican Compassion Conservative line of Bush-Wah. But they got busted and embarrassed when Washington’s Voters decied to take them at their word

…and I’m having too much fun watching Gohmert and his buddies clean that egg off their faces to worry about the “legitimate debate”.

One reader writes in DCist that: Each week, DC residents should pick one member of Congress who opposes giving us voting rights and make him or her our “member of the week.”

Meanwhile, the author of the DCist itself remarked that, given the fact that Republicans based their maneuverings on gun rights, Representative Gohmert should reflect on “what happened the last time a group of Americans were taxed, unrepresented and, thanks to [Gohmert’s] efforts, armed to the teeth…”

All I can hope is that Gohmert’s Texas constituants have to pay his phone bill.

Footnote:

Gohmert is the same Republican who remarked of Decorated Veteran (and Democrat) John Murtha, that “…thank God he was not here and prevailed after the bloodbaths at Normandy and in the Pacific or we would be here speaking Japanese or German.”

This info comes from Wikipedia, which, I notice has been altered  to reflect recent events. As of 10:00 am Eastern Time, March 24, his entry reads:

In March of 2007 Gohmert unilaterally ended the historical disenfranchisement of Washington the District of Columbia … Since that time Gohmert has become the ‘go-to’ representative for the District of Columbia and residents are encouraged to contact his office for any constituent services.

Cross-posted from Rational Resistance

So far the most we’ve gotten out of Alberto Gonzales has been a string of bland assurances that yeah, he’s responsible because he’s the Attorney General, but he didn’t have anything to do with the purge, and he certainly never discussed the firings or had any meetings about it.

Now we know that this was a demonstrable lie.

The first two paragraphs in the story in today’s Times make that perfectly clear:

WASHINGTON, March 23 – Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday.

Is this the beginning of the end for Gonzo? Has he now committed the unforgivable crime? Not obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, or subverting the Constitution, but getting caught?

Stay tuned for more.