Centerfield

It bears adding, what is Pelosi to do? The Kossacks don't like her, in many parts of America, the description "San Francisco Democrat" tells voters all they need or want to know, and only 33% of Democrats give her a positive favorability rating (John McCain - a Republican - got 55% in the same survey).

Posted by: Simon at May 9, 2006 10:54 AM

I would think that only the 31% would NOT want investigations.

Why would this be a bad thing?

Posted by: rob at May 9, 2006 11:29 AM

Why would it be a bad thing? Oh, it wouldn't. If you're a Republican, it's a gift. Investigate away, chaps! Of course, if you're someone who wants the Democratic party to succeed in 2008, of course, I'm not quite sure why it would have the same appeal as it does to those of us who are largely just happy to let the Dems sacrifice themselves to bring the GOP back to a more moderate port in a storm.

Posted by: Simon at May 9, 2006 11:39 AM

Simon,
I asked why it would be a bad thing, and your answer is to regurgitate the original premise.

Posted by: rob at May 9, 2006 12:10 PM

In this case, let's state our (my) assumption that "bad thing" means "unbelievably tactically stupid for the Democrats" and not "Bush is an evil person who deserves to be investigated until the cows come home or 2008 which ever comes last".

It would be a bad thing because, IMHO, the American people will give the Democrats a 2006 win because they (American people) are hoping against hope that the Democrats might offer some new ideas about the future as well as possibly stop the cycle of blame and fix some things. If instead the Democrats get their panties all balled up and start investigations into the first years of the Bush administration, it will only reinforce the general feeling that this is all so much same sh!t, different day.

The Dems have a chance to make real strides in establishing themselves as a viable party, one that can propose and follow through on new solutions and ideas, not just bitch about the Bush administration. However, with Pelosi in charge, my guess is that Simon is right and the Dems majority in the House will be short lived.

My greatly overvalued $.02.

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at May 9, 2006 12:55 PM

Related post at The National Review related to the Republicans' response to Pelosi.

Posted by: Scotch Drinker at May 9, 2006 01:07 PM

Rob,
You asked why investigations would be a bad thing, I said they wouldn't. If you want a different answer, find someone who doesn't think it would be a good thing.

Posted by: Simon at May 9, 2006 02:04 PM

If instead the Democrats get their panties all balled up and start investigations into the first years of the Bush administration, it will only reinforce the general feeling that this is all so much same sh!t, different day.

Well, not only that, but also, I don't think most people are ready to go along with an expensive and pointless investigation into a lame duck administration. Arrogance is not a high crime or misdemeanour. The precedent is simple: if the Dems take the House this fall, it will be by a razor-thin majority. In 1998, the GOP lost five seats, mainly because they were fixated on an investigation the public thought was ludicrous instead of doing their damn jobs. And in many ways it was ludicrous: I think the Clinton thing is very similar to the Scooter Libby indictment. Both were indicted for an offense that had nothing to do with the original purpose of the investigation, and for offenses which wouldn't have occurred without an investigation which ultimately unearthed no original wrongdoing. But, as I said at the time, since I argued that Clinton should have been impeached (indicted, even) for perjury, I can hardly now say that Libby shouldn't be indicted.

So in any event, unless the Dems win by an absolutely improbable landslide - 300 seats or something absurd like that - they're almost certain to destroy themselves. They're locked in.

Posted by: Simon at May 9, 2006 02:17 PM

That is, unless the Democratic leaders with sense stand up and put a stop to this.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at May 9, 2006 09:51 PM

There several reasons why "politics by investigation" tend to backfire.

The biggest problem here for us (D)s is that investigations and fear seem to be all that Pelosi wants to deliver. The problem with that is that to win beyond "rotten districts" like Pelosi's, you have explain to people what you'll do if you win. Even if Pelosi hits the jackpot on investigatory results, that's likelier to help anti-Bush Republicans than Democrats.

What's more, you have to exercise careful judgement about what you turn up, judgement Pelosi seems to lack. Unless both the evidence is really good and the crimes clearly nasty, it invites skepticism about the attacker's character (remember Newt?), and invites voters' sympathies on the attackee.

These gentle yaying Republicans certainly have good memories of all these effects losing them seats aplenty in 98.

Sigh. Pelosi is as bad as DeLay, except we still have Pelosi.

Posted by: Jon Kay at May 9, 2006 10:49 PM

Rafique, which Democratic leaders do you have in mind? That's one of the things Dickerson mentions in the Slate piece: it's one thing when Feingold pulls this kind of stunt, but Pelosi occupies the job the closest that the Dems have to a national leader. Who is there who is going to be recognized as a leader who can (or will) stand up and put a stop to this?

Posted by: Simon at May 9, 2006 11:43 PM

Investigations don't ALWAYS backfire. The GOP made hay out of investigating the Truman administration and ultimately led to Eisenhower's election. The Watergate investigations certainly didn't hurt the Democrats. It depends on how it's done and what issues are involved. But, I agree that it would be a mistake for Dems to make that the focus of their work. Still, getting past the purely tactical, one of Congress's jobs is oversight and to investigate possible abuses by the executive. Obviously, it's only the party in opposition that has any incentive to investigate the administration and the Republicans have been in power during most of Bush's term.

Posted by: Marc at May 10, 2006 11:00 AM

I understand that she's their minority leader now, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Pelosi will be Speaker of the House even if the Democrats take a majority in the fall (which itself is no foregone conclusion).

Stenny Hoyer gave her a tough run for the leadership last time around, and-- in the event of a Democratic majority-- one has to assume that it will be because Democrats have edged Republicans in competitive (i.e., balanced partisan) districts. Moderate Democrats are much more likely to have won those elections than, say, a far left Democrat winning in, say, San Diego.

All of which is to say the Democrats would likely have more moderates in the fold than they did last year, political moderates who are far more likely to agree with a more pragmatic Hoyer than the ideologue Pelosi. I could be wrong here-- if Dems feel she led them to victory maybe they would reward her with the Speakership-- but I don't think it's settled law that we will see Speaker Pelosi, even if the Dems do take a majority.

Posted by: Bobby at May 10, 2006 11:14 AM

Simon:

I fail to understand your comment that the Libby investigation is similar to Clinton's in that neither is related to the original purpose. The Clinton investigation started over a failed S&L development in Arkansas and ended with an exposed affair at the White House. Libby started as an investigation into the outing of a CIA agent and he was indicted about lying about revealing the identity of this same CIA agent. As an attorney, I see Libby's indictment as exactly the reason we have perjury laws--to prevent interference with an investigation.

There are a number of areas Congress needs to investigate, and the idea that it should be feared as politically dangerous is, in my mind, pure spin to try and convince the next Congress not to proceed. If you think about it, investigations were the favored tactic of the Republican Congress throughout Clinton's presidency and now they are arguing don't be like us! Compared to travelgate and Henry Cisneros' Mistress, the potential outcomes here are likely far more damaging than the process. As citizens, we should all want to know if the Constitution is being violated by wiretaps; if torture is being conducted in our name; and is legislation being drafted for the highest bidder. These are not liberal or conservative issues, they are good government concerns relevant to us all.

Note that I do not consider impeachment within the scope of the investigation process. Repeated impeachments is simply a cycle we should not get into as a Nation.

Posted by: BobPM at May 10, 2006 03:13 PM

I agree with Marc (we're on a roll here, aren't we?) that what the investigation is about is crucial to evaluating whether it will backfire or not.

But I also agree that any investigations into President Bush by a new Democratic majority in the House during the last 2 years of his term will indeed backfire. The Democrats have major policy differences with the President. That's fine, and they should continue to promote their alternatives (whatever they are, whenever they settle on some). They should not, however, continue to practice the "politics of personal destruction" by turning every political disagreement, even very major ones, into some grand witch-hunting investigation. And no matter how you try to color "Bush lied" and similar memes, that's all the Democrats have tried to do. This endless cycle of politically motivated witch-hunting investigations must stop.

The other reason it will backfire on the Democrats at this point in time is because that seems to be all they are focused on. They have yet to propound a coherent message, a cohesive set of policy proposals to be in favor of, especially in the arena of national security and the war on terror. Wasting time on investigations instead of promoting new policies will only highlight their dearth of ideas.

Finally, investigations would be bad for the same reason underlying President Ford's pardon of Nixon. Their are much more important things going on demanding the attention of our country's leaders. Time spent on "investigations" and finger-pointing is time not spent on productive, important matters. Ford pardoned Nixon because, as President, he could not afford to devote 25 to 50% of his and his staff's time to dealing with a continuing investigation, providing the necessary documents, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 10, 2006 03:13 PM

Bobby - I entirely agree. Consider also that when Newt Gingrich punched the eject button, it was not Dick Armey or Tom DeLay - the heirs apparent - that succeded him, as one might have expected, but Denny Hastert, who was lower in the food chain than DeLay. It's one thing to elect a minority leader, but quite another to elect a speaker, and from what I understand (which, granted, is second hand at best) Dems are not exactly thrilled with Pelosi.

Bob - the two are related as follows. Clinton and Libby were both called to testify before a grand jury, and both perjured themselves. Neither Libby nor Clinton were indicted for offenses related to the crime which the grand jury was called to investigate. In any event, as I understand your comment, your argument is that it might be a tenable position to say that Libby ought to have been indicted while saying that Clinton should not have been impeached. That may or may not be so, but surely you would agree that if one thinks Clinton should have been impeached for perjury, Libby ought to have also been indicted, which is my position. Even if you don't think the door swings both ways, it certainly swings against me - and Scooter Libby - in this case.

Posted by: Simon at May 10, 2006 11:28 PM

Simon, my recollection is that Clinton told the truth to the grand jury and was impeached on the grounds of lying during the deposition in the Paula Jones lawsusit. The "it depends on what the meaning of is is" clip was taken, if I recall correctly, from his grand jury testimony.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 11, 2006 07:58 AM

The Clinton impeachment investigation was begun on allegations of perjury and obstruction before the grand jury. The actual counts reported out of the House as a result were for perjury in the Paula Jones lawsuit, and obstruction of justice during the subsequent grand jury investigation.

Impeachment and indictment are very different animals, though. Clinton's impeachment is neither here nor there in a comparison with Libby. What would be relevant are the court penalties for "willful failure to testify truthfully" that Clinton was assessed under the charge of civil contempt of court in the Paula Jones case. (Civilly contemptuous? LOL--you'd think we'd encourage that, though not in court proceedings...) For that, Clinton was fined $90K and referred for disciplinary action to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Also relevant would be the grand jury investigation of same, in which investigation a plea deal was ultimately reached with the independent counsel, with Clinton "voluntarily" resigning from the US Supreme Court bar and accepting a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license. That happened the day before he left office, and foreclosed future criminal prosecution resulting from the grand jury obstruction when he became a "civilian."

That's a pair of actual "guilty" slaps. Libby has yet to plead or be convicted of anything. I'm sure he'd be happy to pay a fine and get it done with--it would certainly be cheaper than defending.

Posted by: Tully at May 11, 2006 11:55 AM

I don't think that Moderate and Conservative Democrats will go with that idea. I even think that the Minority Whip, Steny Hoyer, who will in that case be the Majority Leader, will not go along with this. Personally, I am hoping that if the Democrats gain control of the House, that they will dump Nancy Pelosi and instead take Steny Hoyer or Someone else.

Posted by: Centrist Chris at May 11, 2006 01:07 PM

And now that I think about it, which Party was it that Impeached a President out of pure vengence, not the Democratic Party, bu the GOP.

Posted by: Centrist Chris at May 11, 2006 01:10 PM