What's the Meaning of 1,000 Votes

Rob Bluey suggests that House Democrats who are proud of taking votes might want to rethink whether it's a serious measure of effectiveness.

The American Spectator reports that not all Democrats were proud that Speaker Pelosi chose to highlight this 'achievement:'

Last week the House held its one-thousandth roll call vote this year, the first time Congress had reached that level since the ratification of the Constitution. Pelosi's office demanded that Democrats mark the event as a victory for the party, against the advice of Hoyer and other party leaders.

"It only served to highlight just how little we've actually achieved compared to what we promised," says the House aide. "Out of those thousand votes, about ten percent were bills that became law and half of those were namings of federal buildings and such. Fifty bills in a year doesn't compare to what we promised, and she wanted to put a spotlight on it. She just doesn't get it sometimes."

Will Congress Punish Yahoo, Google, Others for their Actions in China?

There's a very interesting dispute brewing between the House Foreign Affairs Committee and some of the world's leading technology companies. Let's start with legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Smith, which was recently approved by the committee. From Congressional Quarterly:

A House panel Tuesday approved legislation to punish U.S. Internet companies for sharing information with foreign governments that restrict access to the Internet.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the measure by voice vote. The bill would make it illegal for U.S. companies hosting Internet content such as Web pages or e-mail to give users’ personal information to governments that restrict Internet access or cooperate in efforts to restrict access to U.S. government-supported Web content. Violators would be fined up to $2 million for businesses and up to $100,000 for individuals.

Countries restricting Internet freedom would be identified in an annual report to Congress from the president.

The bill is aimed at the actions of leading technology companies in China, including Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft. The firms have been criticized for sharing information with the Chinese government about the online activities of dissidents, as well as revising their search engines to censor some content for searches originating in China. In particular, Smith and the committee are angry with Yahoo, for allegedly having lied about their company's role in helping China develop evidence to jail dissident Shi Tao:

...At a 2006 hearing on the case, the company had assured Congress that it did not know about “the nature of the investigation” when it handed over the information.

Earlier this year, however, the San Francisco-based Dui Hua Foundation released documents disputing that assertion.

“Our committee has established that Yahoo! provided false information to Congress in early 2006,” Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) said. “We want to clarify how that happened, and to hold the company to account for its actions both before and after its testimony proved untrue. And we want to examine what steps the company has taken since then to protect the privacy rights of its users in China.”

Yahoo spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the committee’s decision to single out the company was “grossly unfair and mischaracterizes the nature and intent of our past testimony.”

The hearing, to which Yahoo’s chief executive, Jerry Yang, and the company’s senior vice president and general counsel, Michael Callahan, have been summoned, is scheduled for Nov. 6.

“Last year, in sworn testimony before my subcommittee, a Yahoo! official testified that the company knew nothing ‘about the nature of the investigation’ into Shi Tao, a pro-democracy activist who is now serving 10 years on trumped-up charges,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.

“We have now learned there is much more to the story than Yahoo let on, and a Chinese government document that Yahoo had in their possession at the time of the hearing left little doubt of the government’s intentions," Smith said. "U.S. companies must hold the line and not work hand in glove with the secret police.”

The companies also face an extremely challenging business climate in China, where they apparently confront anti-competitive practices in their efforts to gain market share against Chinese companies -- notably Baidu.com.

If American companies are forced to limit their operations in China, it will hurt the effort to promote western values there. At the same time, the idea that these companies would assist in government efforts to jail people for practicing what we recognize as free speech is distasteful -- even offensive. I think it's undeniable that Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and others must walk a very narrow line.

This debate is likely to get a lot more attention at the scheduled hearing on November 6. It could also wind up being another serious test of Speaker Pelosi's ability to navigate foreign policy debates. While the Chinese hasn't waded into this debate in any serious way before, they didn't have to as long as the bill wasn't going anywhere. If it looks like the House might actually vote on it, that could change. Given the way Pelosi mishandled her trip to Syria, and the debate over the Armenian genocide, she needs to get this one right.

Tsongas Win Sends Warning to Democrats

So in the only special election of 2007 that figured to be anywhere near close, Niki Tsongas has defeated Republican Jim Ogonowski by a margin of around 51%-45%. In a district that went for John Kerry by 17 points, in a seat where Marty Meehan regularly won with more than 60 percent of the vote, Democrats should be concerned.

Yes, Niki Tsongas was clearly not a great campaigner, but she has great name identification, in a solid Democratic district. Furthermore, special elections are frequently decided by the party organizations, which must turn out their voters. How much of an organizational edge did the Democrats have in a district that hasn't elected a Republican in nearly 40 years?

And with all that edge, Democrats managed a 6 point win.

This is a clear sign that the 2006 Democratic wave is gone. Chris Bowers at OpenLeft typifies the response from Democrats; he argues not to read too much into this:

As with the OH-02, much of the problem rests in the ossified local machine of the favored party nominating a weak candidate. Tsongas isn't as bad on the trial as Jean Schimdt, but she is close.

But in November 2006, Democrats would have ridden an ossified machine and a bad candidate to a 20 or 30 point margin of victory. Today it yielded them only a 6 point win, even with appearances by Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and other national Democratic leaders, against a candidate they heavily outspent.

Why is this so significant? Because Ogonowski ran a race against Congress, against illegal immigration, and against corruption. According to Democrats in Washington, he should have been defeated badly. After all, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid argue that Congress' low ratings are due to dissatisfaction with President Bush's war, and the American people are with them on the issues. Pelosi and Reid say that when people come out to vote, they'll vote with the Democrats -- whom they allegedly agree with on the issues.

That's not what happened today in the bluest state in the union. Why would anyone expect it to happen next November? Today's outcome shows that Congress' low approval ratings aren't just collateral damage from those of President Bush; Reid & Pelosi own those terrible ratings. Even in Masschusetts, the voters are telling them they're doing a terrible job. Are they likely to be more forgiving in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, New Mexico, or any of a host of other states with targeted races?

Judging by today's results, voters are likely to turn out ineffective incumbents in both parties to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the inability of Congress to move forward on health care reform, tax reform, national security priorities, and other matters. And it is the Democrats who will be fielding far more incumbents in GOP-leaning districts.

They'd better study this race.

Update: We can only hope that Rahm Emanuel is as nonplussed about this as Oliver Willis. Our job gets much easier if Democrats don't notice that something went seriously awry.

What Does Speaker Pelosi Have Against the First Amendment?

Read it at the Standard.

Nancy Pelosi: 'Brilliant Political Tactician'

The Hill features a disarming little profile of George Miller (D-CA), and it made me laugh. I had to share it:

“George Miller brings to the Congress enormous intellect, commitment and compassion,” Pelosi said. “He is a stalwart champion for the environment, for the working men and women of our country, and for our children.”

Both are considered brilliant political tacticians...

When Pelosi forcefully backed Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for majority leader, Miller spent that damp and chilly Sunday after the Nov. 6 election drumming up support for Murtha from the new Democratic lawmakers at the Capitol Hilton Hotel on New Jersey Avenue.

Throwing her organizational support to Murtha proved to be a gross miscalculation; now-Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) trounced Murtha. Ever the pragmatist, Miller congratulated Hoyer in front of the entire caucus and suggested meeting later to discuss the future and how they would operate in the majority. A cordial and productive meeting eventually took place, Democratic leadership aides said.

Yes. Ms Pelosi is certainly a brilliant political tactician. She appointed Rahm Emanuel chair of the DCCC -- an extremely wise move. She insisted that House Democrats have no agenda beyond '6 in 06,' so that Republicans would have nothing to criticize (but Democrats would have no mandate). She played a game of brinkmanship with the President over Iraq, that seems to be leading to primaries against a number of House Democrats.

And her hand-picked choice for Majority Leader got thrown back in her face by the Democratic conference. She's definitely brilliant. You know, like Forrest Gump.

Pushing Impeachment, Again

Good news for all the Republicans who fear that the Democratic party is in the ascendancy, Democrats will gain seats in Congress next year, and elect a President: the party is dying.

That's right, according to a contributor at the Daily Kos, the party is withering away -- all because they refuse to impeach the President:

[Pelosi's] position on impeachment is killing the Democratic Party too, by driving away not just progressived members of the party, but independents who voted for Democrats last November expecting some action in defense of the Constitution.

I see this anger welling up among progressives and independents everywhere I travel, as people say they've simply had it with the Democrats. The support of the party for a bill continuing funding for the war through September was terrible. The Democrats' rush to pass a bill granting Bush the authority to spy without a warrant on Americans, and to expand the power to spy domestically well beyond phones and internet to even include break-ins was a last straw.

Does anyone recall the exit polling for the 2006 election showing what percentage of independents voted to send a message for impeachment? CNN's exit poll showed Iraq, corruption, terrorism, and the economy. In the minds of the Left, this all conflated into a message in support of impeachment.

And since Congressional leaders have no interest in impeachment, some are pushing for Democrats to quit the party in protest:

My own little call for people so sign an "I Quit This Party" petition has seen a jump from 300 to now 400 signers. (Sign up on the column to the right.) When it gets to 500 I'll be sending the list off to Pelosi, as well as to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean.

Four or five hundred party defectors may seem like small loss, but it reflects a larger trend across the country.

The author offers a 'stick' to induce Speaker Pelosi to come along:

Either Pelosi--who is facing an election challenge by Cindy Sheehan in her own San Francisco district--better do an about face and open the path to impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. Otherwise, she and her fellow party leaders are going to find themselves either ousted in primaries, or back in the position of minority "leaders" in 2009.

How many impeachment crusaders will be prepared to travel to San Francisco and help Mother Sheehan challenge Pelosi? Republicans can only hope that there are enough become a burr in the leadership's side all the way to the 2008 election, complicating efforts to enact an agenda that the American people support and distracting them from fundraising and candidate recruitment.

Cindy Sheehan Has a Lot of Ground to Make Up

Cindy Sheehan has declared her candidacy in opposition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but according to early polling, she's not exactly the favorite:

In an election for the U.S. House of Representatives, with Nancy Pelosi running as a Democrat, and Cindy Sheehan running as an independent, which describes you?

I would vote for Pelosi, no matter who the Republican is 66%

I would vote for Sheehan no matter who the Republican is 9%

I would need to know who the Republican is... 21%

Not sure 4%

I see the glass half-full: after electing Ms. Pelosi for so many years, who would have thought the voters of the 8th district had the sense to reject Ms. Sheehan?

What Effect Will Sheehan Have on Pelosi

Congressional Quarterly suggests that Cindy Sheehan's run against Pelosi will only help her nationally. The logic says that subjecting her to a challenge from the Left will make her appear more mainstream:

Yet some political analysts speculate that Sheehan’s candidacy actually could benefit Pelosi and her Democratic Party. While Sheehan is widely deemed as unlikely to pose a serious threat to defeat Pelosi, her arguments that Pelosi’s views are not liberal enough could provide a counterpoint to the contention often voiced by Republicans that the House Democratic leader is too liberal.

Pelosi has represented a liberal Bay Area constituency since winning a June 1987 special election and will seek an 11th full term next year. Republicans cast her as the embodiment of the “West Coast liberal” — and much as they did in the 2006 elections, GOP candidates are already invoking Pelosi’s name in their 2008 campaigns, warning their party base of what they contend is her determination to shift Congress far to the left.

But it is from the left that Sheehan is attacking Pelosi, which in turn might allow Democrats to cast the Speaker as more mainstream than she appears in Republican caricatures.

That's certainly a possibility, but I don't think there are many voters nationwide who pay that much attention. And of course, if Sheehan actually gets any traction -- something to be hoped for -- Ms. Pelosi will have to either forcefully argue that the pacifist apologist for Saddam and the Taliban is wrong, or she will have to echo Ms. Sheehan to appeal to her base. Either outcome would be welcome by Republicans.

Cindy Sheehan Announces Congressional Run (with videos)

Of course, she's far from the first walking, talking embarrassment to seek elective office. Here is a CNN story on her announcement, including an interview with Ms. Sheehan.



Here's a local story, including a video of her speech (a 'must-see,' if you take this even the least bit seriously). Between the two videos, here are some of the things you'll hear:

• She's running because Ms. Pelosi 'has lost touch' with most of the people of the 8th district and America as a whole.
  

Of course, Speaker Pelosi's Congressional district is nothing like America as a whole. It is one of the most liberal areas in the country. It would be nearly impossible simultaneously to lose touch with both the 8th district and America.

• Many of our young people join the military in order to receive 'college credit;' it's the reason her son joined.
  

I may need to review the benefits of military service. What do soldiers do that earns them college credit? Is marksmanship now a course at some universities?

On a more serious note, while Ms. Sheehan says that her son joined the military for 'college credit,' she does not address the question of why he renewed his enlistment. Perhaps the answer is in her statement that he 'always did what he believed in.' That would put her late son in the company of thousands of brave men and women doing what they believe in now, in Iraq.

• She is dedicating her run to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, who have been 'tragically harmed' by the Bush 'regime.' She's also dedicating it to her unborn children and grandchildren, who would live in peace and prosperity.
  

It's ironic that she dedicates this effort to some whom she wishes to live in peace and prosperity, and others whom she wishes could still live under murderous, genocidal, sadistic, repressive, rapacious dictatorships. If she truly thinks the people or Iraq and Afghanistan are worse off now than they were under Saddam and the Taliban then she is more out of touch with reality than we previously suspected. I only hope that Ms. Pelosi is forced to take Ms. Sheehan's challenge seriously, and explain why Saddam and the Taliban were bad. It would be good for Democrats to remember.

• If elected, Sheehan promises to push for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

This will be neat to watch. As CNN points out, she'll have 17 days to get it done. Perhaps if she's lucky, President Bush will declare martial law and rule as a dictator. That might give her the time she needs, as long as Bush doesn't execute all Members of Congress.

I'm surprised she doesn't mention that as a possibility; she probably believes it.

Note: The Associated Press covers the story here.

Update: Check out also Sister Toldjah, QandO, and Ed Morrissey.

Pelosi Survives Tough Press

The San Francisco Chronicle isn't some lapdog that's going to cheer Nancy Pelosi no matter what she does. She had to really earn this headline:

Pelosi proud of Dems' work in first 100 days
Speaker given high marks for keeping 233 diverse members of her party in line on tough votes by leading from the center

I don't know that the quotes they provide fully justify the glowing headline:

Outside experts said her boast was only somewhat hyperbolic. Even Republicans conceded that Pelosi, whom they have derided as an out-of-touch San Francisco liberal, has done a good job of keeping the 233 House Democrats together through some tough votes -- although few of their bills have made it through the Senate and onto President Bush's desk.

"Overall, I'd give her high marks," said Julian Zelizer, a scholar of Congress at Boston University. "I think she has surprised the Republicans. And the more she succeeds, the more Democrats will be willing to follow her, and the more she succeeds, she may be able to attract moderate Republicans. Each succes makes her only stronger..."

To UC Berkeley political scientist Bruce Cain, Pelosi's record is mixed.

"The first thing you look for is a leader's ability to lead your caucus," he said. Pointing to her quixotic support for Murtha, he said, "I think she started out shaky there but ended on a strong note."

The second dimension of effective leadership, Cain said, is producing results. "In the end, legislators have to produce things. Her first 100 days started out with promise and ended in stalemate," he said...

Pelosi's Republican House rivals, still trying to adjust to life in the minority after 12 years in charge, give her grudging praise.

Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., who chairs the House Republican Conference, said of Pelosi and her team, "I think they've done a pretty good job of keeping their troops in line."

I would agree with Putnam's assessment - and Dennis Hastert did as well, when I asked him yesterday. But the job will get tougher.