What Dreams May Come

Despite the [Ro]villains equation of a vote for Democrats to a vote for al Qaeda, it seems there is a very real possibility that Republicans may lose their majority in the House and perhaps even the Senate. But what would the Dems do with such power?

I read two interesting pieces this week that explore that very question. Both Newsweek and TNR agree that despite "the party's frothing liberal base", Democrats would not use majority power and committee chairmanship to "turn the Capitol into a courthouse" with Republicans standing trial. Why not, you ask? Two words: Newt Gingrich.

In 1994, after capturing a congressional majority for the first time in decades, Speaker Gingrich embarked on a comprehensive agenda that would prove to be a constant thorn in Democrats' (and specifically, President Clinton's) side. How did that turn out again?

Republicans throughout Congress pushed anti-Clinton charges flimsy enough to embarrass a Soviet-bloc secret police agent. In the Senate, Al D'Amato conducted dozens of Whitewater hearings that flopped badly and contributed to his 1998 defeat by Chuck Schumer.

Most memorable, however, was the famously unhinged chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Indiana Republican Dan Burton. During his tenure, Burton issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to 141 different Clintonites. His inquiries included ten days of hearings on whether the White House used its Christmas card list for political purposes. In one case, Burton's investigators managed to subpoena the wrong man. His low point came in 1998, when Burton released misleadingly edited transcripts of secretly recorded phone conversations conducted in prison by former Clinton associate Webb Hubbell. Burton apologized, and his notorious lead investigator, David Bossie, resigned; but, by then, fellow Republicans were furious over the damage Burton had done to his own party. "There were a lot of self-inflicted wounds," one Republican fumed to The Washington Post .

OK, so Newt and friends wrote the "what not to do" playbook, but without the numbers to override executive veto power, what else could a Democratic majority do?

The Dems' likely choice as Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, "is concerned that too many flying subpoenas would make her party appear petty and revenge-hungry, obsessed with blaming Bush". Would-be House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman, 26-term Michigander John Dingell, seems to be on board – promoting an agenda that "targets policies, not people". And the discipline preached by these two senior leaders seems to be sinking in across the caucus.

Several months ago, Michigan Democrat John Conyers, who is set to take over the House Judiciary Committee, was publicly musing about the possibility of Bush's impeachment. But Nancy Pelosi clamped down on such talk, and, for the most part, Conyers seems to have abandoned any such ambitions.

Alright, you're saying. You've hit me over the head with what Democrats won't do. I get it – they learned from Republican mistakes. But enough already...what WILL they do?

Fair enough. How about this:

Pelosi's true focus for the next two years will be to position the Democrats for the 2008 presidential race.

The idea is to bring popular bills that the GOP has opposed to the floor of the House—a minimum-wage hike, prescription-drug reform—and dare Republicans to vote against them. It's part of a larger package the Dems are billing as Six for '06, their version of the "Contract with America," which the GOP used to win in '94. Democrats plan to enact the 9/11 Commission recommendations and screen all containers at U.S. ports, put more money into counter-terror operations and increase benefits for veterans. At home, they say they'll vote for tax deductions for college tuition and cut student-loan rates while raising taxes on big oil companies and corporations that move overseas. They say they'll also put a popular stem-cell-research bill up for a vote.

Now then, that all seems reasonable and (dare I go there?) fair and balanced. And yet The Interloper insists that a "wild Democratic majority" would be a "ghastly thing" for the country.

But that's the answer right there, isn't it? The truth is that wild Republican legislative and executive control have produced countless "ghastly things" already – "ghastly things" that will (pretty, pretty please) force the long overdue end of the 1994's conservative revolution. If Dubya's interpretation of "ghastly" means common sense solutions to domestic issues and original thought put to resolving international clusterfucks, sign me up…and keep your fingers crossed.