Should Dems promise investigations in campaigns?

[hgc]

I lot of hay is being made lately by Republican pols and pundits that if the Dems take control of the House in mid-term elections, we'll be faced with endless investigations of BushCo (as if that's a bad thing).

I wonder about this tactic though. What are they up to? Do they really think that this is effective for them politically, bringing up the spectre of investigations? It could cut both ways.

On the one hand, they are trying to energize their base with a motivation to come out to vote for the home team, so as to keep Bush from facing tough Congressional opposition to what they claim to be vital programs for national security (NSA warrantless eaves-dropping on Americans).

On the other hand they risk bringing the less reliably Republican-voting public's attention to the fact that there's a hell of a lot that needs looking into.

And there's third hand here. Are they trying to intimidate Dems from touting promises of real Congressional oversight if they take control, by planting the meme in Dem minds that it's a bad campaign tactic for them? I suspect this is the case, and say that Dems should shout from the rooftops in their campaigns that they'll hold Bush and friends' (especially Cheney's) feet to the fire if they get control of the House (and/or Senate!). The most important thing they have to remember is that with Bush at 31% in the polls, they have the upper hand in this matter. Republicans are trying to psych them out, manipulate them into submission, and it has certainly worked in the past.

Put another way, if the Republicans are publicly advising Democrats (indirectly) what's a bad campaign tactic for them, then assume that they actually think the opposite is true. Oh, and they should think for themselves for a change anyway.

[BPSCG]

I lot of hay is being made lately by Republican pols and pundits that if the Dems take control of the House in mid-term elections, we'll be faced with endless investigations of BushCo (as if that's a bad thing).(emphasis mine) When did Nancy Pelosi (http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-Democrats-pledge-to-investigate-Bush/2006/05/08/1146940436951.html) become a "Republican pol?"
US Democrats will launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration if they take control of Congress in November, but are not out to impeach President George W Bush, a top Democrat says.

House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will hold hearings on the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war and investigate the high price of energy and prescription drugs if they win the extra 15 seats they need for a House majority in the mid-term elections.


I wonder about this tactic though. What are they up to? Do they really think that this is effective for them politically, bringing up the spectre of investigations? It could cut both ways. I agree, surprisingly. Obviously not with your claim that this is a Republican ploy (unless Pelosi is a mole), but that it could backfire. Voters see tons of problems that congress can and should deal with, and instead get promises that "we're gonna investigate the hell out of the other guy." This from the same party that complained about all the money being wasted on Ken Starr's investigation. I could see a lot of people - on both sides - saying, "screw you guys, I'm staying home."

so as to keep Bush from facing tough Congressional opposition to what they claim to be vital programs for national security (NSA warrantless eaves-dropping on Americans foreign terrorists in foreign countries having phone conversations with Americans).Corrected for accuracy.

[Luke T.]

I see a parallel between the House banking scandal, followed shortly after by the House post office scandal, which resulted in four Democrats going to jail and dozens of other Democrats tossed out of office on their asses in 1994 and the current Abramoff lobbying scandal.

I have no doubt that if the Democrats take control of the House this election, there will be interminable investigations, hearings, etc. to keep the pot boiling for 2008.

[hgc]

(emphasis mine) When did Nancy Pelosi (http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-Democrats-pledge-to-investigate-Bush/2006/05/08/1146940436951.html) become a "Republican pol?"
Pelosi was saying that they wouldn't move to impeach, not that they wouldn't investigate. But you are on to something. Pelosi is acting as a Republican tool, unwittingly, not as a Republican pol. This goes to the heart of what my OP is all about. She's running scared from hard-knuckled politics -- the kind that got the GOP into power in the first place.

I agree, surprisingly. Obviously not with your claim that this is a Republican ploy (unless Pelosi is a mole), but that it could backfire. Voters see tons of problems that congress can and should deal with, and instead get promises that "we're gonna investigate the hell out of the other guy." This from the same party that complained about all the money being wasted on Ken Starr's investigation. I could see a lot of people - on both sides - saying, "screw you guys, I'm staying home."You are obviously agreeing with and touting the standard Republican line. On balance, I think it works better for Dems in this environment to promise investigations, given the unfavorable climate for Republicans (Bush AND Congress) as reflected in opinion polls. They should kick them while they're down. It's their best opportunity to do it.

Corrected for accuracy.Of course your "correction" is preposterous. Good luck selling that to your dumbed-down-a-few-IQ-points fellow travelers.

[BPSCG]

On balance, I think it works better for Dems in this environment to promise investigations, given the unfavorable climate for Republicans (Bush AND Congress) as reflected in opinion polls. They should kick them while they're down. It's their best opportunity to do it.Absolutely. They should take their best shot. But I think their best shot would be to say what they would do differently and better. They haven't even hinted at that. Assuming they don't have any better ideas, I suppose promising to investigate the hell out of the administration is as good a strategy as any.

There are lots of pundits comparing today to 1994, when the Republicans captured the House. But in 1994, the Republicans came up with a nationwide agenda, the Contract With America, promising what they intended to do when they took control. The Dems blasted it, of course, but nobody today argues that it was an ineffective strategy. So why don't the Dems do the same today? Lay out, point by point, what they intend to do when they recapture the House? So far, all we have is:

investigate the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war;
investigate the high price of energy;
investigate the high price of prescription drugs.Do you really think this is a strategy that will capture the House? And much more importantly, do you think this is a strategy for leading the country?

Of course your "correction" is preposterous. Of course. How?

[MWare]

As long as there are serious investigations into Major League Baseball, I'm confident that our Congress is fulfilling their duties as outlined by the Constitution.

[hgc]

Absolutely. They should take their best shot. But I think their best shot would be to say what they would do differently and better. They haven't even hinted at that. Assuming they don't have any better ideas, I suppose promising to investigate the hell out of the administration is as good a strategy as any.

There are lots of pundits comparing today to 1994, when the Republicans captured the House. But in 1994, the Republicans came up with a nationwide agenda, the Contract With America, promising what they intended to do when they took control. The Dems blasted it, of course, but nobody today argues that it was an ineffective strategy. So why don't the Dems do the same today? Lay out, point by point, what they intend to do when they recapture the House? So far, all we have is:
investigate the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war;
investigate the high price of energy;
investigate the high price of prescription drugs.Do you really think this is a strategy that will capture the House? And much more importantly, do you think this is a strategy for leading the country?The Contract with America was issued just 6 weeks before the 1994 elections. The timing was probably part of its effectiveness. It was still very fresh on election day. I do hope that they come forward with something positive. But I think they get a lot of milage from the negative too.

But I disagree that CwA was on top of most voters' minds in 1994. It was actually little known in the general populace until after the election. What was well known was the general sense of Democratic misconduct and cronyism in the Congress: Jim Wright's book deal that got him booted (Newt's initial triumph), the House Banking scandal, Rostenkowski's criminal problems, and so on. That's what got Newt and crew in the driver's seat.

Of course. How?Please forgive me if for not going down this road in this thread. Time is short. You can refer to numerous previous threads on the topic.

[gnome]

Voters see tons of problems that congress can and should deal with, and instead get promises that "we're gonna investigate the hell out of the other guy."

I think BPSCG's got an excellent point here. I would rather see a challenge to the current administration promise change, rather than revenge. Put out the fire, don't just beat up the guy that you think started it.

[hgc]

I think BPSCG's got an excellent point here. I would rather see a challenge to the current administration promise change, rather than revenge. Put out the fire, don't just beat up the guy that you think started it.Somewhere in there is convergence.

[Upchurch]

Somewhere in there is convergence.
Is it where you start putting out the fire by making the guy with gasoline can stop pouring?

[headscratcher4]

A couple of thoughts.

Investigations are critical. It is what Congress does and should do. It is what Congress has not been doing. of course, all investigations have a political element. The problem is that Dems., indeed any party, face is that they walk a fine line between acting overtly political (likely to turn-off voters) vs. legitimate oversight undertaken with a certain though acceptable political zeal.

For example, impeachment calls are just plain stupid. It would be a waste of time, lead no-where and likely conclude just about in time for the 2008 election.

However, investigations that examine, say, the high price of enerty and that include some discussion of the Bush lack-of energy policy and Cheney meeting with energy leaders could serve a purpose in trying to figure out new energy policies as well as what has gone wrong.

Investiagtions into the misuse of intelligence seem to me to be perfectly legitimate if the ulltimate goal is to promote better oversight of intelligence agencies.

Investigations into the President's signing-statements on law and whether the President can, Constititionally, determine when, how and if the law applies -- i.e. the unitary executive theory -- could serve a valuable public purpose and be an important debate about how this country operates, etc.


In the end, there are at more than two years left on the Bush Administration, investigating its policies and overseeing its management of the Government is not only important and good, it is essential...and --given the last 5 plus years -- novel.

Now, if that is all that is done, if there is no affirmative legislative innitatives, no clear, new direction for the country, etc. than it will all be a huge failure.

The polls show people think the country is going in the wrong direction. Investigations that detail how that has happened are useful, but that is no substitute for a direction and the voters will catch on.

[jj]

I have no doubt that if the Democrats take control of the House this election, there will be interminable investigations, hearings, etc. to keep the pot boiling for 2008.

So, it's bad to find out who's rotten and expose that, then, is it?

What about the attempted usurping the lawfully elected president Bill Clinton via color of law?

How about the one where the war hero was slimed all over by the guy who never went to war?

[Lurker]

How about the one where the war hero was slimed all over by the guy who never went to war?

Questioning military honors with specious evidence 30 years after the events in question was one of the lowest moments in campaign history IMO.

Lurker

[hgc]

Is it where you start putting out the fire by making the guy with gasoline can stop pouring?A very apt metaphor for my thinking.

[SlippyToad]

I think BPSCG's got an excellent point here. I would rather see a challenge to the current administration promise change, rather than revenge. Put out the fire, don't just beat up the guy that you think started it.The point of an investigation is to show that the system punishes those who deliberately abuse it. "Justice" is when you investigate someone for lying about a war. "Revenge" is when you investigate someone for lying about fellatio.

[Regnad Kcin]

The point of an investigation is to show that the system punishes those who deliberately abuse it. "Justice" is when you investigate someone for lying about a war. "Revenge" is when you investigate someone for lying about fellatio.Well put.

[peptoabysmal]

I think voters are already tired of the Dems crying wolf. They have been investigating everything they can think of since the Iraq war began and have turned up very little that damages the core of the current administration. I think the Dems comes across to voters as being less concerned about the welfare of the country than they are about getting their power back.

It would have had more impact if they had waited until about now to start the accusations, instead of wearing it out too soon. The main things affecting the polls right now are gas prices (which is always a temporal effect) and there is a certain group of conservatives who are upset about illegal immigration. I don't think the current polls are going to factor in as much as some would like. When it comes to a vote, the Dems might well take the majority, but I predict it will be a close race. I think it would serve Republicans right if they do, because the Repubs haven't acted lately like they have a clue what to do with the power they have.

[jj]

I think voters are already tired of the Dems crying wolf. They have been investigating everything they can think of since the Iraq war began and have turned up very little that damages the core of the current administration. I think the Dems comes across to voters as being less concerned about the welfare of the country than they are about getting their power back.

It would have had more impact if they had waited until about now to start the accusations, instead of wearing it out too soon. The main things affecting the polls right now are gas prices (which is always a temporal effect) and there is a certain group of conservatives who are upset about illegal immigration. I don't think the current polls are going to factor in as much as some would like. When it comes to a vote, the Dems might well take the majority, but I predict it will be a close race. I think it would serve Republicans right if they do, because the Repubs haven't acted lately like they have a clue what to do with the power they have.

Yep, here we go, the election is coming up, and the right-wing apologists are crawling out of the woodwork again.

The sheer dishonesty, the arrogant, puerile "might makes right" attitude of referring to evidence of lawbreaking as "crying wolf", lays bare the real purpose of the post.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear somebody with this attitude tell a group of people "get over it, we won", when referring to seizing the group's lands by force.

[BPSCG]

"Revenge" is when you investigate someone for lying about fellatio....and "perjury" is when you lie under oath about fellatio.

[Upchurch]

...and "perjury" is when you lie under oath about fellatio.
Yep, a more honest man would never promise to tell the truth.

[Cylinder]

Yep, here we go, the election is coming up, and the right-wing apologists are crawling out of the woodwork again.

I, too, am appalled at the audacity of people expressing political opinions on a public political message board.

Wow. BDS. Such an ugly disease.

[Tricky]

I think voters are already tired of the Dems crying wolf. They have been investigating everything they can think of since the Iraq war began and have turned up very little that damages the core of the current administration.
Well, you have to admit that they haven't exactly been crying wolf. There really have been a lot of ethical and legal lapses in the years of total Republican control. Heck, it took years of hounding and evidence producing to get Tom DeLay out of office. Their problem is not that there isn't plenty of corruption to root out, it is that not many people seem to care.

But I also feel that constant pressure is needed for political reasons too. The American people are a very ponderous lot and they change only very slowly. You simply are not going to change people's minds overnight.

I think the Dems comes across to voters as being less concerned about the welfare of the country than they are about getting their power back.Perhaps they do, but I would submit that this trait is common to the party out of power. I think I can give you a few examples. Nevertheless, it is sad but true that smear tactics are used because they work. I think I can give you a few examples of that too. The name "Willie Horton" pops to mind.

It would have had more impact if they had waited until about now to start the accusations, instead of wearing it out too soon.
You have got to be kidding. Wait until the last minute and you get accused of wagging the dog. As I say, political positions change only very slowly. The "Culture of Corruption" slogan has had enough time to worm its way into the American mindset so each little episode merely enforces that mindset. Dems are wise to keep the pressure on. With enough of it, they don't even need real issues, sort of like Bush's platform of "returning dignity" in the 2000 election, which was just terribly unfair because Gore didn't even get a BJ out of it.

The main things affecting the polls right now are gas prices (which is always a temporal effect) and there is a certain group of conservatives who are upset about illegal immigration. I don't think the current polls are going to factor in as much as some would like.

There is a bit of self-fulfilling enforcement that the polls provide. Not everybody in the US pays attention to the issues, so if they see the bandwagon going against Bush, they hop on. But it is true that sensationalism can change things quickly. Kerry had a significant lead over Bush until the "Swift Boat Veterans" issue.

When it comes to a vote, the Dems might well take the majority, but I predict it will be a close race. I think it would serve Republicans right if they do, because the Repubs haven't acted lately like they have a clue what to do with the power they have.
In this case, its not just Dems and Repubs, its Washington. Because of the way Congress has kept giving itself pay raises, avoiding real ethics legislation, exempting itself from the rules it makes for others etc., most people have a less favorable view of politicians in general than they do of any specific party. Dems did similar things when they were in power. They were just as corrupt although, IMO, not as damaging to the country.

[hgc]

I think voters are already tired of the Dems crying wolf.
...I can believe you're tired of it. What makes you think the voters are tired of it?

[Ziggurat]

Put another way, if the Republicans are publicly advising Democrats (indirectly) what's a bad campaign tactic for them, then assume that they actually think the opposite is true. Oh, and they should think for themselves for a change anyway.

I don't see why. The democratic party is so shrill, incoherent and reflexively anti-Bush that the republicans could tell them exactly how to win a complete shutout, and the dems still wouldn't do it. It seems to me rather that they'll avoid Republican advice, even good advice, just to try to prove a point that the Republicans are wrong even about how to win elections. So there's absolutely no danger for Republicans in giving good advice to their democratic opponents.

Oh, and it is good advice to not run on a platform of investigating everything Bush has done. The democrats need to campaign on what they're for, not simply what they're against. Talking about investigations signals that the latter is the priority, not the former. Only the fringe thinks Bush has been nefarious (rather than incompetent, etc.), and short of nefariousness, investigations aren't widely seen as accomplishing a whole lot.

[Nova Land]

[The Democrats] have been investigating everything they can think of since the Iraq war began and have turned up very little...
The lack of subpoena power probably plays a big part in that.

In the early days of Watergate there were many Nixon apologists who pooh-poohed the whole matter in the same ways Bush apologists are doing today. It was only because there were those in Congress who had the power to compel people to come forward and testify that the investigations were able to get far enough to turn up the kind of evidence which brought Republicans as well as Democrats to see that Nixon and his administration had committed serious offenses. If partisan Republicans had controlled both House and Senate as well as the White House, it is likely the Watergate investigation would have been as stymied as current investigations are.

I used the phrase "partisan Republicans" deliberately. In the 1960s and early 1970s there were still many Republican politicians who put the good of the country above the good of the party. (The party was also more diverse -- the phrase "liberal Republican" was not an oxymoron, although by the '70s it was increasingly becoming one.) Thus, once it was clear that there were serious charges being made, there were many honest Republicans in the House and Senate who were willing and able to pursue the matter side by side with Democrats.

In contrast, there are relatively few non-partisan Republican politicians today. The number of politicians -- in either party -- who are willing to speak out honestly, rather than repeating their party's talking points, is depressingly small. The reason I am focusing on Republicans in this post is that, since they control the House and the Senate, they actually have positions of power which can be used or abused. So far they have routinely chosen, in the exercise of that power, to put party above principle. (Since Democrats are largely lacking in power, it is hard to know whether they would misuse power in the same way or not; they likely would, and when Democrats again have positions of power to abuse I will be happy to criticize them in the same way I am criticiaing republicans now if they behave in the same way as Republicans are behaving now.)

The solution which I would prefer for this problem is to see emphasis placed on electing people who are concerned with getting at the truth regardless of which party is helped or hurt by it. That's one reason I am heartened by the possible emergence of a skeptical movement -- since I see such a concern for truth as a core value underlying skepticism, and something which, if actually practiced by such a movement, could eventually come to be more accepted and more practiced in the wider world.

But that is a long-term goal. The emergence of significant numbers of politicians who value truth more than power is not likely to occur any time soon.

Given the unlikeliness of the election of large numbers of politicians willing to put principle above party any time soon, an adversarial system with two powerful parties seems a better option than an adversarial system with one side holding too much power and one side holding too little.

When power is unbalanced, it makes it harder for politicians to do the right thing. When there is a balance of power, then politicians who refuse to toe the party line can tip the balance and make a difference -- and, if the action that results is approved by the public, their stock with the public goes up. When there is not a balance, then defying their party becomes a largely quixotic gesture -- they incur the wrath of their party's controllers without actually accomplishing anything. This makes them reluctant to buck their party establishment on anything that matters, and to keep their demonstrations of independence confined largely to speeches. Arlen Specter is currently a good example of this.

That makes the Democrats' promise to conduct investigations if they are given some measure of power in the November elections a good argument for Democrats to make in their appeal for support, and a good reason for rational people to consider supporting them. They are arguing that, if given power, they will use that power to act as a check on the Republicans. That's something this country has badly needed and sorely missed in the past 5 years.

If the Democrats are correct that this is something the nation wants, then this is a good way to motivate voters to come out vote Democratic. It is very appealing to the Democratic base while also holding appeal for independent voters who would like balance restored and for Republicans who are sick of their party's excesses.

[Nova Land]

Only the fringe thinks Bush has been nefarious (rather than incompetent, etc.), and short of nefariousness, investigations aren't widely seen as accomplishing a whole lot.
I think you are selling the public short when you indicate they see value only in investigations into nefariousness. While investigations into nefariousness may make for better entertainment, investigations into incompetence are often more productive since they let us see what was done wrong and find ways to do better.

In comic books, when bad things happen there is generally someone nefarious behind it. In the real world, however, mundane reasons such as incompetence are much more often to blame. I enjoy comic books a lot, but I certainly would not want government to be run as if we lived in a comic book world -- and I would like to think I am not in a minority on that.

Do you have any evidence to support your belief that the public only values investigations into nefariousness? If you are right, then that is one more thing we need to work on changing if we hope to create a more rational society.

[Nova Land]

I lot of hay is being made lately by Republican pols and pundits that if the Dems take control of the House in mid-term elections, we'll be faced with endless investigations of BushCo (as if that's a bad thing).

I wonder about this tactic though. What are they up to? Do they really think that this is effective for them politically, bringing up the spectre of investigations?
Ward Sutton had a good cartoon about this (Republican tactics and their real reasons) a while back. I'm often not sure when I read his cartoons if I agree or disagree, but I admire his wit and his bite.

"Republicans Put on Their Poker Faces" (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0613,sutton,72651,9.html), Sutton Impact for March 24th 2006.

[hgc]

Ward Sutton had a good cartoon about this (Republican tactics and their real reasons) a while back. I'm often not sure when I read his cartoons if I agree or disagree, but I admire his wit and his bite.

"Republicans Put on Their Poker Faces" (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0613,sutton,72651,9.html), Sutton Impact for March 24th 2006.That's good stuff. It captures precisely what I was talking about in the OP.

[headscratcher4]

Ok: given their absolute conviction that the President et.al. have acted not only legally, but ethically and with integrity, the Republicans should welcome complete investigation of this Administration from a Democratic controlled Congress. I. it will mean that a future Democratic controlled congress will accomplish even less than this GOP controlled Congress. II. the public will quickly get angry and frustrated at the Democrats for wasting time, money, etc. when there are so many other pressing issues. III. It affords the GOP and the Administration to get on the high horse, look the Congress in the eye and say: these are the cricumstances, we did the best we could, we were very successful in the process and we did it all to protect and defend the American people and you are undermining that defense.

The logic is much like the GOP assumptions about Americans and eaves droppoing. The Administration believes, and possibly correctly, that American's will put up with undermining their Constitutional liberties embodied in the 4th Amendment, for the sake of protection. The first insta polls, for example, showing approval for NSA data gathering/minning. THe Administration, that of course doesn't watch polls, has in many ways relied on these kinds of polls to dare opponenets to make a big deal of the NSA's activities. Essentially saying: "We're protecting the country, you question it, you undermine that protection and will cost lives..."

That should be their strategy here: go ahead, investiagate to your little mind's content. We're trying to protect America and American's, you're trying to undermine that protection. However, we've got nothing to hide, so do your worst IF you can win...

But of course, what if there's something to hide?