Leadership Needs To Lead, or We'll Find New Leaders

Supposedly the new leadership is leading. Leaders do something simple: They put their words into effect.

* * *

What's Pelosi and the DNC-poodle crowd saying? "Bipartisanship." You'd think that someone who was parroting a slogan would put that into effect. Not this crew.

Pelosi is under the assumption that she has to choose between two people for the intelligence committee. Put aside what the right answer is, simply focus on the issue of "bipartisanship."

___ If the DNC membership was "bipartisan" wouldn't it have credibility if it could demonstrate that principle within its own party -- getting along?

A slogan only has meaning if it can be demonstrated where it is easy.

___ If the DNC leadership was serious about "new standards" wouldn't it apply that standard, not make excuses to ignore them?

Standards must be met; unfulfilled expectations, especially when people know they have alternatives, is not impressive.

___ If the DNC leadership was serious about recognizing leadership, wouldn't it make sense to put into positions of leadership those who have a track record of results, a proven record, and those who show an ability to solve problems?

Of course. Refusing to make a decision on leadership means the Members of Congress have no one in their ranks capable of leading. This is not news.

* * *

Forget the two core problems:

1. Pelosi and Harman don't get along -- bipartisanship, if it were real, would require the Speaker and others to "get along," not make excuses to have catfights.

2. The proposed alternative has an ethics-impeachment issue. Although not convicted, this is hardly something worth ignoring.

It doesn't matter what Pelosi does or doesn't do. The longer the DNC principle of "bipartisanship" and "cleaning" are at odds with action, the more Madame Speakers authority evaporates.

* * *

Options

(1) Put Bipartisanship into effect

Pelosi and Harman, if they are going to lead, need to demonstrate they are going to do what they say they're going to do: Work in a bipartisan manner, even if that "agreement to play nice" doesn't cross political boundaries. put aside your differences, as you would expect the GOP-DNC members to do in the spirit of "bipartisanship," and agree to disagree, but move forward.

Consider the benefit of having someone on your leadership staff who you disagree with: She may keep you out of trouble when you need to hear something important, novel, and controversial.

(2) Make excuses to ignore ethics issues

If the only alternative has ethics issues, the Speaker cannot credibly say she's cleaning house. She's leaving some rooms of the house untouched. What other rooms aren't going to get attention? If you want to have as one of your Committee Chairman someone who has an ethics issue, however trivial, how else are you going to move the line to incorporate those you should exclude?

(3) Find someone else

The alternative is to give the Chairmanship to someone in the GOP, and make the DNC wake up: The GOP will be trusted with power so long as they do their job. If the Republicans screw up, it's going to go to the next ranking member of the GOP.

If you're not willing to take a chance -- and risk the possibility you may have to change Chairmanships -- why should anyone believe you'll go after specific Executive Branch personnel who may suffer a slightly more serious issue: War crimes, prisoner abuse, or Constitutional violations.

* * *

The words in the Constitution are meaningless unless you’re willing to put your personal animosities aside and assert the rule of law with an example, not a double standard and lip service.

Do what you say; don’t talk about it, but do the opposite. It only inspires more contempt for the American government. We the People can easily craft a new system which will remove the Speaker’s discretion to be incompetent; she may lawfully be targeted for removal, impeachment, and prosecution for having not put her oath of office into effect with actions.

If Madame Speaker is not serious about cleaning up and showing bipartisanship, you might as well offer the Chairmanship to your political foe. Why not have a disagreement over something important, not an issue that shows you're not serious about putting into effect the principles you say you're for: Competence, ethics, leadership, bipartisanship.

If the DNC members will not do their job or work with the leadership to assert the Constitution, then the DNC leadership should be willing to find GOP-Republican members who are willing to take their 5 SUC 3331 oath of office seriously.

* * *

Members of Congress should jointly agree to find a new Speaker, one who will make decisions, not give excuses. The DNC may have the majority, but they do not have a monopoly on malfeasance. A joint GOP-DNC alliance could be created to find a new Speaker, one interested in asserting the rule of law and leading, not waffling on trivial matters.

You're in charge. Lead, no excuses, and stop the delays. Leadership and decisions means cutting off the alternatives.

This is a simple issue. What happens when there are more serious issues related to war crimes, peer misconduct, or the defiance of one of your chairman over their legal obligation to put their loyalty to you second to their loyalty to the Constitution?

Letting this decision slide outside November 2006 is a sign of a leadership problem.