Really: what is your point here? That the Speaker of the House can't force the Senate to take action? That she can't compel the President to sign a bill?

Pelosi did exactly what she said she would do: get bills through the House. You're taking the Republicans' intransigence (in the Senate and the White House) and twisting it into a criticism of Pelosi, which is either spectacularly naïve or deeply disingenuous.

one of the more fatuous posts I have read here or elsewhere...

Seconding what Tom and Dan said above, I'd also point out that Bush never vetoed a single bill until the summer of 2006. So for Pelosi and the media to misunderestimate Bush's likelihood of vetoing something isn't that much of a stretch. It seems just as unrealistic for you to give credit to Bush for vetoing bills that haven't crossed his desk yet as it is to give credit to Congress for passing bills that haven't been signed yet.

It takes more courage, and expends actual political capital, for a President to actually veto a bill than it does for a President to threaten a veto.

Don't really intend to keep beating a dead horse here, but this post begs for some kind of further explanation. I have enjoyed many of Professor Etzioni's posts on this site but this one just doesn't hold any water at all. I keep reading and re-reading it thinking I've missed some larger point he's trying to make but it just seems like there isn't any there, there.

What's up Professor? How about an update with some clarification on just what in the heck you are trying to say here. Because I just don't get it.

if we are to have a workable government, the parties must pursue policies that can gain majority support in both houses and the president's approval.

Ah yes... Don't you get all nostalgic for the days when DeLay, Frist and Bush got along famously, crafting all that awesome legislation about bankruptcy and medicare and war-mongering and habeus corpus suspensions and much more besides?

Ah yes, it's hard not to remember fondly the "workable government" of the last six years. Those were the days, and compared this bull we have to put up with now, don't you just wish the electorate hadn't handed Il Duce his thumpin'...

I agree with the comments and am pleased by how hard the Democrats are working with so slim a majority and so little likelihood the president will obey the law even if there is a law. I sensed even a willingness to respond to the attorneys general scandal by reducing the power of unconfirmed appointment unwisely handed over by in the last years by "patriotic" legislation.

While I wish that we could simply say that the president committed crimes in the lead-up to war or its conduct and its directing of security measures against we the American people, no question Congress and the people were complicit. It wasn't solely the Republican majority then, not by any means, but I like to think that things beyond the Republican base have finally changed. 

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

I think the man is trying to say Ms Speaker et al are just so much ado about absolutely nothing; it looks like two more years of buisness as usual by the corporate Fascists controlling both parties in Capitol. After which time the Democrats will overstate the obvious, get White House and larger majorities in both houses, then flip coins in the cloak rooms to see who votes with the Republicans for more of the policies favoring the corporate Fascist Globalist.

This county is done so just stick a fork in it and be done with it. The government is hopelessly bought off by the corporate elitists by bribery legal and otherwise and the media/press is in a vast majority monopolized and a state organ this Fascist state. The only concession to the majority of the citizenry the Plutocracy makes is an attempt top create a consensus for the policies the state will pursue even if it doesn’t get its consensus for them.

Worse...the people are too cowardly or just plain ignorant to stand up to the pigs raping them...SOOOOO bring on some NASCAR Pick’emup truck racing tom foolery and couch potato chips and football. The modern day beer and circus...oh and lets not forget that American Idol insult to any IQ over 90!

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Thomas Jefferson

Seriously, what a ridiculous post.

The House minority leader promises to pass a specific agenda through the House if she becomes Speaker, she is elected Speaker and follows through on her pledge, and this guy labels that success "Bull"?

How long until the trackbacks from Powerline, RedState, Drudge, Malkin, and the Politico materialize? Or was that the point of this post?

At best, this column is disnigenuous. At worst, it is some kind of hatchet job like one might expect from Bob Novak or the like.

"The Democrats claim that they lived up to their campaign promise and enacted six major bills in their first 100 hours in office."

Who has said this? What I've heard is that the House Democrats passed everything that they promised to pass. They did. This column even admits that. So what's the problem?

The problem appears to be the aurthor's willful incredulity of how the legislative process works. We all *knew* Bush didn't support at least some of these policies. We all *knew* the Democrats don't have some kind of super-majority that could force these bills into law.

There can be no question - the House Democrats did what they said they would do and that's not *bull*. The bull is in this column.

The Professor is right.

It is far more difficult to govern than simply promise to "clean the House."

The audiance applauds the boistrous heckler in the stands throwing tomatoes at the leadership. However, people don't want to actually follow the tomatoe-thrower.

Nancy can throw tomatoes, but can't govern.

I would like to note that over at Kos, where this column was cross-posted in a diary, it has been tagged *Concern Troll*.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/16/105935/489

Over there, Etzioni is taking a lot of flak over his "hit-and-run" history of posting and not taking comments. I wonder if he will respond to any comments here.

Hello, Mr. Etzioni?

only Bush can govern...and that is because he is a god-king.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the hopelessly holed ship of state?

Every so often the dance band’s contrived music overcomes me. I’ll get better then start yearning for a democratic state anon.

I’ll count my beads for a spell…in every day, in every way it’s getting better and better …in every day, in every way it’s getting better and better…

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Thomas Jefferson

Prof Etzioni has posted a very important comment one we should all take the time to consider and elabotate on.

Here are my thoughts after careful considerations.

Pelosi and the Dem House leadership are persuing the most effective strategy possible given who the President is, who the Republicans are and what the American Public wants.

Gentle readers cast your mind back to the 1990s or the 109th Congress. What was the number one political liability the Democrats had? What was the number one hit on them, that stung even more because it was half true? It was the wishy washy label, it was the Dems don't stand for nothing label. Well, were is that label now? It's dead it's buried, it's gone.

Look at the story so far. If you elect us we will do this this and this, and we will fight to get it made into law. Well guess what, they did what they said they would do and they are fighting to make it the law. The Democrats are fighting because it is the right thing to do. And the American public is reponding to this stronger Democratic Party tone.

How on earth does it make sense to compromise yourself before you negotiate with your partizan opponent, if they will not compromise to meet you half way?
The American Public is angry and is looking for change, why counsel that we should be meek and complicated? Who do we expect to win over with that approach?

For the first time in living memory the Democrats are doing politics right and the professor is worried about theoretical governmental efficiency. Here's the deal, the Republican Party is radical and intransigent. They will not respect compromise. Let them deal with the consiquences of an intransigent President. Let the Republican label sink for its stubborn idiocies.

Let the Democrats fight for what is right. When we fight we win. There may come a time when the conservative opposition will repect up front compromise, but right now it is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Does Dr. Etzioni suggest that Democrats falsely promised that Bush will sign all bills that they intend to pass?

Any cites?

Most importantly, where is the problem?

a. False or crafty promise? At the very least, Dems have an alibi.

b. The country would be much better of without passing these bills? Then we should just rejoice that their efficacy will not be tested.

c. The country would be much better of if those bills would actually became laws? Then the obstructionists may pay the political price, not the people who did their part.

d. One seeks truth in advertising? In this day and age? Does Dr. Etzioni suggests that ordinarily we can believe advertising verbatim, and not with a certain allowance for snappy formulation? I must confess that I was disconsolate when I learned that racoons actually are not in the habit of using drive-through hamburger joints.

Professor Etzioni: Our resident "Harold Hill" -- always a megaphone nonpareil for the latest rightwing talking point.

I don't know, professor. We have slim majorities in two houses and the bills passed at least one of them. I'd like to have seen them pass both by now, but there was progress made. We don't have a veto proof majority, though. While I'd like to see them force Bush's veto pen we have to keep in mind that with control of the White House and large minorities in both houses that the Republicans have a lot of obstruction power. Aren't they somewhat to blame?

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Does the "communitarian," Mr Etzioni pay an assistant to periodically place identical posts on three or four different blogspots (his own, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and this one) that he has no intention of reading or replying to? Is this ethical -- or is it spam?