I've posted recently about the idea of using these funds in an effort directed at Pelosi, whose abysmal leadership as Speaker of the House has most directly enabled virtually every Bush abomination, either by absolving and concealing the pre-2006 activities or by affirmative complicity in the current and ongoing crop of impeachable acts. Pelosi, far more than Steny Hoyer or any Blue Dog, is responsible for setting the table for the President's malevolence.

Somebody here brought up a Pelosi quote that I had forgotten about -- apparently she said, back when the 2006 midterm results were fresh, that the new Democratic majority meant that there would be "no more railroading" of bills, or words to that effect. Yet look how she manipulated the presentation of the current FISA bill in the House, where it was sprung on the members the very day it was clandestinely set for a vote with, to boot, a one hour debate limitation. After this brazen manipulation worked in the House, Pelosi then has the gall to feign shock and, when the winds in the Senate begin to blow in the direction of maybe engaging in actual debate before capitulating on FISA, Pelosi actually makes public statements favoring a more open debate in the Senate (having herself prevented it in the House) because "people are mad".

Pelosi is a menace to the Constitution. Her 2006 pronouncement concerning impeachment was disgraceful when uttered, but it is even more reprehensible that she has failed to revisit that pronouncement since then. She apparently can "change her mind" about whether it's OK to railroad bills calling for vitiating the Constitution through the House, but she cannot see her way clear to look at the President's conduct since she gave him a "free pass" and revisit whether blatant acts in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the disclosure and confirmation of flagrant war crimes, just might suggest that maybe somebody ought to take a look at this from the perspective of impeachment?

And how has Pelosi's brilliant and bipartisan strategy worked out for her, the Democratic Party, the United States Congress and the rule of law? Name one positive achievement. One. Yet look at how the Congressional Capitulation Strategy is being used by the executive branch: (1) In the Harriet Miers contempt situation, when Congress went to Federal Court seeking to enforce the subpoena which she ignored on presidential direction, the US Attorney's office shows up and argues that the US courts should not "interfere" because, wait for it, the House has it's own power of "inherent contempt" affording a congressional right to arrest and imprison Miers, and mocks Congress for failing to enforce it's rights; (2) David Addington deigns to appear before a committee of Congress, but flagrantly refuses to answer any material question and mockingly fails to answer whether he thinks particular actions by the executive branch were "legal" for the stated reason that he "is not here to give Congress legal advice, you have your own lawyers"; and, of course (3) it is pathetically obvious that the current FISA bill's telecom immunity provisions are premised directly upon the assumption that the previous executive "orders" to the telecoms were illegal and unconstitutional, but this assumption is allowed to exist (without any immunity provided to the Executive or any purported congressional determination of either legality or exoneration) precisely because everyone believes that the only remedy for that would be impeachment and impeachment just won't happen given the current Congress.

The circumstances created by Pelosi have so pervaded the political culture of Washington that the President simply mocks the Congress. And the Congress -- the Democratic Party dominated Congress -- does nothing. And it is the shameless cowardice and/or complicity of the Speaker of the House that has caused and is allowing this.

Run an ad. Make it clear. This isn't about a Blue Dog. This is about Separation of Powers, a concept central to our Constitution yet one that is dependent upon each of the three "Powers" being willing to stand up for what is theirs -- because if they don't, the others will take it from them. That's something we all should reflect upon on this Fourth of July. Hell, the Speaker of the House could put any number of Blue Dogs very quickly in their place if the Speaker of the House had the guts to do that. But in America in 2008, we face flagrantly, openly dictatorial actions by the Executive Branch and these actions are being met with nothing, NOTHING from the Democratic Opposition except for acquiescence.

Let's ask Nancy Pelosi why she has abandoned her 2006 pledge not to railroad important legislation -- and if the reason is "circumstances appear to have changed", let's challenge her to allow immediate hearings on Kucinich's impeachment resolutions. An ad focusing on FISA before the Senate, which both opints out the new Federal Court decision and it's ramifications, and which also lays the blame for the ridiculous procedural posture of this whole exercise properly at the feet of Ms. Pelosi and her ilk, could have dual effects upon both the Senate and the Democratic Party. I say "could", nothing is ever certain. But a lot of people have donated a truly sizable sum, and the "bullseye" here is protecting the Constitution and the Rule of Law -- which the upcoming FISA vote presents as a case study in civics in this, our constitutional democracy. This is a chance to blend several serious constitutional issues into a single message with an immediate and practical application.

Happy Fourth of July!