 |
| Only an Act. image source, here |
With the image source being a report on this "for the People" thing; don't bullshit the people, please. It is unbecoming for leadership to do so.
This for show business was passed knowing it would be D.O.A. in the Senate because McConnell had said exactly that, yet the item passed on Dem majority party lines in the House, taking up time that could have been spent on real business, given how the highfalutin thing was only for show. Bustos/DCCC working to discredit it at the same time as an unbelieved cynical token; the tokenism being evidenced by the Bustos/DCCC disdain heaped on the people's chance to get better than bought incumbency via primary challenges of too comfortable incumbents.
The USA Today item (dated March 8, 2019 describing H.R. 1), from which the image was taken, can be read in its entirety, while it states in part:
The House passed a sweeping anti-corruption and government ethics package Friday [March 5, 2019]that would fundamentally reshape how campaigns are run, how elections are conducted and how officeholders conduct themselves.
The measure, known as the For The People Act or H.R. 1' [...] was approved 234-193 along party lines.
"H.R. 1 restores the people's faith that government works for the public interest, the people's interest, not the special interest," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday morning on the steps of the U.S. Capitol surrounded by members of her caucus. It "is fundamental to a democracy that people believe that actions taken here will be in their interest."
The bill has no chance to become law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it's a "terrible bill" that he won't give any floor time.
GOP critics say the measure is an unconstitutional maneuver that would enable voter fraud, saddle taxpayers with unnecessary costs and tilt elections in favor of Democrats.
"This bill is a Democrat push to elect more Democrats and to put more money into the pockets of members of Congress and anyone running for election ... under the guise of campaign finance reform," said Rodney Davis, R-Ill., the top Republican on the Committee on House Administration, which handled the bill.
[links in original] From that point, the USA Today item extols bill provisions; even with it stated up front the thing was going nowhere and hence suggesting it was only for show. Reporting elsewhere critiquing the DCCC decision making is consonant with "only for show," and dissonant with "meant at all seriously."
Why did they bother? Weigh in mind the Pelosi quote:
It "is fundamental to a democracy that people believe that actions taken here will be in their interest."
Given the DCCC mischief, and Pelosi seeming keenly fine with it, one can only conclude the key Pelosi word in that sentence is "believe."
______________UPDATE_____________
There is YouTube reactive analysis about Obama surfacing from retirement wealth and comfort to say, go slow, learn the process. Here and here, each using the same Obama surfacing polimics delivered in Berlin.
Compare one of the new voices, here.
This H.R. 1 post can fit well in the light of Obama days and ways, as they unfolded. Using his sloganeering; selling HOPE and doing business as usual, warts and all, while selling CHANGE worked then, but made us wiser.
HOPE pitched at us with business as usual is exactly what H.R. 1 embodies, Pelosi and all knowing well that it is exactly what the theater was done to achieve. We want the CHANGE part, the reality, not the HOPE.
If the Pelosi and Bustos folks think business as usual with a cherry atop with a flag stuck in it suffices, that's pure bullshit. And the two video critiques of Obama ring true while the House with its H.R. 1 brief opening excursion from business as usual rings wholly and cynically false. Indulging in falsehood serves nobody well. It might be self deluding for the House Democratic caucus, a doubtful possibility, but the people are not deluded. They, instead are sick and tired of bullshit being served them while those wielding wealth get serviced, with gusto.
Why would "go slow," and incrementalism satisfy anybody? If CHANGE is not happening now, it needs to be goosed into happening. As Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."
NOW. CHANGE either is now, or it is not CHANGE, but less, and less is insufficient.
SELLING "HOPE" IN THE ABSENCE OF "CHANGE" IS INSUFFICIENT.