There's so much I, and we (as the uninformed American public) have to learn about our government

This will probably be a very uninviting post as I am merely going to paraphrase an article I found to be fascinating and eye-opening to my ignorance with politics, but feel free (if anyone actually reads this) to lay on me your knowledge with congressional leverage and its impact in politics.

The story I read came from The Cook Political Report, a site I found to be ripe with information regarding politics I feel to some degree I will never understand. We, and by we, I mean some of our more savvy and politically educated students in 3380, myself not included, have talked in class about the upcoming 2010 congressional elections, the primaries, the swaying of seats, etc. all of which I feel I have no proper understanding. But despite being completely aloof, I have an interest to diminish my lack of understanding, and I guess it starts here, with the article I read written by Charlie Cook.

Titled "Time To Clean House," the article spills insight regarding the current motifs and direction the Democratic House of Representatives are, or should, be taking. According to Cook, the Democrats are trying to limit their losses to about 16 seats, which I surmise to mean that by the end of the congressional elections, at worst that's the most leverage the Republicans (in House seats) will be given.

It's explained that health care is currently not an issue of concern, which I guess means that right now it's out of their control and probably being fought in the Senate. An unwise assumption of mine, I'm betting. What interests them, according to Cook, is the notion to "address unemployment without exacerbating worries about the size of government and the federal deficit." At the same time however, he explains the Democrats are facing an ethical dilemma with some of their members who are heading certain important subcommittees. The story here is focused on Independent voters, who, as Cook explains are particularly sensitive to ethical issues, and were primarily responsible for the 2006 shift in majority power from Repubs to Democrats. It's explained that these important voters will be idly watching to see if the Democrats decide to "clean house" with these controversial subjects, including the likes of Charles Rangel and John Murtha, and likewise the Democrats are waiting for a reaction on these decisions to predict whether the ramifications are worth cleaning the house, so to speak.

There's evidence (at least from the author) that suggests some of these subcommittees, including the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, have engaged in corrupt tactics including exchange of campaign contributions for earmarks and jobs handed to former staffers and/or relatives, which stands to implicate the rest of the Democrats.

The next bit was very interesting and, mind you, juicy, however I feel best at quoting it.

"Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., is honest as the day is long, but he is incapable of controlling Murtha. Only Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., can rein the Pennsylvanian in. Because Murtha was one of Pelosi's most important supporters as she climbed the leadership ladder, she finds it difficult to turn her back on him. Yet allowing Murtha to keep his subcommittee chairmanship jeopardizes the seats of other Democrats and possibly her speakership."

The Rangel situation too is complicated by the fact that his Ways and Means Committee successor, Pete Stark, is just as controversial.

And the article concludes with

"So the question is whether the Democratic leadership feels it should risk taking no action against Rangel and Murtha; should try to take away their gavels; or should give them a hearty thank-you for their long years of service -- a thank-you accompanied by a big push toward retirement. If Rangel and Murtha signal that they are headed for the exit, they might make themselves less appetizing targets for ambitious prosecutors seeking to nail a politician's scalp to the door.

House Democrats need Speaker Pelosi to lead gently, or not so gently, by moving Rangel and Murtha in the direction that would benefit the overall Democratic Caucus. She is unlikely to act without considerable pressure from caucus members. As the election gets closer and anxiety gets higher, that pressure will probably mount. Otherwise, Democrats will just have to take their chances with Rangel and Murtha onboard and hope for results different from 1994 and 2006."

Simply fascinating material. I really need to get more into this.