Slate: Pelosi's a dipsh#t

That's not exactly news to normal America, is it? Nonetheless, John Dickerson has great analysis. From Slate:

Elizabeth Dole sounded desperate last week. Trying to inspire dispirited Republicans, the head of the party's Senatorial Campaign Committee wrote a fund-raising letter urging the GOP faithful to rally, because if Democrats seize power they will "call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of President Bush." It's a sad truth of politics that if you can't inspire your voters with a positive vision, you scare them.

But then along came House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to say that, yes, Sen. Dole is exactly right. In a Washington Post interview, Pelosi outlined her plans if the Democrats take control of the House. She started promisingly, vowing quick action to raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures, and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls. It was Contract With America lite—a point-by-point articulation meant to show what the party stands for and demonstrate that she and other Democratic leaders were actual adults.

Wow...an actual plan and agenda by the Dems? Something other than "Bush sucks, so vote for us because we suck less"? That might actually work, except...

Then, as if to kill her plans in the same interview in which she was hatching them, Pelosi announced that her new Democratic majority would also launch a series of investigations reaching all the way back into the first months of the Bush administration. Across the country, vulnerable Republican candidates are saying thank you to Pelosi. The GOP congressional majorities may now be secure.

Is that the approach the Dems will take in the swing districts and/or to pick up moderate voters or conservatives who are disaffected with the spend-happy do-nothing pseudo-conservative Republican Congress? "Vote for us, so we can investigate why Bush wants to listen to Al Qaeda phone calls!"

Dickerson closes with this observation:

There's been a lot of talk about how the Democrats need to emulate the Republican revolutionaries of 1994, but I believe the idea was that they should emulate the 1994 Republicans, whose Contract With America never mentioned investigating Bill Clinton, not the Republicans who ruined themselves through intemperate investigations after they came to power.

Whether one agrees with his characterization of the Clinton investigations is irrelevant. The fact is that he is 100% correct when he says that Democrats would do better by ignoring calls for investigations and instead focus on solving America's ills. Dems have shown an unwillingness (or inability, take your pick) to solve problems in the past, since it's easier to bitch about problems that to fix them. Only time will tell if their seemingly asinine approach will work.