But then Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus in the US House of Representatives stood up and gave a rousing speech. He was first elected in this district under the slogan “Give `Em Mel!” and, true to his slogan, he did:

My schedule says that I should talk a little bit about what is going on in DC.I can capture that in one word — CHAOS. That’s it. Chaos. I read this morning that the second Tom Delay staff person pleaded guilty to something yesterday. I read recently that we auctioned off all of the stuff — the bribery and materials — that Duke Cunningham got, valued at over a million dollars-we auctioned it off to pay back some of the expenses of indicting and convicting him and sending him to jail. The chaos is there.

You saw it this week. Nobody knows what is going on in immigration. They are fighting each other in their own party. This can only be likened — I’m told, I’ve never subscribed to this theory, but what’s happening to them is what they SAY happened to us in 1994. Their right wing is driving them further and further and further off the cliff and this year we gotta start turning that around in preparation for 2008.

Watt went on to describe six criteria in the form of six questions he developed to determine the wellbeing of the nation: 1. health, 2. security, 3. fiscal/economic health, 4. perception of the US by the world, 5. making progress, 6. happiness of its citizens. Each question to the audience was met with a thundering “NO” from the assembled Democrats.

Are we healthy... the number of people without health insurance has increased by 6 million people since 2000. Uninsured. Those are facts ladies and gentlemen. That’s performance. This is not rhetoric.

(snip)

Are we more secure? ...That’s one they said they were coming to power to help us with. But are we? No. Let me tell you what the facts are. Yeah, you go to the airport — I’ll tell you in a minute — airport’s the safest place in America. If you ever need to think about terrorists, go to an airport because that’s the only place you’re gonna find security.

You’re not gonna find it at the ports...in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, despite warnings that our ports were woefully unprepared for terrorist attacks, President Bush requested no funding, NO FUNDING for port security grants and only 203 million dollars for increased Coast Guard homeland security operations. Later that year the Hart-Rudman Commission reported that port security was under funded and seaports were still vulnerable to attack. In 2001 November, we put forth more money for the ports and Republicans rejected it with a threat from the President of the United States that he would veto the bill if it came over with it...Would you be more secure following a President into a war in Iraq when the acknowledged leader of the terrorist movement is in Afghanistan — standing up saying “Here I am, over here!”?
And would be more secure when we spend over 300 billion dollars growing a climate, an environment where people hate us in a country when we never should be there in the first place?

Watt, comfortable in his home district among friends and supporters, was warm, passionate and got huge laughs from the audience.

And speaking about security, if the President and the Attorney General are protecting our security from terrorists, WHO is protecting us from THEM?

Watt, with sad demeanor, recounted the drastic change he has experienced in his world travels in how he is now treated as an American compared to the reception he got in pre-“W” days.

...we ought to ask the question “How are we perceived?” ...Well, let me tell you, you don’t want to be traveling around the world, not with this group in power...You’ll get them calling us “arrogant,” and “inconsistent,” and a country that says “do as I say and not as I do,” a country that says “We want to have a democratic election” then the day after the democratic election if they don’t elect in the democratic process the person they want, they’re ready to undermine the election that was held the day before. ... Well, next criteria, so how are we perceived? Baad, baad-sounds like a sheep: baaad.

He was articulate in exonerating Bush for blame in 9/11 but was critical of his efforts to help the country recover from that “setback.”

But a relevant criterion when that happens is: are we making any progress to get ourselves out of this ditch? And let me tell you my friends, it ain’t pretty...Since 2000, the poverty rate has increased by 1.4 percentage points every year. 37 million people in poverty in 2004 and increased 5.4 million people during the Bush administration. So it ain’t pretty. 1 in 6 children live in poverty today- a dramatic reversal under this administration. Median usual weekly earnings of full time wage and salaried workers have fallen .9 of 1% over President Bush’s first five years in office. That contrasts — this is a comparative thing — with an increase in median annual wage, real wages of 7.3% during the Clinton administration.

Watt hammered home the difference between his facts and the usual partisan rhetoric, and managed to get in a tweak at the audience in honor of the day.

This is not partisan rhetoric. These would be the facts that we would be talking about Bill Clinton if he were a Republican president and George Bush if he were a Democratic president.{audience groans} That’s an April Fool’s joke. I’m sorry...I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to.. April Fools.

Addressing the demoralization of the American voter, Watt appealed to voters of all parties to reach within and reinvigorate their sense of patriotic duty to country.

Are we happy? You can’t find anybody who’s happy about what’s going on in this country. How do we keep electing these people?Most of us are so disgusted we won’t get out and vote-that’s the problem... We shouldn’t smile about it because it’s pathetic. It is pathetic. We should do exactly the same thing that they did in 1994 when people were unhappy — we should capitalize on it, and we should capitalize on it not because we are Republicans or Democrats but because our nation is falling apart.

He outlined the Democratic party plan of action for taking back the country by rebuilding the military and putting the needs of the soldiers first, rebuilding the intelligence network, combating terrorism, addressing the root social, economic and political causes of terrorism, rebuilding alliances, achieving energy dependence.

It’s about rebuilding a state of the art military, making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America whenever and where ever is necessary. And we got to guarantee our troops if we are gonna have them out there — protective gear and equipment, and training...and guarantee them that they’re not going to be sent to fight a war without accurate intelligence and a strategy — a strategy for success and exit which we are still waiting for from this President.

On the War on Terror, we’ve got to double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and insure our intelligence is free from political pressure. We can’t be making decisions based on the desire to go and get revenge for our Daddy’s failure.

We have to lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights, not just when it is convenient for us, but as an established fixed proposition. And we need to renew our own standing alliances that have advanced our national security objectives rather than just by saying “If you don’t agree with me, it’s my way or the highway”

In Iraq, we’ve got to hold this Bush administration accountable for its manipulated prewar intelligence, its poor planning...they have placed our country at risk, our troops at risk, and they have wasted billions and billions and billions of dollars.  Pick up the paper this morning, Condoleezza Rice finally said “we made a bunch of mistakes.”

The Congressman also took a few shots at some Democratic colleagues over their record on Iraq.

I was a strong opponent over going in, in the first place. We’ve got to be responsible here — I say it against that backdrop. It’s not like some of our Democratic candidates who don’t have that history of having voted against delegating the authority and going to war in this country, in Iraq. But I come from this old school, I guess, that you can’t screw up something and leave it worse off than when you found it.

On energy independence, he advocated alternative fuel incentives to achieve energy independence by 2020 and accused Bush of “...paying lip service” to the issue by allocating a “drop in the bucket” to the effort.

On Bush’s proposal to increase funding:

Well, if you ain’t spending nothing — one dollar — and you increase it to two dollars, what good does that do? Don’t be fooled by that.

On Katrina victims voting rights:

I’ll just say, we worked out a technology to allow people living in the United States from Iraq to vote in the Iraqi elections. We can’t figure out how to work out a technology to get people who are living in Houston, in Charlotte, in Raleigh, as a result of Hurricane Katrina, to be able to vote in an election this month. This April 22 the first election is going to take place in New Orleans?

In summation, the congressman, who keeps very close ties and open lines of communication to his home community, addressed the discontent in the party base from the many years of Republican hegemony:

I want you to recommit yourself because this is a critical, critical turning point here. These are tough times to get people to come out to the polls, because there is no national election for leadership...If we get disgusted and say those Republicans are just terrible and I’m not going to show up, we defeat our own purpose. It is a very short-sighted view...This ain’t only about being a Democrat; it’s about the future of our neighborhoods and our state, and our nation. It’s not about rhetoric; it’s about results. So understand the facts, roll up your sleeves and let’s go to work.

It is well documented in progressive internet publications and blogs that many in the progressive base of the Democratic party are confused and angry about the seeming failure of their representatives in the House and Senate to support efforts to impeach or censure President Bush for his use of warrantless wiretaps. When asked by ePMedia for comment on the lack of party support for the Feingold censure and how he approaches this issue personally, Rep.Watt made a strong distinction between his role as a politician and his responsibilities as a public servant who best serves his constituency by getting positive legislative results on their behalf:

Rep. Watt: We could easily spend a lot of time doing something that has no affirmative end-result. So as a substantive matter, I just don’t have a lot of time to spend on doing something that is not seeking a substantive result that we can deliver.Because you know, a Senate and a House that are not controlled by our party are not going to censure this President and even if it did, I don’t know what practical impact it would have. Now, as a mobilization tool, it may be a wonderful thing. But you know, I have to, as a member of Congress — I look at these things from that perspective. So I am not making any comment on whether it is an effective means of mobilizing our base. My concern is, if it is, we are mobilizing them toward an objective that may not be something that is doable or meaningful for us. And so I have those reservations. I am not out there campaigning against the censure or anything elseJust as a practical, political matter, I just don’t know what impact it has.

ePMedia:The impact for the progressives in the blogosphere is that Congressional Democrats are willing to take a stand and say that this is wrong.

Rep.Watt: Understand — I am not being critical of that from the blogosphere side of it, but you ask me a question about how do I approach it, and I have to approach it as a member of Congress, and I have to evaluate the substantive value of it, not as a politician. My objective on the political side may be to mobilize the base; my objective on the other side would be to get results.

Then he graciously thanked ePMedia for coming and slid into the welcoming crowd to hug and kiss and greet his many fans, patiently waiting to touch base with their “Results, Not Rhetoric" Man on the Hill.



About the Author:
D.E.Ford M.S.W. is a writer, editor and a member of the board of directors of ePluribus Media. With previous gigs in music, theatre, the film industry ,comedy and , as a M.S.W., in healthcare research and psychotherapy, she currently digs into local and national politics ,using a systems approach in examining areas of common interest for ePluribus Media. Her recent three-part series (along with Commander Jeff Huber and I.L. Meagher)on PTSD for ePluribus Media examined the political agendas that influence the diagnosis and treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

*Photo credit: Congressman Mel Watt's media kit.

If you like what ePMedia's been doing with research, reviews and interviews, please consider donating to help with our efforts.