The tactics that the Democrats have used so far during the financial reform debate have been surprisingly very encouraging. Over the last couple of days, Harry Reid has been forcing repeated cloture votes in an attempt to shame Republican senators that are blocking financial reform bill. And even better, today it looks like he's gonna take things to the next level:
Frustrated by an ongoing campaign by the GOP to block debate on financial reform legislation, Democrats plan to hold the Senate floor open all night, potentially holding repeated votes to break the filibuster, or forcing Republicans to publicly object to debating their bill. But the move comes just as Republicans appear closer than ever to throwing in the towel.
"The voting is up to the Majority Leader, how often they vote," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told reporters after Republicans, for the third straight day, voted in lockstep to prevent debate on the Democrats' bill. "Staying in session? Making unanimous consent requests? Those things are all options.... Votes may be recurring regularly."
Republicans, though, don't seem long for this fight. Earlier today, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sounded close to ceding, calling his filibuster a useful exercise, but implying that it will soon come to an end.
"There is s some dissension within [McConnell's] ranks and I hope we see it in the votes soon," Durbin added.
That assessment dovetails with those of key Republicans.
"I think we'll know more by the end of the day," Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) told me. "I think everyone--I think the leader, Shelby, and everyone thusfar has said at some point, it's recognized that this bill will be taken up."
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member on the Banking Committee, told reporters after the vote that he'd be meeting with his counterpart Chris Dodd one more time this afternoon, to "see if there's any way to bridge any gap between us and the Democrats on the consumer issues."
"If it's not, we'll have to go to the next step," Shelby added. "All roads ultimately lead to the floor one way or another."
Amazing what a little hardball will do, huh?
Why this hasn't been a strategy on other legislation remains a mystery, but if they break the Republican filibusterer on this bill, then maybe they'll try it again.
Then again, reports came out today suggesting that Republicans might drop their obstruction for another reason:
Word is that the Democrats might make the Republicans actually filibuster FinReg tonight. That is to say, stand on the floor and talk and talk and talk. And if the Democrats are serious about forcing the Republicans to really filibuster the bill, this is the right week for it: The Kentucky Derby starts Friday, and Kentucky's senior senator, Mitch McConnell, would surely prefer to attend. Given that his members are already talking about breaking ranks, McConnell may find himself eager to get this kabuki dance over with a little bit early.
Reason #34828 why you should never give money to the DNC: (via Americablog)
Last month, Ben Nelson did a TV ad defending his vote on health care. He talks straight to the camera and disses those "who wanted a government takeover." That sounds like an attack on people who supported the public option, because that's as close as Congress got to a "government takeover." You'll recall that Nelson helped kill the public option in the Senate and the Medicare buy-in (after he'd already agreed to it), insisted on the inclusion of harsh anti-abortion language, and then threatened to join the Republicans in filibustering the conference report on the deal he already cut. That Ben Nelson.
Turns out, though, that it's not a Ben Nelson campaign ad. It's hard to read the disclaimer, but the ad was paid for by the Nebraska Democratic Party. It's one of a series of ad touting Nelson's "courageous" effort to bring down real health care reform. More of the ads can be seen here and here.
So, one wonders, where did the Nebraska Democratic Party get the money to pay for these TV ads?
Today, it looks like we got the answer: the Democratic National Committee. According to the Nebraska Democratic Committee's latest FEC report, it received a contribution of $459,760.00 from the DNC.
And here is example 1A that should be studied when the Democrats get slaughtered next November.
Yes the Senate is structurally problematic and sucks. Yes some Senators represent states far more conservative than others.
But none of those facts justifies Ben Nelson's actions during the health care debate. He is an attention whore owned by the insurance industry. Staying in the news and killing any type of real reform were his only goals throughout the process.
Until the Democratic party stops rewarding it's worst members, it's hard them moving too far in the right direction.
Yes, Joe Lieberman may very well be one of the worst human beings on the planet. Even in a US Senate filled with narcissistic corporate whores who only care about the spotlight and enriching the industries that paid for their reelection, Lieberman his has risen to his own special level of asshattery.
But here's the thing: he's not president, he's not speaker of the house and he's not the majority leader. He's only as powerful as the Democratic leadership lets him be. Chris Bowers:
Nothing Lieberman is doing would be possible without the ongoing support of the majority of the Democratic caucus. If Democratic Senators wanted to punish Lieberman for his consistent transgressions against the party, they could. If Democrats wanted to use reconciliation, and just circumvent him altogether, they could do that to. But they are not going to do either.
As such, Lieberman is simply taking the power that is being handed to him by the rest of the caucus. Since he knows that Senate Democrats won't ever punish him, and won't ever circumvent him, he now has free reign to dictate whatever legislation he wants, get tons of face time with the White House and Senate leadership, regularly be the top story on news outlets around the country, receive millions in campaign contributions, and appease his Republican base (at this point, most of Lieberman's supporters are Republicans). It is a great deal for Lieberman, and it would not be possible without the ongoing consent of the majority of the Democratic Senate caucus.
Since we have already defeated Lieberman in a Democratic primary, there is nothing more severe we can do as progressive activists to directly threaten Lieberman. What we need to start doing is taking action against the Democrats who enable Lieberman and his ilk. If other Senate Democrats are not going to do anything about Lieberman taking control of the entire caucus, then really, what is the difference between those other Senators and Joe Lieberman? Never thought I would echo George W. Bush, but we have reached the point where it is time to stop differentiating between problematic Senators like Joseph Lieberman and the other Senate Democrats who enable them.
Lieberman is many things, but stupid is not one of them. He (like many of us) knows that the majority of the Democrats in the senate a bunch of pussies when it comes to actually fighting for anything that matters. He knows that Harry Reid won't use the leverage he has to strip him of his chairmanship, or that Obama won't threaten him in the slightest. You'd think these people would be tired of getting repeatedly screwed over by this man, but apparently not.
When Lieberman was in the race for his political life in Connecticut against non-antichrist candidate Ned Lamont, Obama used his star power and popularity to endorse him in the primary. Lieberman repaid this favor by endorsing and campaigning for his opponent in the presidential election, which included standing on stage when vile, hateful slurs were used to attack him.
Other than this brief lapse with sanity, Obama returned to his usual bipartians/pragmatic/generic-David-Broder-cliche self upon winning the election, telling senate Democrats not to expel Lieberman from the caucus and to let him retain his chairmanship. And then we have yesterday, where Lieberman repaid him by obstructing Obama's main domestic initiative, vowing to join a filibuster to oppose it.
While most sane people see this finally crossing the uncrossable line, the White House seems to have decided to bend over and wait for his demands:
The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations.
But Reid is described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he is not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill, and first wants to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.
"There is a weariness and a lot of frustration that one person is holding up the will of 59 others," the official said. “There is still too much anger and confusion at one particular senator’s reversal.”
To call that a failure of leadership isn't strong enough. He may be a powerful Senator, but no one has done more to keep him in this position then Harry Reid and Barack Obama. They may not be scum of the earth like Lieberman is, but this situation is just as much their fault as it is his.
At a special evening meeting of the Democratic caucus tonight, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined, in broad strokes, the details of his health care bill, which the CBO has found, in a preliminary analysis, will expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit. And earlier in the day, during a separate meeting about floor procedure, Reid let three of his party's key skeptics know that if they join Republicans at any stage of the process to block the bill, he still retains the option of passing major parts of it through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process.
In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid "talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort."
"Nobody's really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation," Nelson said, "he's not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don't move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities."
I guess you could ask why this wasn't the plan from the start, but frankly I'm just happy that it's being used as a threat. I'm sure president Snowe is extremely disappointed.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced what we've been reporting today - the merged health care bill will include a public option allowing states to opt-out.
"Under this concept states will be able to determine whether the public option works best for them," Reid told reporters. He said it was the "fairest" way to go.
Reid (D-NV) said after "countless hours" of talking to his caucus, there is a "strong consensus" for this plan. He said he will not submit a plan with a triggered public option to the Congressional Budget Office.
"As we've gone through this process, I've concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators. Dodd and Baucus, that the best way to move forward is to include a public option with an opt out provision for states," Reid said.
Reid said he was "disappointed" the public option had "frightened" Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) but that he hoped she would "come back to the Washington in 2013 as a tourist rather than a Senator."
"I spoke to Olympia on Friday...and at this stage she does not like the public option of any kind. And so, I told her that she'd definitely outlasted her importance both as a part of these negotiations and more generally as a Senator. I also told the President that if he liked her so much that maybe they should get just get fucking married and stop wasting our time making her feel good about herself."
Reid also responded to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's reported anger at the death of his "triggers" proposal. Reid said he could "suck it", and that "he should stop trying to kill progressive policy with crappy ideas that no one is willing to support."
Reid then stepped away from the podium and appeared to point to his crotch in a series of vulgar gestures before he exited the stage yelling a string of obscenities towards the assembled press corps.
Way to go Harry! With talk like that you may win reelection after all!
Obviously a "public option" could me a lot of things, but this is encouraging:
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today there will be a "public option" in whatever health insurance reform bill comes out of Congress.
"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents, referring to some kind of government plan.
"I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us," he said.
More strong words from Harry Reid and Dick Durbin:
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) said Tuesday that he and Senate Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) will be asking the 60-member Democratic caucus to “stick together” on procedural votes that would allow the chamber to begin or end debate on legislation. Sixty votes are needed to close debate, or invoke cloture, on a measure and avoid a filibuster.
The message to Democrats, Durbin said, is: “Don’t let the Republicans filibuster us into failure. We want to succeed, and to succeed we need to stick together.”
Both parties have always put a premium on unity when it comes to procedural votes. The difference in the 111th Congress is that a unified Democratic Conference doesn’t necessarily need Republican support to succeed.
With 60 caucus members, Senate Democratic leaders are now under increased pressure to deliver big legislative wins on health care and climate change, largely because Republicans theoretically can no longer use the filibuster rules to prevent Democrats from passing major pieces of the agenda.
This puts the focus directly on the Douche Caucus, who now face a very clear choice between allowing votes to take place or joining with the Republicans to actively obstruct the Democratic agenda. As you might expect, Douche Caucus Chair Evan Bayh seems to have picked his side:
“Most Senators vote their conscience and they do what they think is right. They didn’t come here to be told what to do by somebody else,” moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) said.
Yep, Evan "the corporate whore" Bayh doesn't listen to anyone before he votes. It's just his conscience that tells him to sell out Indiana's middle class at every chance he gets. But he's not the only one. Several other Douches have expressed concerns about allowing their own party to govern:
For example, Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) said she would “be supportive of many Democratic priorities” and is “absolutely committed to help the Democratic leadership and the president get health care reform that our people can depend on.” However, she flatly refused to rule out filibustering any bill, including health care and climate change legislation.
“I’m going to keep an open mind, but I am not committing to any procedural straitjackets one way or another,” she said.
Similarly, Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) said he has often been loath to block legislation or executive branch nominees, but reserves the right to filibuster if he determines it’s warranted.
“I’m not a closed mind on cloture, but if it’s an abuse of procedure, if it’s somebody trying to put a poison pill into a bill, or if it’s something that would be pre-emptive of Nebraska law, or something that rises to extraordinary circumstances, then I’ve always reserved the right to vote against cloture,” Nelson said.
I love the gulf between the dire legislation that they describe and the bills that are actually being considered. "A poison pill", "abuse of procedure", "extraordinary circumstances". Because these are words that come to mind when a Senator is forced to decide whether or not it's worth fucking over their constituents in order to appease whatever corporate lobby currently needs appeasing.
The good news about having 60 votes in the senate is that there are no more excuses, and no more places to hide. If the Douche Caucus decides to join the Republicans in filibustering the Democratic agenda, that's their call. They've just shown us that they don't need any Democratic party resources the next time they're up for re-election. And if Harry Reid isn't willing to stand up to the Democrats who are obstructing the agenda that they were elected pursue, then we know we'll need new leadership as well.
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman has a bipartisan group of senators ready to help pass health care reform — minus a government-run insurance plan.
During a New Haven stop to support overall reform, Connecticut’s independent fourth-term senator gave his strongest statement to date opposing Democrats’ and President Obama’s call for a “public option” health care plan.
I'd say I told you so, but it's not like I (or anyone else in the netroots) made some sort of bold prediction. No, I'm pretty sure anyone halfway paying attention could tell that Joe Lieberman was a self serving jackass and see this type of thing coming. It's just unfortunate that those with the power to make these decisions 8 months agodidn't see it that way:
Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.
"This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward."
Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.
Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."
But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?"
"I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward."
Lieberman himself, meanwhile, said he was able to keep his slot thanks to Barack Obama, whose recent statement said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying.
So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.
Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.
Everybody makes mistakes. But the Democratic party takes this stuff to new heights. It might be the most frustrating part of politics: Watching (for the most part) otherwise very smart people repeatedly fail to learn from their mistakes.
REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.
QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.
REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.
QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …
REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.
Uh... Great! So you don't support unleashing terrorists on American cities? That confirms that you're not evil, but what if you answered a question that someone was actually asking?
QUESTION: But Senator, Senator, it’s not that you’re not being clear when you say you don’t want them released. But could you say — would you be all right with them being transferred to an American prison?
REID: Not in the United States.
Right! Not in the United States, our prisons suck! All those murderers, rapists AND TERRORISTS in our Supermax prisons could escape at any minute!
The "debate" over all the bad and scary things that will happen if Obama closes Guantanamo and we then incarcerate those detainees in American prisons is so painfully stupid even by the standards of our political discourse that it's hard to put into words, and it also perfectly illustrates the steps that typically lead to America's National Security policies:
(1) Right-wing super-tough-guy warriors project some frightened, adolescent, neurotic fantasy onto the world -- either because they are really petrified by it or because they want others to be ("Putting Muslim Terrorists in our prisons will make us Unsafe!-- Keep them away from me, please!!!");
(2) Rather than scoff at the inane fear-mongering or point out simple facts to reveal its idiocy, Democratic "leaders" such as Harry Reid echo the right-wing fears in order to prove how Serious and Tough they are -- in our political debates, the more frightened one is, the more Serious and Tough one is -- and/or because they are genuinely frightened of being called mean names by Sean Hannity ("Harry Reid isn't as scared of this as I am, which shows that he's weak");
(3) "Journalists" who are capable of nothing other than mindlessly reciting what they hear then write articles depicting the Right's frightened neurosis as a Serious argument, and then overnight, a consensus emerges: Democrats are in big trouble politically unless they show that they, too, are as deeply frightened as the Right is.
Two weeks ago when Obama was pushing congress to remove limits on exectuive compensation from the bank bailout, they folded like a house of cards. Yet when Obama is pushing a phenomenally good idea like closing Guantanamo Bay, he is met with fierce and meaningful opposition from his own caucus.
Sometimes the stupidity of the Democratic party is just too much to take.
Senator Specter's(PA-Whichever way the wind is blowing) statement from earlier today:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.
Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary ... My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.
Just like his flip flop on Employee Free Choice a few weeks back, this is about as naked a political calculation as you see. Michael Steele actually had an incredibly awesome statement in response to the switch: (pigs flying, hell freezes over)
"Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest-Senator Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don't do it first."
Nothing like a Republican pissing match. Steele is dead on about this being solely to further his political interests and to the batshit insane Republican party of Pennsylvania, I bet they actually believe Specter has a left wing voting record. But that's besides the point, because Pat Toomey will prove just how popular a nutjob ideology is come November 2010. Our friends over at Resistnet will be breathlessly awaiting the results!
But other than the joy of watching Republicans shitting on their now former college, (more of that here), I'm not really convinced that this is a great thing. For starters, the whole "if we just get 60 votes" thing is largely a myth, especially when you have some massive douchebags in your caucus, and they've already decided to form their own caucus (Something tells me they just found a new member!!!).
Second, he sucks. He didn't support Obama's budget, he maintains he won't vote cloture on Employee Free Choice, he's currently blocking Dawn Johnsen, a key Justice department nominee, and those are just things that have happened in the past couple weeks. I realize the idea is that he'd have to change some things to win the primary, but if attempting to force an uncontested primary was part of the deal, he has zero motivation to stop sucking.
We need a committed primary challenger to his nomination as quickly as humanly possible. Someone who will not bow to Rendell (and everyone else's) pressure to drop out, and hopefully someone strong enough to possibly earn labor's support. If Specter won't commit to cloture, labor's support would be there for the taking, and you've got to believe they'd be willing to throw the kitchen sink at Specter after his douchery on EFCA. Whether they can beat him or not, we need a credible challenger that at least makes this self righteous asshole nervous about losing. If today's move showed us anything, it's that he's willing to put keeping his job above whatever semblance of principles the David Broaders of the world keep telling me he has.
This situation has the potential to be a positive one for progressives, but only if he's forced to stay in line with his new party on some key votes, and then has to battle for his life in the 2010 primary. If we act giddy that there's a D next to his name and let Arlen be Arlen, we will have enabled a douche bigger and douchier than King Douche himself, and that is a fucking scary thought.
I want to believe we'll do what's right for the party, but looking at the recent douche enabling actions of both the Senate Majority Leader and the President, I'm less than convinced they'll take advantage. Only time will tell where this soap opera goes, but the opportunity for serious progress is there, and it's up to us to make it count.
Remember when John McCain weirdly decided to suspend his campaign because the economy was tanking? Remember how completely insane and stupid it seemed at the time?
I frankly don't care that two people who a greatly respect like Howard Dean and Barack Obama think that this was the right way to handle this situation. It isn't. In this case, they are wrong. It shouldn't matter who they are, and it doesn't mean they are bad people. But they are wrong. And they can say that it's about revenge and bipartisanship all they want, but I'm sure even they know that's not true. It's about investigating Hurricane Katrina, and it's about stopping someone who says you hang out with terrorists a platform to speak for you and your party. Competent governance and allowing someone to spread lies under your banner are bigger issues than something as petty as "revenge". The worst part in all of this is that defending people blindly when they are wrong shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics works, and reminds those leaders exactly why they didn't listen to you in the first place.
Lieberman, the self-described independent Democrat who questioned Obama’s credentials to serve as commander in chief during the 2008 campaign, has panned the Obama administration’s proposal to cut the nation’s missile defense shield.
Lieberman’s opposition is problematic for the Obama administration because he is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the panel charged with assessing threats to the nation.
My feelings exactly. This would be an "I told you so post" if it wasn't so blatantly obvious that this would be the outcome of empowering Lieberman back in November. We gave a self serving douche power... AND HE'S ACTING LIKE A SELF SERVING DOUCHE!?!?!?!? NO! NOT POSSIBLE!!!
And while opposing Obama on Missile defense isn't the end of the world, it's also just the first time of many that we'll be seeing this sentance in the paper:
Lieberman’s opposition is problematic for the Obama administration because he is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee
I'd say I can't wait till 2012, but I'm sure by then Reid and Obama will be bending over backwards getting every popular Democrat to hit the campaign trail for him. You'd think there would be only so many times you could screw someone over or call them a terrorist before they fight back, but apparently not.
What's the first bill taken up the band of Douches?
Voting with Republicans to lower taxes for the super rich!
The senate voted yesterday to pass, 51-48, the Lincoln-Kyl amendment to lower the estate tax. It's essentially a $250 billion giveaway to people whose estates are worth more than $7 million. The various mid-western Democrats who supported it will undoubtedly claim this about all those small family farmers who amass large fortunes, but only .02 percent of the bills costs will actually go to those fortunate agrifamilies. Most just goes to the massively wealthy. You know, like investment bankers. Every single senate Republican voted for the amendment, along with nine Democrats, most in the "moderate" caucus of no policy positions: Bayh, Baucus, Cantwell, Landrieu, Lincoln, Murray, the Nelsons, and Tester.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off, saying pressure from the left wing of his party won't be helpful to enacting legislation.
"I think it's very unwise and not helpful," Reid said Friday morning. "These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus.”
Those damn "liberal groups"! Cause it's clearly them that's hurting the Democratic Caucus, not you know, the nine democrats who voted with the Republicans to cut taxes for the super rich!
Well at least now we can add "tax cuts for the super rich" along with "being pragmatic" and "putting country over party" as reasons for the group's existence. Who knows what bold and mavericky issue they'll tackle next?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off, saying pressure from the left wing of his party won't be helpful to enacting legislation.
"I think it's very unwise and not helpful," Reid said Friday morning. "These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus.”
So an obstructionist caucus is good for the Democratic agenda? Why? Because Harry Reid says so, that's why. Then he inadvertently reveals something really impressive about the group:
Reid has no qualms about the group, and said that “any public statements” Senate moderates have made have been helpful as the chamber takes up a budget next week that would cost more than $3 trillion. And he added: “Some people of course go to those meetings so they can issue a press release back home that'll make them appear more moderate.”
This is Harry Reid speaking about the members of his own caucus, saying that they're making coldly calculated political decisions rather than actually working to make the legislation closer to their values. Regardless of how horrific that sounds politically, I want to make sure I understand this correctly:
The caucus formed with the purpose of supposedly having no policy ideas or principles includes members who are such phenomenal douches that they're not even committed to obstructing Obama's agenda? They're doing this for the "political benefits" of looking like douchebags? Only in politics would people be stupid enough to buy into to that logic.
And then there's the whole idea of "looking moderate" as a political benefit. When adding or subtracting parts to the budget, this group has the goal of making it less progressive, and more conservative. These Senators do not operate at some magical nonexistent point between liberal and conservative. They are obstructing the agenda that Obama campaigned for and that the majority of the country voted for. They are aligning themselves with conservatives in order to weaken his goals and further conservatives ones. There is nothing"moderate" or "pragmatic" about any of that.
And yet Harry Reid says that criticizing those who are obstructing the Democratic agenda is somehow "not helpful to the Democratic caucus".
Yesterday at the senate progressive media meeting, various commitments were made to the progressive agenda:(Via Mydd)
I recall last year, attending, that the atmosphere was much different. Then, all about stopping Bush; now, a huge agenda of things to do. And promises galore.
Ron Wyden, Universal healthcare-- Kennedy's bill. Harry Reid, Immigration Reform this year; EFCA "still a few more votes for cloture" but this summer. Sherod Brown, Universal healthcare, local green electricity. Byron Dorgan, a national "smart grid" for electricity. Jeff Bingham, Cap and Trade this cycle. Chuck Schumer, local water/sewer upgrades nationally. Tom Udall, serious start to getting off oil. Jon Tester, all the stimulus to infrastructure jobs (including green).
That's an extremely ambitious list. I'm not sure all of this is possible within one year (I could see health care taking up quite a bit of time), but it's important that this stuff is all out there.
While part of me is reminded about how worthless Reid and many other senate dems have been in fighting against Bush, I get the feeling that they will have a much more proactive approach promoting their own agenda. And we better hope so, because unlike the dems, the republicans know how to jam the congressional machine, meaning that none of these goals will be achieved easily.
With the economy being a priority, the job initiatives will probably come up soon, and I'm almost positive we'll see health care reform proposed this year. Employee Free Choice in the summer sounds at least possible, and "A few more votes needed for cloture" is a signal for President Obama to get those guest seats on Air Force warmed up.
The one thing on this list I don't see this year is Immigration reform. Also, as much as we need immigration reform, from a purely political standpoint it might be nice to completely split the republican caucus in the run up to the mid-term elections. The politics of that fight will be nuts, simply because it was the senate and not president Bush that prevented last years fairly flawed immigration reform bill. The good news on this one, is that we should be able to peel of a few republicans on this rather easily, and add them on to a much better bill without the create a permanent underclass guest worker provisions.
If this is the senate's agenda, the groundwork will be in place for truly major change.
I haven't been a big fan of how Harry Reid "led" the Democrats in the senate, but this story might be one of the coolest things I've ever read. Via Ezra Klein:
In July of 1978, a man named Jack Gordon, who was later married to LaToya Jackson, offered Reid twelve thousand dollars to approve two new, carnival-like gaming devices for casino use. Reid reported the attempted bribe to the F.B.I. and arranged a meeting with Gordon in his office. By agreement, F.B.I. agents burst in to arrest Gordon at the point where Reid asked, “Is this the money?” Although he was taking part in a sting, Reid was unable to control his temper; the videotape shows him getting up from his chair and saying, “You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me!” and attempting to choke Gordon, before startled agents pulled him off. “I was so angry with him for thinking he could bribe me,” Reid said, explaining his theatrical outburst. Gordon was convicted in federal court in 1979 and sentenced to six months in prison.
Let me get this straight. Even though he knew it was a set-up, Reid was so incapable of containing his rage that he proceeds to go Sprewell on the guy while the FBI is in the room?! Where did that Harry Reid go? Wouldn't the senate Republicans be a little less filibuster-happy if they thought the guy across the table might flip out and try to kill them?
If there's anything we need in the senate, it's highly combustible Ron Artest type doing the negotiations, and I'm not really joking.
On Wednesday, Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin drafted a letter -- which they subsequently urged their Democratic colleagues to sign -- that calls on the Illinois Governor to not just remove himself from office but to "under no circumstance" make a last-minute appointment to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat.
Should Blagojevich disregard these warnings, Reid and Durbin write, the Senate would "be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated."
The Majority Leader then added: "Is Harry Reid gonna have to choke a bitch?"
Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.
"This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward."
Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.
Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."
Honestly Harry, I really wouldn't go there.
But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?"
"I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward."
Lieberman himself, meanwhile, said he was able to keep his slot thanks to Barack Obama, whose recent statement said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying.
So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.
Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.
Just another reminder of what we're "moving forward" from:
A committee chairmanship is a reward, not something anyone is entitled to. And let's remember making him chair isn't meaningless, he used his power to block any investigations of the Hurricane Katrina incompetence, which you'd think would be reason enough to strip him of his post alone.
Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."
I started to write a response, but just found that Sirota had already said the same thing but better:
It's pretty odd that only two weeks after a landslide election that saw a huge ideological progressive mandate, Democratic congressional leaders think it's a great public message to declare jihad on progressives.
I don't know, call me crazy, but I think 67 million people voted for Democrats because they want Democrats to reject Bush's ideological conservatism and solve problems - not spend their time making paranoid, quasi-McCarthy-ist speeches deriding "the Left."
But they do it because they know people will continue to take this crap. I am honestly getting more and more worried about the netroots developing their own brand of "dear leader syndrome" where no matter what a popular figure does, people start justifying insane positions simply because a popular figure has taken them. Over the past couple of weeks we've seen people on liberal blogs sing the praises of Rahm Emmanuel, excitedly support the bailout because the leadership said so, defend Volker and Summers as treasury secretary candidates and love the idea of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But yesterday was a new low. When the top rec listed diaries on Dailykos are titled "Lieberman vote IS the change we need, not its repudiation" and "Revenge, Dean had it right", it's enough give you serious pause.
I frankly don't care that two people who a greatly respect like Howard Dean and Barack Obama think that this was the right way to handle this situation. It isn't. In this case, they are wrong. It shouldn't matter who they are, and it doesn't mean they are bad people. But they are wrong. And they can say that it's about revenge and bipartisanship all they want, but I'm sure even they know that's not true. It's about investigating Hurricane Katrina, and it's about stopping someone who says you hang out with terrorists a platform to speak for you and your party. Competent governance and allowing someone to spread lies under your banner are bigger issues than something as petty as "revenge". The worst part in all of this is that defending people blindly when they are wrong shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how politics works, and reminds those leaders exactly why they didn't listen to you in the first place.
Luckily, there are people like Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who I was fortunate enough to see speak yesterday at a Campaign for America's Future event. During the Q&A, he paused in mid answer and said this:(scribbled down from my notes, so may not be exact quote)
This may sound like sacrilege in this room, but Barack Obama has the potential to be a great president. But when you’re president, you get pulled from a lot of different directions. Right now, he’s getting pulled by a lot of centrists, and all comes down to who pulls him the hardest. He could very easily be a centrist president. But if we pull the hardest, then we have a great potential for progressive change.
And it's the netroots must do a the majority of this "pulling". As FDR said to his supporters in one of my all time favorite political quotes: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
I believe Obama operates in a similar way, and that's gives me great hope about his presidency.
"Making them do it" is the cornerstone to effective politics. And based on the results of the Lieberman vote, we obviously have a lot of work to do.
