The results in Massachusetts, Arkansas, New York, Ohio and Indiana show that Democrats are probably a lot closer to Dennis Kucinich than they are to the so-called “centrists” like Joe Lieberman whose corporatism has dictated the terms of the Senate health care bill. Raw Story spoke to Kucinich:
The 13-year congressman lamented the lack of change in economic policies, tying it to the major problems Democrats are facing.
“The minute the president appointed Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to key policy positions, and the minute that [Ben] Bernanke was named to head the Fed again, we’re looking at people who participated in the decline of the economy,” he said. “This group has done us a disservice.”Ironically Obama is citing Paul Volker this morning, who has scrapped with Summers and Geithner and been marginalized within the administration up until now.
What does Kucinich think of the health care bill?
“Health care became too complex and too riddled with concessions to insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies,” he said. “It’s really time to take a new direction and that direction has to be back to the American people.”
One idea Democrats are floating is to pass the Senate bill through the House, which would then allow the President to sign it into law.
“I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he said. “The senate bill is so totally flawed that I don’t think it can get the votes in the House to pass. I certainly wouldn’t vote for it.”
“It hits very sharply at people who gave wage concessions to get health care benefits,” he said, citing the excise tax on health care benefits. “We’re going to ask Americans to take a wage cut? Why?”
“We lost the initiative the minute that our party jumped into bed with the insurance companies. And soon they were looking at increasing taxes as a way of subsidizing insurance companies. It’s just madness.”
“We’re redistributing the wealth of the nation upwards by giving the insurance companies 30 million new customers, $50 billion a year more in revenue.”
Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias continues the “attack the character of the President’s critics” tactic that has been the hallmark of the Senate bill’s apologist. He says Raul Grijalva is flirting with the title of “history’s greatest monster” status. The reason for this? Well, Grijalva doesn’t accept the “60 vote” myth that has been used to push the false choice of “what Joe Lieberman wants or nothing.” Harry Reid, Chris Van Hollen and Kent Conrad have all now said that “sidecar reconciliation” is possible. Max Baucus has gone so far as to say “reconciliation will be part of the solution.”
The price of continuing to cling to that myth should be obvious by now: the Senate health care bill in its current form threatens to decimate the Democratic party. The general public continues to echo Kucinich’s sentiments about the bill — and the administration’s pro-corporatist approach — without respect for party. It’s only a tiny bubble of self-reinforcing pundits living in a hermetically sealed intellectual environment whose worldview has not been penetrated by that reality. It would be easier to accept the notion that they are acting in good faith if they didn’t seek to demonize those who have advanced very compelling reasons for disagreeing with the articles of faith of their worldview, which at this point only represents a teeny, tiny minority of the public.



219 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
MEMO:
To Jane
Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 21, 2010; 11:00 AM
“…The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns….By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states….It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions….Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed…”The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues….Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”"
“….Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom…..Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case….Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained “the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”
Read the entire article @:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_pf.html
Excellent framing of the problem!
He is the one that got laughed at for saying he saw a UFO when he was asked directly during the prez debates last year.
The moderator was such a dick for asking him that, WTF did that have to do with anything, it was like a sniper on a tall building took him out of the race with one shot to the head.
I chuckled a little, until I got more familiar with his policy positions. He was probably the only progressive Democrat running. I am certain of that actually.
You may not have noticed but bmaz has a post up on this at emptywheel (which has already hit the front page at FDL)
(and ya might be careful about bringing large swathes of AP content – AP doesn’t play nice)
Would this be in a mayonaisse jar on the front porch of some business in Omaha, NE? /Karnak The Magnificent
if wishes were horses ….
Kucinich, rather than Nader, of course. Couldn’t be Nader, as he is the evil one.
Yeah Nader, but I think he is even left of progressive sometimes. He makes some good points though.
Well, it could be because Kucinich is an actual elected official having to deal with these issues. It might even give him a bit of credibility on them for that reason.
Attacks on progressives who have spoken up about Obama or the health care bill in general remind me of Squealer from Animal Farm:
Do not imagine . . . that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. . . Suppose you had decided to follow Snowball, with his moonshine of windmills — Snowball, who, as we now know, was no better than a criminal? …Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely . . . there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?
Obama and the conserverdems clearly underestimated the hate of Bush and the policies of conserverdems.
It was insane for Obama and conserverdems to develop a HCR bill that benefited Insurance Companies, after 8 years of Bush.
In a side note, it was great to see Howard Dean shut up Chris Matthews.
Chris Matthews lives in fantasy land sometime, he knows the senate hcr bill is not progressive, it is a corporate give away.
Talk of Evan Bayh running for president is laughable. A conserverdem would not win, in this new political climate.
I’ve noticed that so many of the self-styled Sane and Pragmatic People seem to have been getting unhinged lately. And of course they’re not taking out their anger on their real enemies, because their cognitive dissonance won’t allow that. So instead it’s yet another round of Kill the Hippie Messenger – just like during the run-up to invading Iraq, yadda yadda yadda.
So frustrating to see friends on Facebook mock Mass. voters as right wingers.
“Meanwhile, Matt Yglesias continues the “attack the character of the President’s critics” tactic that has been the hallmark of the Senate bill’s apologist.”
Here’s Yglesias defending Cass Sunstein as a “brilliant progressive lawyer.”
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/smearing-cass-sunstein.php
Has anyone seen TPM lately?
It is disgusting to get a big ol’ ad right in the middle of the text…
This is all good for the Ds and Obama.
The right is lancing its own boil. We’ll have plenty of time to reposition and ready November.
SCOTUS in another 5-4 decision has placed the final nail in the coffin of the US commonocracy. The corporations won. Now they can bribe as they please. The age of the reformer is dead. We can expect that the corporations will now be able to get whatever laws passed that they want, openly. The decision should have been expected, Roberts and the rest of the rethuglicians have always been corporate shills. Every decision that they have made has been leading up to this. The commonocracy is dead, long live the oligarchs.
You see Greenwald on Sunstein recently?
Friday, Jan 15, 2010 08:16 EST
The creepy mind-set behind Cass Sunstein’s creepy proposal
Raul Grijalva is “history’s greatest monster” eh. well that’s fucking absurd. I would have been more disgusted if he had said “this new century’s greatest monster”, and placed him ahead of G.W.Bush, and Dick Cheney, Eric Prince, Muhammad Atta and so on. As it is Yglesias sounds like a bit of a hand wringing whiner in the middle of a fit of ridiculous hyperbolic exaggeration. He should really be called out for that crap tho.
Care to narrow the scope of the question?
I’ve been avoiding TPM for the most part because Josh’s Obama and Senate bill fluffing gags me. I see they are headlining Pelosi’s admission that there are not enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, which is a bit of a relief although you never know when they might try to cram through something nearly as objectionable.
I agree. Kucinich works everyday at what he does. He is ‘in the belly of the beast’. Nader flies in every four years to tell everyone how f’up they are and how brilliant he is as he asks to be handed the keys to the highest office in the land. Instant scorn producer.
vibrant monologue at best.
There is a saying that science does not move forward so much because of “Eureka” moments as “That’s interesting” moments. In the same way, we should not lament politicians cozying with narrow interest groups, but ask why they are so averse to working for the common good. The problems, it appears, start when the cozying begins.
Nothing boosts Matt’s credibility like spittle drenched hyperbole.
me neither.
if our senators are too damn lazy to make the R actually filibuster — poor D senators would have to stay near the senate floor for quorum calls — then they should resign immediately so someone willing to do the work of governance can take over.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
There has gotta be an echo in here…the political ground is changin’ under ObamaRahma’s feet and the vacuum of leadership in the Democratic Party is gunna fall into the progressives in the congress in BOTH houses. In addition, the Prop.8 trial is pullin’ another rug out from under ObamaRhama and there will soon be no one for them to triangulate with because the issues and BOTH parties will have moved into the 21st century while ObamaRhama are playin’ 20th century Clintonian politics.
I will say this one more time: The defeat of Coakley was the best thing that ever happened to elected progressives and the people of the United States…the progressives can fuck it up for themselves if they don’t kill the healthcare bill or force a public option thru reconcilliation but the people of the country are gunna win in the end cuz the game has changed and Obama can only make himself relevant again by steppin’ up.
Keep up the good work, Sister Jane, and please get another layer on yer skin, dear, ObamaRhama wants a powerful leader like you to be arguin’ with her troops.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, THEY CAN’T BEAT HISTORY SO SHOOT STRAIGHT!!
I never cared much for the supermajority myth either.
yeah — ‘politico-lite.’
No. It’s the How Cool Am I blogging tactic. Maybe. I don’t know anything.
Voinovich is retiring next year. Wonder if Dennis will run for his seat.
both insiders and outsiders do important work. imo progress depends on both.
My thought as well. Can Reid implement the rule change himeslf?
Josh has been promoting the Senate bill all along, ’cause if it’s good enough for Dear Leader it’s good enough for him. He has nonsense related to that position posted in his sidebar even now.
OMG! That’s exactly what I’m serving for lunch today. How did you know?
right on P Dub !
and as predictable as the sun setting in the west
Did you take a cooking class in the UK? :-)
It’s been a terrible few days in the political realm.
Did anyone else catch that filibuster that Robert Gibbs pulled on the Ed Show last night? If he was spinning any harder we would need an old priest and a young priest to make him stop.
Losing in Mass, still no leadership on healthcare (though im at least happy that this limbo might grant some clarity regarding how bad it really is) and now unfettered corporate ads in elections, oh joy.
there’s a another big problem — we know the administration does not favor any kind of real public option and since it’s success depends on very strong national regulation and enforcement, which is under the control of the administration, it doesn’t matter if congress passes the legislation for a po. obamaco can kill it dead.
Yeah, I see that too, just as a commenter in the sane, pragmatic sights. From early on I criticized the Senate bill, and received mild punching. When I pointed out that passing it would doom the Dems to huge electoral losses and disunity in the party, more intense punching. Now the sane pragmatic centrists are in melt-down – really unhinged from reality – and of course blame the hippies for this. Up is down for them. You’re right about the cognitive dissonance.
With hypocri-sauce.
No, but I’m reading a novel by one of their writers. Maybe it worked its way into my subconscious.
iirc powwow says reid already has the option to go that route if he chooses. will try to quickly find the comment and link it here.
Yes.
Excuse me but that is way, way too obvious — and irrelevant to my point. Of course “outsiders” are important. Hell, we’re outsiders, most of us. And we’re most certainly important. We all reiterate that fact every day. But how many “outsiders” try to do their outsiding by skipping over every rung and just running for president? Three times. It’s arrogance written large. I’m disgusted by Nader. Jane Hamsher is a really strong example of someone who is doing the hard work every day, day in and day out, year in and year out. Again, I’m disgusted by Nader’s arrogant approach.
Edit: That was in reply to Selise. I fogot to click the ‘reply’.
Grijalva is my rep and I adore him. Although I have been somewhat disappointed in a few of the things he has said during the healthcare debate, for the most part he has been a standup guy and has shown more leadership than many of the mealy-mouthed “progressives” in his caucus. It’s appalling for anyone to single him out and the “monster” thing is completely ridiculous. Grijalva is the real deal and we’re lucky to have him.
au jus
I would love to see that but you know that the party insiders will never support him and will paint him as some starry eyed liberal that can’t win state wide office.
Thanks. I don’t see anyone discussing that possible tactic, except here. Big story on NPR this AM-not a whisper.
Layered with lying cheese.
Hi, Ron.
Just kidding, lots of great cooks in the UK. Some of the traditional cuisine would not be to my taste but s’okay if they like it.
Hey demi.
There’s some other kind of cheese?
Obama is going to ‘help’ Reid in Nevada the same way he did in Mass.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/01/obama-to-stump-for-reid.html
Jane, have you spoken to slinkerwink, about the news that Pelosi is going for Reconciliation WRT the House Health Care Bill ? She has a fairly uplifting diary at the Great Orange Satan.
Last I read Nancy says everything is on pause for a couple weeks while they weigh their options.
IMO it’s unclear whether the administration does/doesn’t favor a public option. Only 44 Senators are on record supporting it, so it would’ve been silly for Obama to push hard for it. A medicare buy-in, on the other hand, does have over 50 (+Biden) in support, and when Lieberman pulled the plug, it had perhaps as high as 57 in support. If the Senate moves to reconciliation, it seems to me that this is a better test for where Obama stands on real HCR.
It’s only a tiny bubble of self-reinforcing pundits living in a hermetically sealed intellectual environment whose worldview has not been penetrated by that reality.
Hard to grasp that they can be this oblivious to what’s going on in the real world, but the fact remains.
A lot can change between now and then. He may have an even better chance the way the ground level Dems feel about the Party. “The corporate Democratic Party doesn’t support me” might be a great campaign line by then. *g*
I’m reading A Long Way Down by Nick Hornby. About four individual people who meet at the top of a fifteen story building to jump. They start talking. A morality play of sorts. Twin Towers and Rock and Parents are part of their continuing dialogue.
What is really creepy about the fact that his paper was written 18 months ago is what was going on at that time involving a trial and some spies.
Spooky.
And, I do mean the play on words.
You don’t like bubble and squeak? :)
linky?
por favor, mon ami
What I find really humorous is, Haggis has gone strongly left due to Sestak’s opposition.
Yet some people are saying that pressure from Lefties will cause Obama and Congress to run to the Right.
powwow link on filibusters:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/18788#comment-107636
lots more at the link
Slinkerwink’s Diary – via DKos
“I don’t think a national health care exchange can be created under reconciliation, but the public option, Medicare expansion and Medicaid expansion along with increase of subsidies and modification of the excise tax all can be done under reconciliation.” – slinkerwink
I’m not seeing anything from Pelosi advocating the sidecar reconciliation. She is just declaring they don’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill.
Of course we’re all Dennis Kucinich now! I’ve been Dennis Kucinich since I was a child, and you know what, I’m darned happy and proud to be Dennis Kucinich!
“Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits [on corporate money influencing elections] would have restrained ‘the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.’”
And the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court sounds truly, chillingly Orwellian, not to mention bought and paid for.
The only way Obama would support a PO would be if private insurance companies wanted one.
I think we can safely rule out that possibility.
Thank you!
I saw that and was really disgusted by it. Dana Perino would have been proud. Gibbs was so condescending. Message to Mr.Gibbs; saying that the bill goes farther than any other proposal ever before, over and over again, does not make it so. Making back room deals with Big Pharma to prevent the reimportation of drugs and to prevent Medicare negotiations on drug prices does make the bill a sell out to the insurance companies. Everyone but the Emperor and his robe carrying toadies can see that.
gracie :)
i guess it depends on whether to believe feingold that the administration got the bill they wanted in the senate. and how to interpret obama’s actions.
do you think obama wants a po? do you think his administration would create the regulatory environment it needs? with larry “no regulation” summers in charge of economic policy?
p.s. the medicare buy is, imo, really bad policy. medicare expansion, on the other hand, i think would be good.
I have a really long list of people I’m disappointed and pissed off about right now. Fortunately, there a some here who are not on my list.
That wouldn’t be so bad, I’m thinking more of meat dishes comprised of things we would typically discard.
Time for lunch, see ya later. :-)
See my link @ 65. Let’s hit the Phones, folks … the battle is at it’s fever pitch !
Call Harry Reid’s Office & push for Reconciliation
Call these Senators and push for Reconciliation
Let the phones ring off the damn hooks all day long! – slinkerwink
Ding.
Cheer up, Bob an’ me love ya!
See ya later.
sometimes going “farther than ever before” is a bad idea, like when your going in the wrong direction.
*Whew* … gets out from behind Kevlar Desk … *g*
{{{ demi }}}
Rattle & Hum ?!!
It was a shameful performance and he at no point wanted to hear anything that had a leftward view. He never answered those questions, which if you actually had the facts to back it up you would, but he instead just said “ed” everything ed spoke so that you couldnt hear ed’s question and then repeated the same mantra about the current plan. While it avoids the question, it looks plain awful. If i was an undecided voter I would have made up my mind right then that they are hiding something.
groupthink is powerful and unseen to those on the inside of it. maybe devil’s advocates and outsiders could help?
jellied eel?
Petro@81
he’s the only pol i know of who ever really stood up to the banksters. (in cleveland when he was mayor)
Amen!
I think Ratigan (MSNBC, who covers the nexis of politics and economy) ‘gets this’ aspect of the problem better than anyone.
Good thing that Obama is mentioning Volker. More, please.
And just to underscore your point, all the ‘politics and campaigning’ talk blames Coakely (?sp?). They see the symptoms, but they don’t ‘get’ the underlying problems.
BTW: Tweety completely jumped the shark on that MA race.
The Filibuster is complete bullshit in a ‘democracy’.
9 states have 50% of the US population, which means we have about 82 tails wagging the dog.
It’s oligarchic, monopolistic, and anti-democratic in the 21st century.
Hell yes. From one blue Floridian to another.
Thanks, guys. I’m not contemplating jumping or anything like that. Perhaps it’s all the damn politics and the damn rain. Like estrogen, too much or too little. *g*
“…if our senators are too damn lazy to make the R actually filibuster — poor D senators would have to stay near the senate floor for quorum calls — then they should resign immediately so someone willing to do the work of governance can take over.”
Woot! :-)
I don’t believe people even know what the official rate of unemployment is. This economy, no matter the spin, the messaging and massaging of stats, is going nowhere. The US has shipped off its industrial manufacturing base to low wage economies, and substituted the real economy with a Wall Street casino. The jobs and new job positions are gone and are not coming back!
If the MA election is any gage, we are on track to witness and become participants in a massive roll out of civil disobedience before the mid terms.
Can we start organizing the aftermath of a popular uprising?
(((demi)))
My sojourn into Brit cuisine began and ended at the sight of Boiled Tongue …
Perhaps Tweety was setting himself up to challenge Brown in 2012.
i might believe that when the house substitutes their bill for the senate’s (the senate used a diff bill number — an unrelated bill that had already been passed in the house — and according to kagro x that means only the senate’s version would be considered in conference.
Thanks. Know that I can’t hear Pink Floyd without thinking of you.
Love the rain. We had hail last night :)
There is no scenario for a public option with the 60 vote super majority and there never would have been any health bill potential without the election of Al Franken. So now this Martha decides to go to the beach two weeks before the election and craters. She only lost by 100k running an awful campaign. Martha’s screw up has nothing really to do with anything other than an awful campaign running against some good looking guy in a pickup truck.
Gibbserino.
Holy Crap ! hadn’t heard about Conrad or Baucus yet
of course it would be easy to use them as a yardstick as to what’s in store (speaking of English food) but still, damn – quite the roller coaster ride
We did too. Stupid someone left the cake out in the rain song was running through my brain yesterday. You guys safe up there?
One more piece of supporting evidence for this post: Morning Joe today has Rev. Jim Wallis on talking about his latest book and why ‘greed is good’ is destructive, and screws ‘the seventh generation’.
The topic of ‘the common word’ was raised.
On American teevee.
By someone other than Bill Moyers.
I take this as one more sign that Jane is reading things astutely.
Still chuckling… ;-)))
I am a hopeless optimist, but whatever the end result is, it will be much less than our expectations. It’s too bad that Canada doesn’t own enough of America to do a hostile takeover.
Saw that and thanks. Reconciliation would be a Senate call and not one for Pelosi. Hopefully that bastion of progressive muscle named Harry Reid will smash through a public option. If not, Netroots Nation in Vegas will be an uncomfortable event for old Harry this summer, while he is in full campaign mode.
Arlen Specter?
We’re fine, thank you for asking. The hail was huge but didn’t last too long. Got really cold after that.
Matt Y is almost as big a disappointment as Orhama. I posted this comment on his website:
“Matt: I loved your post the other day rehabilitating Baucus. Glad to hear he’s a progressive now. And what a mensch, the way he moved that bill through his committee. No grandstanding, pandering to recalcitrant Rethugs or industry groups, or venal fundraising for him.
Now this lovely, over-the-top ad hominem hit on Grijalva, who has taken a stand. Horrors, I feel faint. Is he mad?
Hope you noticed that even your hero Krugman has left the veal pen on HCR and the Orhama Misadministration: “…I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.”
(http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/he-wasnt-the-one-weve-been-waiting-for/)
Gosh, who’s going to tutor you in macro now? I guess Rahm or Podesta could get you some time with Greg Mankiw. There’s a guy who can make the analysis fit the political exigencies.
All this leaves aside that, read the right way, Grijalva is supporting your consistent, strident critique of Senate process and politics: “Let the bastards be exposed to the voters for what they are, and let’s see if they cling to their beloved, gridlocked, filibuster-proof super-majority bullshit.””
It’s over.
Please forgive me … I’m in a very snarky mood at the moment. *g*
not trying to say you should like him. just that i think he does important work from the outside — and i’m not talking about his campaigns. different povs i guess.
let’s spread the word. if powwow is right (and how many times has powwow been wrong about senate procedures?), then imo that filibuster myth needs to be killed dead.
OFG !
To the best of my knowledge, both Houses have the power of reconciliation.
Harry Reid might not use it, cuz he does not want to tick off his Rug Shopping buddies …
great, now I’m having a hot flashback :D
One of my British friends mailed me awhile back, informing me that we had proven incapable of governing ourselves and were to be re-colonized.
Do you live in MA?
LOL!
Filibusters in the Senate are controlled by Senate Rule 22, previously changed in 1975 to allow Senators to “put a hold” on a bill without actually having to take to the floor and jawbone.
This rule, like all others, is subject to majority vote only. Although there is a constitutional question about changing rules during a session, voting to change any rule cannot be filibustered in its current form. (Keep in mind that the opposition could attempt an actual filibuster which would then need to be broken by a majority vote.)
Hiya, hon. It happens, and then the dogs take that moment to climb all over you. What a world. What a world.
i love it. this thread is filled with hilarity (for those of us into gallows humor *g*).
Doesn’t matter. The plan, as I understand it, is to pass the Senate bill as is by the House and place fixes to the bill (like a public option) into a reconciliation bill sent to the Senate which only requires 51 votes. Indeed, it doesn’t even matter what happens first. Pelosi and the house dems could require the Senate vote on the reconciliation first, before ever voting on the Senate bill, to avoid any double crosses. Or, the House can pass the Senate bill, and Pelosi merely holds it and does not forward it to the President for his signature until the Senate acts. This move would be very risky as Pelosi could be labeled as blocking reform if the Senate does not act.
It only matters in which order the President signs the bills, not the order in which they are enacted.
Let’s do it. Thanks.
RonD !
E-mail him back, asking if they’ve learnt to drive on the Right side of the road as yet ? *g*
do you disagree with powwow’s analysis of the alternatives reid has? (link in my comment @64)
I’ve been waiting for the progressives to wake up for a long time. My feeling is that if they didn’t wake up after seeing the torture photos then they will never wake up. I sure hope you are right about the popular uprising. Long past overdue.
I’m so glad Coakley lost. We would have never seen the hard left turn Obama just made if she had won. The Supreme Court decision was perfectly timed as well. A perfect storm. If the Dems don’t turn off their TV’s and take the streets …?
Oh never mind. I’m too beaten down to have hope any more.
If Pelosi has her Ears to the ground, she would know that there are millions of us ready to support her, should she confront Obama & Reid and push for a strong Health Care Bill.
FDR threatened to increase the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 15 if they dared cross him on Social Security. Can anyone imagine Prez o doing anything close to being that ballsy. Everytime a republican or blue dog says “boo”, he comes back 5 minutes later, bows and scrapes, and folds like a walmart suit. He makes me sick.
Citizen Selise:
The first thing you must understand is that ObamaRhama are increasingly irrelevant to whatever happens in the healthcare fight. ObamaRhama have allowed themselves to be marginalized to the point that they can’t even turn to the fascist Republicans to bail ‘em out and they lose if there is no bill or if the bill that comes out is a complete corporate sellout. The next thing you need to understand is that the dynamics of politics and elections has turned to the point that by stayin home as they did in Mass, the progressive base of the Democratic Party has shown that they are willin to play chicken with their elected leaders which makes it impossible for Obama or anyone else in a large population district or state to win a general election without them.
And finally, the road to political change in this country is bein’ driven by demographics and technology which means that in order to get the Democratic Party back to the people, a third party is not only unnecessary but counter-productive and you can thank your hero the phony Ralph Nader for that….thank you Ralph.
Finally, you need to understand that the old politics of corporate control of both major parties is at an end and unless the progressives shoot themselves in the ass by rushin to a third party, the Democratic Party is poised to take the corporate oligarchy on straight up.
We don’t need a charismatic leader to hold our hands and take our money to lead us outta this mess…quite the comntrary, we are closer to gettin our democracy back because the “popular” leader tossed his power away and won’t get it back unless he figures out, like Napoleon, where the people are goin’.
the house bill is worse than romneycare. exactly what “fix” do they have in mind? or maybe i shouldn’t ask as it would just depress me.
edit to add: i should have thanked you for the info first. my frustration got the better of me. thank you.
Cass Sunstein may be a brilliant lawyer, but he is not, by any stretch, a progressive. I would call Sunstein a statist. And shockingly simplistic for someone who’s supposed to be brilliant. Google for Glen Greenwald’s deconstruction of Sunstein’s subversion and propaganda proposal, Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal. And then consider in what position Obama has placed Sunstein.
Cass Sunstein is dangerous.
Citizen Norske. Ya wanna revolution? I’ve got the sweet bread for the peasants.
I believe Feingold insofar as I think Obama wanted a bill (any bill) to pass, hence, whatever passed was the bill he wanted. He didn’t push for a PO because it was a political non-starter for him: Lieberman or Landrieu (or whoever) always held a veto on it. But remember also that Reid assured him in October that he had all the votes to pass the Senate bill at that time, which included the weak PO.
But why are you so opposed to the Medicare buy-in? It seems like expanding this might be the fastest way to real government run HC? What am I missing here?
He was on Stewart last night, too.
Yes in Berkshire County which went for Martha except for Otis. We are the county which really helped her get the nomination, infamy.
I just noticed, Pat Buchanan talks like a girl. No offense to girls.
You don’t think Martha having the time to go to DC and have a fundraiser with the Health Care lobby had anything to do with her losing?
OK, so I follow the Matt Yglesias link which ended up being a post by Brian Montopoli when I followed it and has an interesting quote, that probably everyone else has already read.
Obama said, “Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts…People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”
So Obama thinks that Brown was voted in because people were unhappy with either Bush or Kennedy or maybe local MA politics ending up on the national stage. Once again when reading something Obama has said I end up completely baffled. Anyone that was hoping a their MA vote, either for or against, would send a message was probably being very optimistic. This kind of rationalization is nearly impossible to overcome.
Important movement in the Senate yesterday, post-Massachusetts:
That is Majority Leader Reid lining up a version of the DeMint/Sanders Audit the Fed bill (already passed in the House thanks to Paul/Grayson) for Senate floor action, possibly next week, though no Senate committee has yet to act on the bill (Bernanke also seemed to give ground on at least some of this the other day)…
Senator Reid and Senator Durbin, who had both been enthusiastically abusing their supermajority power to ignore input and warnings from the minority, in a mad, Party-driven quest to override even the silenced will of their own caucus to deliver the President what he demanded on health reform, are now having a hard time swallowing their hubris, but the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have forced their hands in a way that nothing else could, absent a caucus rebellion.
Senator Reid, for example, slipped something into his morning floor remarks yesterday with which I couldn’t agree more:
That ought to be the new byword of the Democratic Senate this year. But words are not enough, Senator Reid. As John McCain put it in December, the minority needs to be in on the take-off, not just on the landing, of important legislative product in the Senate. Which, of necessity, never mind Constitutional wisdom, means that private White House deals adopted by Senate Democrats merely for the purpose of chaperoning them by force of majority numbers through the Senate – simply because they can – must cease.
If Republicans in fact, given the opportunity by the majority to be in on the take-off without preconditions based on White House interference, genuinely refuse to legislate in good faith on a level playing field with Senate Democrats also acting in good faith, the Democratic Senate has a fall-back position available to it, without need for a rule change or anything else save a simple determination to act: Force the real filibuster back into the Senate, to preserve simple majority rule and the filibuster’s protection for the airing of a passionate minority’s position in that body.
See also these nominations formally (re-)submitted yesterday to the Senate by President Obama:
[Thanks for noting that earlier comment of mine, selise, which expands on my "force the filibuster" argument in this comment. I've yet to see that argument debunked, though few have carefully addressed it. Kagro X is apparently finally going to tackle the filibuster/cloture issue soon in a post - I'll be interested to see his usual careful and comprehensive take. Also, FYI, I later expanded on that comment, hopefully clarifying the issue with better detail, in this Seminal diary (just below the section on C-SPAN's offer to televise conference negotiations).]
you’re more optimistic than i am. hope you are right and i am wrong.
here’s one of my comments from a discussion yesterday (the thread has a bit more):
i think jane had a post on some of this too a while ago. will go look for it….
Thanks. I’m in the eastern part of the state. Up until now the only people I’ve read pinning the loss on her campaign have been out of state and it’s been rubbing me the wrong way. Among the people I know, Martha wasn’t the problem it was the Senate HCR bill. In the primaries she vowed to oppose the bill if the Stupak amendment wasn’t removed and most people I know went her way in the primary, because of that stance. In the general, she sold herself as the 60th vote for the p.o.s. Senate bill (with the Nelson language, the individual mandate, no p.o., and an excise tax). So much for representing MA. She decided those lobbyists who buttered her bread when she was supposed to be out at Fenway were way more important I guess.
Love the title of this piece…Hope the whole progressive movement will be Dennis K. Watch Woolsey on Countdown last night and she is sounding wobbly, even if she means well. We need tough minded and eloquent congress people like Kucinich to take the lead. Cheers.
Yes, I partly disagree. The provisions for holding Senate business hostage through the use of the filibuster was not subject to a specific rule until 1917 (right year?) when a rule was requested by President Wilson.
Once the presiding officer has recognized a member in a “general” session, that member may then hold the floor against all challenges provided they make a speech or use the rules in some other way. When the rules committee has adopted time limits on debates on bills and resolutions, then the member must cede the floor after the allotted time. (This is usually gotten around by unanimous consent.)
The point is that the Majority Leader does not have the unilateral option of changing the way a rule functions.
About sums it up. Thanks, Jane.
If only we Kucinich supporters hadn’t been in such a small minority before. I blame myself for not being more vocal at the time, though I surely don’t think that would have made much difference. History created the Democratic Party’s current constitution, that is, decades of subservience to an Establishment that has only become more reactionary and corporation dominated over the years.
I respect Dennis K.
I respect anyone that stands up for what they believe in and sticks to their principles. However, my principles involve getting the best health care bill possible passed as quickly as possible. Dems need to “quicken up” their agenda and “getterdone” now. Stop the lolly gaggin cuz its costing us dearly as we get the “do nothin” label stuck to our party…like the pubs did.. and that is not acceptable. And cease and desist on these geithner/bernanke “help the banks and wall street” left over Bush agenda bills and start getting some of “our” money back like our president said. We are allowing negative forces to rule our destiny. We have the majority and America voted for change. Wake up Pelosi!! Wake up Reid !! and lets show these Cons how to get some good legislation passed. Now !!
Woolsey was terrible on Rachel. And Rachel took her to task, mildly.
I’m just happy Sotomayor is in dissent. The ruling was expected, corporatism is well seated in federal government. But Sotomayor’s dissent, along with her questions about corporate legal status, is encouraging.
The only time my cynicism didn’t pay off was Sotomayor’s vote.
hey Jane – your Yglesias link above goes to some CBS news Page
Yglesias link here
and what is he doing putting House Progressives in the same hemisphere as history’s greatest monsters – the same week say, there’s a whole herd of WH crickets on forgiving Haiti’s U.S. and IMF debts ??
Right about now the debt to GDP ratio in the UK is worse than ours and they are one of the few places where in comparison American’s have the greater amount of privacy. Stones and glass houses.
But they do have the best political theater in Prime Ministers questions.
here’s jane’s post: PNHP Statement on Lowering Medicare Age to 55
All I can say is that I voted for her in the primary and stayed home from work to vote for her again in the general. BUT HER GENERAL CAMPAIGN WAS JUST AWFUL. PUT ASIDE HER LACK OF COMMUNICATION ON THE ISSUES, SHE DID NOT WORK HARD.
jmo, but i don’t think listening to what obama says tells us much about what he is thinking. actions, on the other hand, i listen to.
Greece to the American Rome.
Fair enough. But here’s the question, would Capuano, Khazei, or Pagliuca have won? I honestly don’t think it would have mattered, so I also don’t think it would have mattered had Coakley been more visible either. Unless the nominee in the general was willing to stand up to Reid and Obama and demand better, I don’t think any of the 4 could have won this election. And from the primaries, I didn’t get the sense that any of them were willing to hold the Senate bill hostage (except for Coakley) long enough to make it better. And in the end, she caved.
Link fixed, thanks. It takes a village :)
Has Trust Fund MattY been right about anything in the past year?
Why do some people on the left still consider Yglesias’ tone-deaf analysis important or interesting?
thanks for the update and thank you for the link to you diary.
just repeating, as an excise in challenging the CW/mythology, your summation in this bit:
no, but do you think the rule prevents the fall back position outlined by powwow?
It’s ironic that Sunstein & TPM would come up in the same thread. It seems like (to me) that both TPM & HuffPo are really targeted by “roving bands” of people (or sock puppets) who really bomb the HCR threads- or really anything that could go either way for Obama. And they all seem to disappear all at once as if they have someplace else to be. (I’ve abandoned my tin foil hat. Screw em)
amen
This is ignorant.
if she had worked harder in support of the senate hcr bill, i wouldn’t have had to spend so much time angsting about not voting for her, as it would have been an easier decision for me.
I agree – a Medicare buy-in beginning at age 45 (Joe once said age 50) priced to break even – is a no-brainer.
Leave the subsidy for less well off to a second bill.
Include – if one can – a mandatory health claim reins pool for health insurance companies, justified as it ends cherry picking and thereby keeps the premiums in the Medicare buy-in lower Actually this could survive on its own as it helps the insurance companies assuming that “claims underwriting” – screwing those with claims – is not a major part of what they do to meet quarterly earnings targets.
Require all health providers accept Medicare and Medicaid as payment in full for basic preventive care, justified by the fact it keeps the Medicaid/Medicare population healthier and thereby saves Medicaid/Medicare money.
Yes, 1917 is the right year. President Wilson wanted to get the U.S. into the World War, and Senators had held an overnight filibuster in an (unsuccessful) effort to prevent that, after which the first cloture rule was passed by the Senate to force an end to filibusters. That rule was first actually invoked when a cloture motion was filed to force the Senate to vote on adopting the Treaty of Versailles.
The hard-to-reach (67-vote) threshold for actually passing a cloture motion required by the 1917 rule, however, was rarely achieved, or achievable, on controversial legislation, so it wasn’t until 1975, when the threshold was lowered to 60 (still a rare Party majority in the Senate) that cloture really started to become a feasible (and too-convenient) tool for the majority to avoid forcing, and listening to, a minority filibuster/debate.
As Parties have increasingly dominated the Congress, at the expense of good government and legislative product and process, and genuine debate, the cloture motion has become a crutch for the majority to painlessly bypass engagement with the minority. That painless process has also allowed painless minority obstruction and delay to flourish in the Senate under Harry Reid [which is usually the only side of the issue anyone talks about, especially members of the majority Party, who'd rather not be bothered to listen to the minority, especially when that majority Party is allowing the President to order the majority around]. The cloture motion rule (Rule 22) has multiple painless built-in delays of its own, so that simply reducing its vote threshold further (which Senate rules now require 67 votes to effect) without addressing those delays, isn’t going to achieve much, if the majority continues to abuse its power and the cloture rule merely to shut-up and bypass the minority whenever it has the raw numbers to do so.
I love it. The thought of Mankiw schooling Matt Y in the new religion is priceless.
thanks for a laugh this afternoon.
I assume that T. Kennedy would have won in a landslide because of personality and because he would have explained why he would have voted or not voted for the Senate bill and because of his longevity. Coakley had to know that she was looking at only a 5% margin in a winning campaign. Instead she divined that she should or would win. Her trip to the beach over Christmas was just not right and had she campaigned harder, she might have been able to increase her margins.
The attacks on Obama have been a non starter for me considering that there is no effective play in the Senate or the House. She had to explain this and could have done so.
MSNBC pundit says 51 vote rule is really 60 vote rule because of steps that need agreement -
That seems nuts to me and if true likely to be easily swept aside by a ruling(s) from the chair.
My question is – Is it true?
And if true – would such rulings affect the filibuster rule?
I always love your comments!
Cannot remember if it was in FDL comments or not, saw this great Ghandi quote that I had forgotten – “There go my people, I must hurry to follow them for I am their leader.”
Agreed. But I didn’t ask about Teddy, I asked about the 4 options we had.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here, would you mind clarifying it for me? (sincere question, not snark, really don’t understand what you’re saying)
There have been many, many people other than Kucinich saying this thing needed to be started over. And, it wasn’t just the Senate bill.
This entire bill was done back room style. Hillary tried back room style at the White House and failed in 1993. So, what lesson did the Democrats learn? “The problem was a back room deal at the White House. So, this time, we’ll do a back room deal at the Capitol.”
The real lesson of Hilary’s failure was NO BACK ROOM DEALS ANYWHERE. This is a big issue. Have big open hearings. Have big analysis that isn’t “gamed” to show one thing or anyother. Involve the public is a big way.
Lastly, don’t get rid of 60 votes. If you do, you will regret it when Republicans are once again in control of the Senate. And, at some point, they will be.
Do we define majority rule as “abuse of the minority”????
Are there any 60 vote obstacles to the 51 vote path of budget recon.? I recall Reagan used Budget Recon in the Aug 1981 budget to kill the Carter Federal Health Care Bill’s funding – installing block grants that states used to cut state tax rates rather than help the mentally ill – and would be amazed to learn there was a 60 vote obstacle to putting the mentally ill on the street – an obstacle which the Dems chose to not use.
If there are 60 vote needs on the 51 vote path, could chair rulings end that?? Would ending those 60 vote rules in the path of a budget recon have the effect of ending the filibuster?? – not that ending it and going back to majority rule is a bad thing IMO – YMMV.
Obama needs to get off of his skinny black ass and “man up!”
Fire Summers, Geithner, Rhambo, Axlerod, etc. Bring in Elizabeth Warren, Dean, Grayson, Weiner and others that actually give a damn about the middle class.
See the German Reich’s take on Obama’s predictament:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY
Martha could have said anything – and still lost.
The base sent a message – 900,000 stayed home while the GOP had the same vote as in Nov 08.
Tearing down the candidate is pointless – she was in the way of the message – and got run over.
We are agreed then, go back and look at my comments at 138 and 153. The exchange with leftdcin72 started because he thought she should have worked harder. While I am allowing for the possibility that real independence from DC might have saved her, I think the discontent with Dems in DC runs so deep that it would not have mattered.
Haven’t read all of the messages here, so if someone’s said this already, forgive me. Instead of the huge, convoluted bill that never lent itself to easy sound-bite messaging, why not just go back to zero and have Alan Greyson introduce a single bill to allow a Medicare Buy-In at 50? People who have it like Medicare (“they better not mess with my Medicare!”). When you get sick you can’t be kicked off of Medicare.
Then it becomes “bad product (health insurance industry) v. good product (medicare).” Then, when the 50+ crowd is happy (2-5 years), introduce another bill to allow anyone to buy in to Medicare. You’re not forced to do it, but you can if you want to.
Rich people can have plan(s) offered by the health insurance industry while the vast majority will undoubtedly move to the better product. It would never happen, but perhaps Al Franken could write the bill so that Senators and Congressmen could either have Medicare for free, or elect to have (and pay for out of pocket) one of the health industry plans.
In addition, as we move forward, we can continue to tweak and refine this simple, single payer approach – you know like everybody was saying they were going to do about the crappy HCR bill that’s no longer going to pass anyway (yeah… as if).
Jane,
I’ve learned a lot from you, including the fact that left-center-right doesn’t apply to corrupt corporatist sellouts in the Democratic and Republican Parties.
Leiberman isn’t left, center or right. Many like him are corporatist insiders. Democrats have to get tough with the cartels, or they’re going to lose.
Kucinich has it exactly right in his criticism of the Democratic Party’s bad joke on the American people:
And you’re right to say this:
How many times did Brown mention that he’s even a Republican in his long and sometimes ridiculous acceptance speech the other night? Zero.
There is part of me that is starting to think that Cenk’s approach – the Uygur Doctrine – is the right way to go. Starting to act like we’re not afraid to draw blood might actually be the best way to save the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately the old-Clintonites in the Obama’s WH didn’t learn their lesson…
The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15270869
The “Democratic leadership” in the House and the Senate is a non-starter. First, but for the election of Franken and the conversion of Specter there would not have been “60″ votes starting in the Senate. Second, the Democratic leadership in the Senate on health was a non-starter, Baucus??!!
The Democratic leadership in the Senate is simply a residue of the DLC and the Clintons. And I cannot fault Obama for that. If I were advising Obama I would have told him you will never get 60 votes for a viable public option in the Senate. And any “healthcare” bill coming out of the Senate has very limited potential. I cannot see Obama getting into a losing fight with the likes of Schumer and Baucus.
I was so relieved not to have the Clintons running healthcare reform at the outset that I simply hoped for the best. Now we have the anomalous situation that the Repubs thought that the Senate bill would pass and that premiums would skyrocket in the next two years, all of which could be blamed on the Democrats. Instead, the Repubs have gridlock, no coverage of pre-existing conditions and skyrocketing premiums. Not what the Repubs wanted for the 2010 election.
I can’t take this anymore.
Here is a list of legislation that Ralph Nader was instrumental in passing.
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Consumer credit disclosure law
Consumer Product Safety Act
Co-Op Bank Bill
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Freedom of Information Act
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency
Medical Devices safety
Mine Health and Safety Act
Mobile home safety
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Nuclear power safety
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Pension protection law
Safe Water Drinking Act
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Whistleblower Protection Act
Wholesome Meat Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Not to mention all the books he has written, activist groups he has started and people he inspired.
Don’t tell me Ralph Nader has’nt done the hard work, or not gotten legislation passed or is not informed on the issues. Trust me, if you were to sit down and discuss issues with this man, even at 75, you would be blown away by how much he knows and how effectively he would outline REAL, not bullsh*t solutions.
Have you or anyone you know and love been in a car accident? You may have to thank Ralph for your very life because of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that he pushed through Congress.
And what’s this about “outsiders” not being fit to run for President? The “inside” circle gave us both Bushes, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and all the rest of the Jerk Losers that have contributed to the demise of this country. I’m all for letting an insider have a go at it. Especially one who was never tainted by scandal. Never bought. Never found to be lying to Americans. Indeed, you all seem to hate him because he told too much truth!
Do some research. See the film on Netflix “An Unreasonable Man.” Know something before you make disparaging statements about a man who worked so hard for YOU his whole life.
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, now I see what you meant.
I completely agree with you here. I had really hoped for better from Obama, but that’s water over the dam now.
I think this is a really good point. The funny thing about the Senate HCR bill is that it really is the Republican vision of private interests running roughshod over the public good. the beauty of it was that with the 60-vote nonsense, the Reps could put the Dems entirely on the hook for passing a bill that lobbyists love, the Dem base hates, and the Reps laugh all the way to electoral victory in November.
Now though, the Dems may not pass the Senate bill in its current form, but rather something the public doesn’t hate, and then the Reps will be left out in the cold in November. It could be a truly beautiful thing to watch if the Dem leadership doesn’t blow it ; )
I’m with you here, both in understanding and confusion. I understand that holds, and other procedures can stall the reconciliation process, and overcoming those holds, etc, requires a vote of 60. But I’m also confused about this since recon. has been used effectively in the past precisely to circumvent filibuster issues. (???)
I know it looks that way, but it’s not. For those of us who study archetypal forces as they manifest in history, the indicators point to a groundswell building that favors progressives. One needs a long view because the operative influences peaks between 2012-2016 and 2020. Keep the faith!
Nice list.
How many of those bills were in the last 25 years?
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like things will get worse before they get better, like during the French Revolution in the 1890s and the Depression in the 1930s, unless the Obama administration has an epiphany on the Road to Damascus moment.
I love it! Sounds like you watched Rachel Maddow’s segment, Can Democrats utilize their majority?, about which I posted a diary this morning, Deconstructing Myths of America: Rachel Maddow busts the Democratic Party’s 60-vote myth.
No. I define supermajority abuse of the cloture motion as abuse of the power of the majority Party – absent proof that the minority has been given equal opportunity by the majority to meaningfully amend, if not help write, much of the Committee Chairman’s Mark, and bills brought to the floor.
The majority Party abuse of the cloture motion (now at record levels under Reid) – even if it were true that all Republicans in Congress simply refuse to even talk to Democrats or otherwise participate in the legislative process (which Paul/Grayson and DeMint/Sanders on Audit the Fed seems to belie) – also happens to enable and further entrench a parallel escalating abuse of mere objections to, and threats to filibuster, almost every measure in the Senate by the minority – in order to try to prevent action on those measures, or at least on those measures that have simple majority, but not supermajority support. Forcing real filibusters puts both Parties to the test: Who means what they say, and is committed enough to walk the walk and see it though? And a return of the real filibuster should reinforce/reimplement simple majority rule as the default in the Senate, by avoiding the unnecessary, painless delays of the supermajority cloture process.
The Party abuse cuts in both directions, but we only ever want to hear the spin of the majority about the process, and take at face value their claim that their record use of cloture motions is the only way to legislatively proceed in the Senate today.
For a comprehensive overview of the reconciliation process, see this recent post that Kagro X highlighted. [But ignore Jeff's line about "...but that requires unanimous consent, which has been lacking on anything having to do with health care." In fact, the minority Senate Republicans unanimously agreed to waive a reading of the Reid substitute amendment, unanimously waived all post-cloture time on the motion to proceed to that amendment, repeatedly unanimously waived most of the running of the otherwise-mandated post-cloture debate time on the final ramming of the bill through the Senate, pre-Christmas, and repeatedly unanimously agreed on (someone's idea for) 60-vote margins for passage of all floor amendments to the bill that were called up (though the Republican 40-vote caucus on its own obviously had no chance to reach that margin).]
The short answer is that there are 60-vote obstacles in the reconciliation process if the measure is not carefully written to avoid them. The 60 votes are not to overcome threatened or actual filibusters, but to waive points of order lodged against the reconciliation bill or amendments to it (because the measure violates earlier legislation or budget resolutions in some way). Those points of orders are ruled on by the Senate Parliamentarian (unless the majority Party abuses its power to kick him out of the job, which Republicans have done in the past), and, if valid, the Senate gets a chance to override the points of order with 60 votes, or else the point of order strikes the measure in question.
So, no, the 60-vote procedural hurdles in the reconciliation process have no connection to the 60-vote cloture motion threshold, and thus shouldn’t have any impact on Senate rules or customs about filibusters or cloture motions.
Few. Ever since the DLC neoliberals took over the Democratic Party it’s been very difficult to get any Progressive legislation through Congress. Or have’nt you noticed?
But that’s not the point. Kitt was saying, basically, that ousiders have no business running for the Presidency because they are not on the inside doing all the grunt work of crafting legislation. Well that just doesn’t apply to Ralph.
I might add that Ralph does not just “drop in” every four years to hog the limelight. The corporate media suddenly “rediscovers” him after ignoring him and his message for 4 years. Ralph stays very active writing, investigating, giving speeches and advocating for Progressive causes year round and between elections. Quite a few blogs have popped up on FDL lately expressing regret that they dissed Ralph in years past, that they feel they were suckered by Democratic propaganda, and that what Ralph was saying -especially about the corporate ownership of both political parties, has never been more self-evidently true.
always impressed and thankful for your advocacy on behalf of perhaps the last principled man on the American political stage.
America needs more men like him.
you mean since Democrats became Reagan Republicans?
Thumbs Up, FN.
Heck I know Ralph’s time has passed. It happens to all of us. But so much that he fought BIG battles for is now just taken for granted. How many times do you read “with documents requested under the ‘Freedom of Information Act’?” Or about the EPA, or air bags and seat belts, collapsible steering wheels? Whistleblower Protection, or OSHA. So much of what he did is weaved into the fabric of everyday American life. Much of it corporatism is now trying to negate or do away with.
Anyway, thanks for your comment. Now I’m going to go try and depressurize.
Wow…
In case we needed evidence about which powerbroker in Washington the Coakley defeat in Massachusetts targeted and impeded most directly:
That’s the way the unelected Emanuel in the Executive Branch of government was talking in the days and weeks leading up to the Massachusetts decision. Who else could’ve or would’ve shut that guy up, cut him down to size, and weakened his grip on our Congress, if the voters of Massachusetts hadn’t?
Well said.
Given the current status of things “Stateside,” I would welcome that.
And the fact that the UK plans to charge some of our Evil Doers with war crimes is an added bonus.
And even then, the Wingers complain about the “bowing.”
Oh, wait, that was re Japan.
Where do I go for more details on the “trust fund-ness” of MattY?
I hate to say I told you so but I told you so. Nothing gets the dems attention like a good ass whooping at the polls. If Coakley had won it wldve been bau and Obama and the dems wld be forcing this sorry ass bill down are throats. The dems had an epiphany the other nite and they realize that if they stay on the same track they were on they were going to their clocks cleaned in November. To all of the progressives who went against the tide and criticized the direction Obama was taking the party I salute you bcz you are the true patriots. It wasnt easy criticizing a president as popular as Obama but we placed principles before personalities and hopefully helped turn around a president that was driving his presidency and his party over the cliff.
dday’s post here may well explain Reid’s sudden move yesterday to get a standalone Fed Audit bill ready for the Senate floor (as part of a backroom agreement to try to save Bernanke’s nomination):
I’m very much against the filibuster as you know. But I must point out that even if it were gone, 82 tails would still be wagging the dog.
I have the impression they’re going to use reconciliation and a piecemeal approach. So I’d look for Medicare expansion and Medicaid expansion, along with closing the donut hole, while funding it through a surtax on higher income people and including a version of Dorgan’s drug reimportation measure.
Reconciliation bills originate in the House.
Fine post and thread. Hats off to selise, GDC707, fuckno et al for defending what is one of the finest Americans to ever draw breath, Ralph Nader. He isn’t pretty but damn!, I don’t want him to be! He’s honest, courageous, intelligent and uncompromising in his solid gold principles. People that disparage him are simply the victims of a good 70 to 80 years of high powered corporate/fascist propaganda.
Well put. My first reaction to the decision today was “pack that friggin Court.” Appoint 6 more Justices, see how Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (the new four horsemen) like that.
Citizen Norske, You may well be right, but we’ll know between now and March. If Obama turns to the right and not to the left, what will you say about a third party, then?
They can start with Blair, then get back to me…
Woolsey always sounds wobbly. She needs to resign as head of the CPC.
Although it’s certainly too soon to tell it might turn out that some good may come from the Coakley loss but this depends on whether Obama is willing to act in disaccordance with his preferences. And this is always a risky bet since I believe that Obama is inherently weak and not to be trusted.
He has made some proposals to reign in the risks banks may be allowed to take but that barely scratches the surface of disallowing or controlling derivative trading, dissolving large financial firms or controlling the actions of the FED.
So too for health care reform he may talk of this or that intention of keeping insurers honest and subject to competition but in the end he does not go after the root need of installing a single payer or meaningful Medicare buy in proposal.
My hunch is that he will try to placate the electorate with a nice SOTU address which no one will take seriously and only reinforce in people’s mind that Obama is unable to wield whatever scant amount of power he may still possess.
Whatever action he is forced to take will result from the continued pressure from the left since the rest of the population is too complacent. We have already seen that Obama does not act even minimally against private interests until events, such as the Coakley loss, force his hand.
for the record. i hate spin when it acts to deceive and/or misinform. it’s an example of a kind of elitism that shows the spinner doesn’t support my right to be an informed citizen with the right to make independent judgments.
that would be nice. but wouldn’t some of that require the house bill to be included in the reconciliation process (at least as the way the process is supposed to work)?
letsgetitdone, would you position on the filibuster be in anyway modified if powwow is right in the comments above?
thanks, and i think this;
is usually true. a lot of what i read/hear from dems about nader is about as accurate as what republicans said about gore during the 2000 campaign (lied about the internet, etc).
maybe that says as much or more about the dems in the last 25 years than it does about nader. i think it probably does, because if i look at the the major legislative initiatives of the dems in the last 25 years, i see a fall off of good governance on their part.
in addition, it’s not exactly fair to compare a person’s productivity at age 76 vs 51 (nader is almost 76) and expect it to be the same. i think it’s pretty cool, he’s still working (did you see the book he’s just published?).
finally, that’s just an impressive list of lifetime accomplishment. as far as i can tell, the rhetoric of dem putdowns and demonozing is just not supported by the historical record.
As a girl, I have to say that them’s fightin’ words!
I agree. I feel more at peace than I have in a long time. Not at peace, but more at peace. There are a lot of signals out there that things are getting too bad to muddle along and people are getting mad enough to do something about it. People are waking up and corporations and politicians are still assuming that we are asleep and they can do things the old way. They are flushing themselves out so the people can take care of them while they are of a mind to. It’s not going to happen overnight, but I have more hope than ever that it’s going to happen. I could hug Obama for being so idiotic about the health care fight that it brought to the American eyes the disaster that is our current political system. Then after hugging him, I’d kick him in the groin for being so idiotic as to mess up health care.
Right. Sure. That must be it. I don’t “hate” Ralph Nader for “telling too much truth” or for any other reason. I’ve already expressed my opinion about his penchant for running for president rather than some other ‘winnable’ office. And I am well aware of his history and impressed by it, so you could have saved your high horse for someone who “hates him because he told too much truth”. That is, if you can find that person.
CT senate. i hope.
Nah, Lt. Governor Lee Fisher and state secretary Jennifer Brunner are vying for the Democratic Party nomination — and either will gladly concede the election to their Republican counterpart because neither of them knows how to campaign or govern. Brunner did some work to reverse the trend of rigged elections in Ohio, but decided that leaving the job half finished was a good idea and is now leaving the door wide open for a GOPer to win and undo all of the few election reforms she did implement. Fisher is simply a weak candidate, which is probably why the Ohio Democratic Party establishment likes him; he gives them an excuse to say they tried to run a candidate, but voters prefer a Republican, and that will be their justification for moving even further to the political right.
As you say, Ralph Nader is one of the great American heroes of the 20th century and his evaluation of the two main political parties is now vindicated. Time to talk to Ralph more. I have appologized to him for my rejection of him in 2000 and 2004 and I think many other fdlers should do the same. I heard Ralph on Tom Hartmann today, he’s ready roll.
I’ll drink to that!
Weakness exudes from here lips and it is cringingly embarrassing to listen to her.
Ever notice when Reconcilation is mentioned to Chris Matthews he almost goes balistic? What’s up with that? Is that his Corporatist Boss instruction? He almost says straight to Dem’s face “we will destroy you”. Media is for the P E O P L E? He is also very condescending to Howard Dean.