Atrios replies to mistermix:
Reading this post and some of the comments leaves me a bit bewildered. One way to get Republicans on board is to enable them to be divas, flatter them, let them bask in the media spotlight as they play Hamlet for 6 months, and keep offering compromise after compromise while getting nothing in return, on the off chance that maybe, just maybe, Lindsey or President Snowe or whoever will get on board. Another way to do things is to propose popular pieces of legislation and then make the Republicans eat shit every day they fail to pass it, go send out your charismatic leader to give speeches and hold rallies in their states, mobilize your massive community of supporters to take various actions in support of the legislation, etc. I could be wrong that the latter is the better strategy, both politically and in terms of actually getting shit done, but it just isn’t the case that the options are kissing up to Lindsey Graham or nothing.
For me, the key phrase here is “popular pieces of legislation”. FinReg is popular and Democrats should shove it down Republicans throat or wherever it is that they shove things these days. And it’s also possible that by crafting a more popular HCR bill, e.g. one that included the public option, Democrats could have put themselves in a position where Republicans had to eat shit every they filibustered the thing. Deep in my one-time-Edwards-supporting heart, I think that this might really have worked.
But climate legislation just isn’t that popular. I don’t think Republicans pay a price by blocking it and I think the only option was to kiss up to Lindsey Graham.
It’s the question of the day, how to deal with an intransigent, filibuster-enabled minority in the Senate. I’d like to see the administration be more aggressive when it has the upper hand, but I don’t think they have that upper hand on climate legislation.
Sentient Puddle
Speaking of which, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to debate the financial regulation reform bill is about to begin!
Expect it to fail 59-41.
Mike Kay
poor sad emo atrios. he can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
keep cutting yourself atrios, sooner or later you’ll get daddy’s attention.
worse comes to worse, it’s only a couple of years until you promote Nader or Cynthia McKinney.
Edwards, also, too.
eric
the charlie brown analogy breaks down because, in the cartoon, there is just lucy and charlie brown, such that if charlie brown refuses to kick, nothing bad happens to charlie brown.
In our world, there is a most grotesque institution with biases that favor Lucy and disfavor charlie brown: the corporate media. thus, if charlie brown refuses to play by the well-established Lucy-rules, he can still lose at the hands of the corporate spinmeisters, whose economic and class allegiances are more in line with the GOP.
Thus, in our world there is no binary choice of kick-not kick. That third player really makes it a whole lot harder for Charlie Brown
eric
Mike Kay
@Sentient Puddle: that’s good news. it’s that what hippie bloggers want.
Nick
@Sentient Puddle: and in response, we will hear endless tirades of “Democrats are using this to score political points, don’t want to work with Republicans, are partisan hacks” all week from the media.
You don’t believe me? I just got the media talking points in my e-mail box.
-Democratic partisanship fails
-Republican victory, Democrats MUST negotiate
-Democrats more interested in scoring political points to crafting a bill that would do something
-Republicans want a bill dammit, but mean old Democrats are just trying to be mean to them.
Yep, that’s pretty much what to expect this week.
Mike Kay
RAHM it through reconciliation!
I say, Reconciliation Today! Reconciliation Tomorrow! Reconciliation Forever!
eric
@Nick: which proves exactly why the Lucy analogy fails.
Punchy
According to Fox, ABC, CNN, and usually NBC, ALL legislation proposed by Obama and the Dems is unpopular.
Bret
Here’s a question. What if we were Republicans?
What if the Republicans had something they wanted to get done that’s similar in popularity to climate legislation (Say, massive tax cuts for the wealthy, or an optional war)? What would they do?
They would sell the SHIT out of it. If we operated like Republicans, we’d be able to get Tom Harkin and Nancy Pelosi on MSNBC and CNN every 20 minutes calling Mitch McConnell and Boehner cowards and traitors for not agreeing with them. We’d get Gene Robinson and EJ Dionne to write screeds calling into question Republicans’ sexuality and possibly mommy issues. We’d have CAP write huge papers on how amazing climate legislation is, and how it’ll make Cletus in Nashville’s penis grow 3 inches as soon as it passes.
But we’re Democrats. And we bicker with each other and argue about the merits of working with Lindsey Graham or not.
Herding cats is right. Christ.
Mark S.
I agree 100% with this analysis.
Tangential to this, I was thinking about the filibuster, and I was wondering if there could be some compromise rule that when the Senate is considering a bill passed by the House, you don’t need 60 votes to break a filibuster. They are supposed to be co-equal branches. You could throw judicial nominees for all I care. But this 60 votes to pass damn near anything has got to go.
Nick
@Punchy: Marc Ambinder today put together a very good piece as to why that’s true.
The Republicans only have to block the bill, then they can either force Democrats to drop it (which is unpopular) or negotiate with them in what will be termed “backroom deals” (which is also unpopular). Either way they’re screwed since the public has the attention span and memory of a rotting carrot.
Chyron HR
Why, I’ve hardly ever seen TV coverage of Obama giving a speech or holding a rally promoting Democratic legislation! Clearly he isn’t doing it often enough!
Sentient Puddle
What the fuck? Listening to the C-SPAN stream, and it sounds like 70 some odd senators didn’t even show up to the vote…
ETA: Gah fuckit. Mr. Nelson of Nebraska – No.
Headlines now: “Bipartisan agreement not to move forward with this bill!” Fuckers.
Mike Kay
Dougie,
the problem was there were atleast 6 dems who would have joined the gop filibuster on the public option (loserman, Lincoln, Landrieu, Baucus, Conrad, Nelson).
as i’ve said a million times, if HCR was so easy, while did FDR, Truman, LBJ, JFK, Hillary, Teddy, Nixon ALL fail.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
I fully agree on Finreg, and it seems the route dems are taking, or, eat shit or die by the 30 second ad. Though slim the chance, if dems beat that dead horse of gooper obstruction on finreg, wingers could cry uncle at some point and we could get a decent bill for finreg. I won’t be holding my breath for that though.
And as I and others have commented, climate change leg. is highly easy to demagogue and not a good issue before this election coming up in Nov. I would also include Immigration Reform in that category, at least in the current depressed job market, though it could also have some pos. effects for dems in the SW and West. I don’t agree that we could have gotten a PO no matter what Obama and dems did, and consider the fact we got a reform bill as sweeping as we did, a minor miracle and a major accomplishment by Obama and democrats.
They are now voting on cloture to begin debate on finreg. Looks like the wingnuts will chew off their own legs with uniform nays/ Nelson of NE just voted no with the wingnuts. How shocking!
Bret
Why is my previous comment awaiting moderation? I’ve never seen that before.
Politically Lost
The problem of making them “eat shit”, I think, was too many conservadems were willing to buck the possibility of actually making them eat said shit. But, what do I know, just a DFH.
Nick
@Sentient Puddle: Well the President stood up to Nelson and he voted no, that should end the debate on the whole “twist arms” thing. The President cannot twist these Senators arms.
mistermix
I agree that popular legislation should be getting the treatment that FinReg is getting right now – a ram-job.
But other than FinReg, and maybe immigration (and that’s a big maybe), I can’t think of a piece of legislation so popular that it will override the Republican “hell no” plan.
The strength Obama’s bully pulpit is way, way overrated. It had little or nothing to do with FinReg. The Goldman SEC action did the heavy lifting there, just as the Arizona law and the need to court Hispanic voters will do it for immigration, if immigration gets done.
mr. whipple
Financial regulation is indeed very popular. About as popular as I think it will get.
So, the Dems are cramming it like certain Liberals have been begging, daring the Republicans to vote against it, and the Republicans are calling the bluff. (Nelson voted against it, too) Ramming is wishful thinking, no matter how ‘popular’ some on the left might think a given issue is.
So, now will we see the Liberal/Left blogosphere come together and keep pressure on the Republicans, or just spend more time blaming the Democrats for being weak and foolish Charlie Browns?
Xenos
@Sentient Puddle: Still voting… there does not seem to be a clock for this type of vote, just the clerk lackadaisically jotting down votes as the Senators show up and can be bothered to vote.
Napoleon
Can’t disagree with a word you said DougJ.
Sentient Puddle
@Xenos: Thanks for the clarification. I don’t know how these procedures work, and really, the only ones I’m familiar with are House votes.
dms
And I for one agree 100% with Atrios. Get the bi-partisan, “yes we can” President out there every day, sending his message. If he’s doing it, and our “progressive” representatives are doing it every fucking day, then the media will have to cover it.
Call the “others” liars, do whatever you have to do to get the message out.
But trying to be nice is a waste of time. It’s Obama’s bully pulpit. Time for him to man up and use it.
mr. whipple
According to Atrios’ logic, Obama should now get on AF1 and use his vast popularity in Nebraska to pressure Nelson. Good luck with that.
Tom Hilton
If Atrios really believes he knows something the President and his advisors don’t, he’s completely fucking delusional.
Mike Kay
@Punchy: Bingo. That’s the big element missing from the hippie analysis. The corporate media is against our side (ie “this is great news for mccain”/ “both sides do it”), and if that wasn’t bad enough, the gop has an entire propaganda apparatus (fixxed news/hate radio/think tanks/astrotuff groups). I wish we lived in a self-reinforcing blogoshere, but that’s not reality. This why Bachman can act like complete loon and not pay a price (can you image the outcry if a dem had called shrub a “gangster”). The media empires won’t hold her accountable.
rootless-e
And one way to win an argument is to assume your conclusion.
Kind of stupid though.
Nick
@dms:
No, we really don’t and we won’t. We’ll complain he’s cutting into our time. We’ll cut out of conferences when he talks. We don’t HAVE to cover it and we won’t.
DougJ
@Mike Kay:
Can’t take it? I don’t see what about Atrios’ reply is in the “can’t take it” category. You’re making an unfair criticism, IMHO.
The Moar You Know
Nobody does. The PR campaign to discredit climate change phenomena has been a stunning success, and all the average voter thinks of when it is bought up is they’ll be bought down to the level of a bunch of filthy hippies crapping in a hole and showering once a month, while the upper crust sit in a hot tub while flying a private jet to Zurich or some other soshulistic Europeon nation.
I am afraid that climate change is going to end up being one of those things that humanity is going to ignore until the Pacific floods Joe Arapio’s jail and all the illegals he’s got stashed in there escape by swimming over the fence to freedom.
licensed to kill time
@Bret:
Heh heh, you said pen1s. /beavis
Word Press spam filter strikes again!
Nick
@mr. whipple: Ah, but he did. Nelson wanted a special deal for Warren Buffet in the derivatives language and the WH refused. They stood up to him. By Atrios’ logic, Nelson will vote yes anyway even though the President stood up to him.
And guess what, he didn’t!
I’m sure Jane Hamsher will say it’s because this was all planned beforehand because god forbid the crazy on the blogs admits they were wrong.
Nick
@mr. whipple: Ah, but he did. Nelson wanted a special deal for Warren Buffet in the derivatives language and the WH refused. They stood up to him. By Atrios’ logic, Nelson will vote yes anyway even though the President stood up to him.
And guess what, he didn’t!
I’m sure Jane Hamsher will say it’s because this was all planned beforehand because god forbid the crazy on the blogs admits they were wrong.
r€nato
FinReg is easily understandable and popular (even if not even 1 out of 100 has read the bill and understands what exactly it entails). Even a caveman couldn’t fuck up getting the votes on board to pass that one.
HCR was complex, but at least there was somewhat broad consensus that something needed to be done.
There isn’t even broad consensus on whether climate legislation is needed, much less what approach should be taken to deal with it.
What’s really missing here, is a Democratic messaging machine which can take the latter two issues and boil them down to something simple that can be effectively sold to the constituents of those who will have to vote on it.
(we already know all too well that the GOP can effectively sell even the worst, most ill-thought-out policies)
That’s the eternal problem of the geek or the wonk; he/she knows what they’re doing, but often lacks the ability to clearly and simply explain what they want to do, to the layman. In the IT department, you can just impose the best answer on people. In politics, it’s not enough to be right; you have to convince people you’re right as well.
Mnemosyne
@dms:
How’d that work out with the Iraq war protests?
If the media can successfully ignore and marginalize a half-million people marching down the streets of NYC, I think they can successfully ignore the president no matter how big his pulpit is.
Julia Grey
Do not panic about the Nelson thing. We always panic, and that’s why we run screaming away from what we should be doing.
We should continue to stand firm, call them on their obstructionism, bring up the call again and again, and in the meantime do our best to win the coming “did not, did too” pissing contest in the press. I’m pretty sure we WILL win this one, since many Americans do recognize that the Republicans tend to favor the fat cats more than the Dems do.
Then we’ll use the political capital we earn on that fight to win a few more.
DougJ
@Mike Kay:
That may very well be true.
I still think there might have been a way to be more confrontational and get a better bill. I could be wrong.
Mike Kay
if we only listened to Atrios and nominated saint john edwards.
rootless-e
@Tom Hilton:
The emo-progs use exactly the same tactic as the wingers I used to argue with about the Iraq war who would brilliantly explain that being nice and understanding to Al Qaeda would not keep them from attacking.
Mike Kay
@DougJ: I agree, if Obama was only like LBJ he would have passed HCR with a public option.
Say What? you mean Landslide Lyndon failed to twist wilbur mills into supporting HCR and a public option? whoops. nevermind.
mr. whipple
@Mike Kay:
Was Atrios really an Edwards fan? I don’t recall him stating any favorite in the primary.
rootless-e
@DougJ: Clinton threatened to veto HCR if it was not good enough. That worked out well for him.
8 years of Bush conditioned too many people to want bluster.
dms
And you wonder and bitch about nothing “progressive” ever getting done. You wonder why every President (democratic, that is) is so centrist.
mistermix
@Julia Grey:
That’s one way it might work. Here’s the story I think is more likely:
Reid gives Ben Nelson what he wants, which is apparently special treatment for Nebraska, as usual.
And then he finds out what Snowe, Collins or Corker wants. He picks which one of their wants is the least ugly. Then he puts that (still ugly but not the ugliest) compromise into the bill.
Then cloture passes.
Then Snowe (or Collins or Corker) will immediately repudiate the bill so they can straddle the fence, Robert Byrd’s carcass will not be hauled out onto the floor because the vote isn’t critical, and the bill will pass 58-41.
Harry Reid will be immediately reviled by all because of the compromises in the bill.
Obama signs it from some bully pulpit somewhere.
The end.
arguingwithsignposts
@dms:
Dammit, will u stop with this shit. It’s revisionist history. Obama has been out before the public almost every day about something. He has a weekly radio/internet video speech on Saturdays. He has held countless town hall meetings about HCR. He sat down with the GOP obstructionists for a Q&A and another smackdown with Dems along for the ride. He went to Wall Street to talk up FinReg. He blasted Arizona about their nazi legislation.
This nonsense that the president isn’t using his *bully pulpit* is horseshit and not worthy of a reality-based community.
rootless-e
Basically, Duncan has become reliant on a set of catchphrases that take the place of work.
After months of responding to Geithner’s remarks about TARP repayment with “lucy/football”, Duncan just changed the topic when all the major banks paid back.
Duncan didn’t write a word about the absolute tough bargaining with GM/Chrysler bondholders.
There’s never been a serious attempt to argue that the stimulus bill would have passed without the 3 republican defectors.
Never been a discussion of the effects of the tax parts of the stimulus bill in reducing Bush’s anti-progressive tax rate slant.
Never been a discussion on the effects of the stimulus bill on green energy.
Just whining.
Elisabeth
@dms:
He’d have to be out there every night in order to get the biggest non-filtered audience. Then we’d hear how he’s over-exposed or people wouldn’t tune in because of DWTS conflicts (and ’cause he’s really unpopular) and then the cable media would trot out Lieberman/Ford/Gergen/Erickson to say how and why the president is wrong while they completely miss the president’s actual point.
Sentient Puddle
TPM with two nuggets I want to pass along…
First, Nelson on his vote:
And myself, I think some people are just making shit up.
Second, don’t be surprised to see Reid vote no on cloture (if/when it happens). More weird procedural shit…basically, he has to in order to bring up another cloture vote later.
ETA: TPM (or CNN, more likely) needs to learn what state Nelson hails from.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@mr. whipple:
In order to ram an issue thru the Senate, not only does it have to be popular, it has to be popular for a sustained period of time, in the face of a lengthy and concerted campaign of propaganda against it. Few issues can stand up against that and remain popular enough to force the hand of Senators most of whom are not up for re-election in the current cycle.
Here’s a short list of issues that were hugely popular (both in popular opinion and in the House) back in their day but which a recalcitrant Senate was able to wait out:
The impeachment of SCOTUS justice Chase.
The impeachment of POTUS Andrew Johnson.
Tariff reform and railroad regulation for the entire last one-third of the 19th Cen.
The initial draft of the Treaty of Versailles before the Lodge Reservations.
FDR’s court packing scheme.
Here on the other hand is the (very) short list of times when the Senate has (very) temporarily ceased to be a massive roadblock to reform:
During the Civil War (a few states missing perhaps?)
During 1913 after the Wilson admin pushed a set of reforms backed not only by the platform and rhetoric of the winner of the most recent election, but to one degree or another by 3 out of the 4 candidates (Wilson, TR and Debs) – and opposed only by the Taft GOP faction (which lost in all but two states in 1912).
During FDR’s 100 days.
In the immediate wake of Dec 7, 1941.
During LBJ’s 1964-65 legislative push in the wake of the martyrdom of JFK and the landslide election of 1964.
Does anybody else see a pattern here? The Senate is always a major obstacle to reform, except during periods of acute national emergency (emphasis on acute), or in the wake of a massive landslide election far beyond the scale of the Dem resurgence circa 2006-2008. And outside of those periods, like it or not, you work with the Senate you have, not the Senate you wished you had.
Mike Kay
isn’t it better if this bill fails, so it can be used as a club to pound the gop in the fall?
arguingwithsignposts
@Sentient Puddle:
I don’t know who is the biggest asshole in a chamber full of them, but Ben Nelson is trying to wrest that crown from Joe Lieberman.
I mean, the GOP are supposed to act like assholes. It’s in their DNA.
Mmonides
Thank you for reminding me why Atrios’ popularity is so bewildering to me.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
One word answer: Maine. Obama won Maine by almost twenty points. IIRC he gave a speech and held a big rally there. Queen Olly and her shadow Senator didn’t give a shit. They have lifetime job security, and don’t really appear to stand for much of anything. Another case in point: Delaware. All signs point to a Castle victory, as far as I’ve read. He’s not running as a loyal soldier to the GOP caucus, but does anyone doubt that’s what he’ll be? He’ll join Olly and Sue as good McConnell Moderates, and David Broder, this time next year, will have written at least three columns on how Castle’s vote on X issue proves that Obama has not done enough to reach out to the middle.
Another word: Midterms. The midterm electorate is, IIANM, older, richer and whiter, in other words, more Republican. This has been true for as long as I’ve been following politics.
Swing district ‘critters and Blue Dogs don’t need Obama, some of them don’t want him, except maybe for under-publicized fund-raisers (Blanche Lincoln, Carnahan, etc). Also, he’s not on the ballot. I have no doubt that if the Obama-Biden vs McCain-Palin were re-voted today, the result would be pretty much the same, but none of those people, save Gampy, are actually on the ballot. One thing I’ve learned as I’ve been following politics more closely is what “All politics is local” means. Relatively few of us, especially the fabled “independents” vote on national issues, or really issues at all. For a lot of people, an incumbent doesn’t have to justify re-election, the incs have to really screw up to lose the indys.
Tom Hilton
@rootless-e:
This. Exactly.
General Egali Tarian Stuck
@mistermix: Yup. That’s the script these days.
Mnemosyne
@dms:
No, not really. I mean, what kind of idiot came out of 2008 thinking that Obama was anything other than a practical, moderate centrist? Who thought that the country was going to be able to turn on a dime and go immediately from being the most right-wing government in a century to being the most left-wing? I mean, other than you.
Lots of progressive things have gotten done (healthcare reform, unemployment extensions, stimulus bill) in the past 2 years. Don’t blame us if you don’t find them progressive enough for your rarefied taste.
rootless-e
@Mnemosyne:
Then there is the contingent of emo-progs who hated Obama in the primaries and constantly explained to us ignorant Obamabots that “Obama is no messiah, he’s centrist” but STILL HAVE BEEN BITCHING NONSTOP ABOUT BEING BETRAYED by Obama’s failure to be the progressive messiah.
A number of Atrios commentators complained bitterly about Obama’s failure to support single payer which they insisted violated his campaign promise!
Nick
@DougJ: That’s a nice dream, but it doesn’t change the fact that at least two of those Democrats were LOOKING to fight the President on HCR.
In order for being controntational to succeed, the person you’re confronting needs to not WANT to be confronted.
r€nato
@Mmonides:
I think the answer is your choice of verb tense.
Black *was* popular during the reaction against Bush/Cheney and the massive Iraq fuckup (and the selling thereof). He fit the times perfectly, he came along at just the right time, when we all felt isolated and needed someone to articulate the extreme angst we were feeling at the terrible right (wrong) turn the nation was taking, and yet we were drowned out by the neocon/media industrial complex.
Today, though, we’re living in a post-Bush, practically post-Iraq world. I still read Eschaton but I find it far less compelling, far less essential reading than I used to.
Mike Kay
This is perfect example.
The gop votes in lock step to filibuster the bill, and the emo-progs-firebaggers blame obama, first.
This wacko all have daddy issues.
Maude
@rootless-e:
@44
Let’s say Obama goes out and does the emo against the Repus. The Repubs block and a bill goes down the hopper. What good did it do?
Also, Ibama would become like the boy who called wolf and lose his credibility.
Had Obama started out with the bluster, the hold on some of the appointments before the Easter recess wouldn’t have been removed.
Clinton felt our pain and repealed the firewall between commercial and investment banking. How’d that work out?
Maude
@rootless-e:
@44
Let’s say Obama goes out and does the emo against the Repubs. The Repubs block and a bill goes down the hopper. What good did it do?
Also, Obama would become like the boy who called wolf and lose his credibility.
Had Obama started out with the bluster, the hold on some of the appointments before the Easter recess wouldn’t have been removed.
Clinton felt our pain and repealed the firewall between commercial and investment banking. How’d that work out?
Emo doesn’t cut it.
FlipYrWhig
@r€nato:
There’s nothing to read. It’s a list of things other people are talking about, linked to comments that take maybe 3 on-topic kvetches and follow them with 7 consecutive hours of awkward flirtation. What does he write? What does he know? What a disappointment.
arguingwithsignposts
@FlipYrWhig:
SUPERTRAIN!
(sorry, just had to throw that in there.)
While Atrios can be funny at times, he’s only slightly longer than Instapundit with most of his posts.
El Tiburon
Digby pretty much echoed what Atrios said.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/not-what-he-needs.html
I guess she is also a Supremo Emo Award Winner or something.
So now Atrios = Hamsher and he is some kind of hack. Funny stuff really.
Mike Kay
@El Tiburon:
Wow. I’m shocked to hear you call Hamsher a hack. Well, so be it.
rootless-e
@El Tiburon:
“It may very well be that the White House isn’t happy with that because they seem ”
A crisp example of HACK. Peggy Noonan could have written something like that.
1) imagine the WH “feels” something based on nothing
2) then make up an explanation why they feel that way
3) And – SURPRISE! – the explanation matches the tedious narrative she’s been serving up for 2 years.
She must be psychic! Lucy/football, nobody could have anticipated Digby’s spec-hackular 11 dimensional jijitsu move – wow!
rootless-e
@FlipYrWhig:
laughed.
Kiril
I see DougJ has managed to get a couple more people to use the ugly-sounding pseudo-Orwellian “FinReg.” I blame Ezra Klein as the proximate instigator, but really, do we as a people need a goddamn nickname for everything? Bennifer was OK, if too cutesy, but you’d think we would have learned better by the time Brangelina rolled around.
Mike Kay
@El Tiburon:
rootless-e has very good point. the lucy-football thing is stale. she needs to come up with something fresh. Plus, you won’t catch a serious person like Krugman going psycho-babble about feelings, like MoDo and Peggy. Some quarters of the reality based community has devolved into hippie-heather encounter sessions. Pass the bong, digby.
Mnemosyne
@El Tiburon:
So Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd are now the go-to people to explain exactly what the White House is thinking? Because they’ve been so completely accurate and on-target about White House strategy up to now?
You seem to have made the same mistake that digby did: thinking that Mitchell and Todd have any idea what the fuck they’re talking about when in fact they’re sitting around speculating on very little information just like the rest of us.
mr. whipple
@Mike Kay:
Calling Democrats weak and stupid never gets stale in the pout-o-sphere.
Mike Kay
@mr. whipple: IF we only listened to Digby and nominated Edwards. He would have solved everything.
Glen Tomkins
You are kidding, right?
“It’s the question of the day, how to deal with an intransigent, filibuster-enabled minority in the Senate.”
This is not mysterious or abstruse. The majority controls what is allowed to come up for a vote. Should they find a minority fixed in an obstructionist course, all they have to do is not allow something the minority wants to come up for any vote.
Say you have two Senators from GA who are completely uncooperative assholes. Simple. Next year, there’s no funding for Ft Gordon in the DoD appropriations bill. The Army has been trying to kill Ft Gordon for a generation, but has always been blocked in that effort by the mutual protection society they have on the Hill to protect each others’ unnecessary federal installations. The reason we have these base closing commissions periodically is to get around this truce without unduly burdening any one constituency, and allow some tiny fraction of the economies the military wants, spreading the sacrifice around.
Why are the two Republican Senators from GA still members in good standing of this mutual protection society? Why do we think we need to wait on a base closing commission, and do the base closing by spreading the pain around evenly, when the Senators from GA have already arranged to give the majority so much more than their fair share of pain? If our side isn’t willing to put meat back on the menu, and cut some nuts in GA, of course we can’t control that obstreperous minority. But if we aren’t doing that, we aren’t really trying, are we?
Sure, controlling the Rethuglican minority is a tough problem for the current Dem majority. Not inherently, though, not because of the minority. Any problem is insoluble if you’re not trying.
Mnemosyne
@Glen Tomkins:
There’s a bit of a problem with your idea (good as it is) that I’ve highlighted. Do you really think that in an election year that Republicans will actually respond to a threat that we will withhold something they want next year? I think they’ll stand firm and take their chances in the midterms.
The time to make that threat was right after the inauguration when there were still a couple of years before an election but, for better and worse, we didn’t quite realize just how intransigent the intransigent Republican assholes would be.
mattH
The only thing this whole vituperative comment section tells me is that the Senate as an institution needs to die, post haste.
taylormattd
See, here’s the real problem. These people, Atrios included, thinks all the democrats have to do is ram “popular” legislation down the republicans throats, and all will be perfect.
For a guy who made a significant chunk of his blog fame on pointing out lunacy in the media, he’s insanely naive.
I mean really, you tell me what will happen if Democrats in Congress “propose popular pieces of legislation and then make the Republicans eat shit every day”.
We all know, and it sure as shit won’t be stories about the “tough” Democrats standing up for the American people with “popular” legislation.
Rather, it will be endless, non-stop screeching and shreiking from all quarters of all media about “angry, far-left liberals” who don’t care about “bipartisanship” who are trying to shove “socialism” up the assess of the American people. That, combined with a non-stop parade of republicans on every TV show, and endless GOP progandists in the newspapers, literally repeating false GOP press releases about the horrors of reconcilation and/or lack of bipartisanship.
So the real question is this: is there any value in actually trying to get something passed, or is it better to act like the GOP, even though we have essentially no access to the media?
Mike Kay
@taylormattd: but dude, you left out obama’s 11th dimensional bully pulpit – that will solve everything.
Comrade Luke
You all realize that you’re giving Atrios the Manzi treatment, right?
Epistemic closure on the balloon-o-sphere…
Tonybrown74
@Mnemosyne:
Actually, that is not what Digby is saying at all. She practically says the same thing you do: that Adrea, Chuck and all the others are just assuming the White House’s thoughts on it.