Sens. Bayh, Carper, Lincoln Commit Themselves to Obama
A lot of progressives were alarmed when they heard Evan Bayh was launching a bloc of self-described moderate Democratic Senators as it seemed the only purpose of such a group could be to water down the president’s agenda. But the administration and the congressional leadership seemed pretty sanguine. And now here comes a Washington Post op-ed by Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Tom Carper saying that’s not the right way to look at it. They say they “feel compelled to set the record straight” and “believe that President Obama is correct when he says that we cannot afford to wait any longer to fix health care and transition to a clean-energy economy.”
The issue, as they see it, is that “on nearly all important votes, a supermajority of 60 senators will be needed to pass legislation” which means that “without Democratic moderates working to find common ground with reasonable Republicans, the president’s agenda could well be filibustered into oblivion.” I’ll stop here to note that there actually is an alternative here, albeit one that nobody in the Senate seems inclined to pursue, namely filibuster reform. Previous eras of substantive progressive reform have usually gone hand-in-hand with procedural reform. But that’s not on the table, so their alternative is working to find common ground with reasonable Republicans. It’s a good idea, I think. They themselves write, however, that when it comes to solving America’s big problems “Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has basically decided to stay on the sidelines to let the Democrats carry the load of reform alone.”
Who are the Republicans they’re going to work with? Arlen Specter who’s running scared of a primary challenge from the right and flip-flopping as fast as he can to base-friendly territory?
18 Responses to “Sens. Bayh, Carper, Lincoln Commit Themselves to Obama”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 25th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Of course, BayhCarperLincoln threw in the part about Clinton’s failed health care agenda, without noting that Clinton won with 43% of the vote, compared to Obama’s 53%. Same old obstructionism in a different package. Well, the same package actually.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:01 am
Sounds like they mostly just want plenty of chances to talk a good game (like the attention whores they are) so this is sort of mildly encouraging. (Perhaps they’ve also looked at the polls that have shown Obama’s approval RISING a couple of points during his supposedly “most difficult week so far”.)
March 25th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Sen. Olympia Snowe is a grown up who doesn’t need Evan Bayh’s powers of awesome to come to the table to make good policy. So who, exactly, is he convincing with nonsense?
Snowe + Democratic unity = Obama governing majority
Bayh doesn’t like that basic math because it leaves him as one of many instead of the center of attention so he comes up with this fable about convincing Republicans. On domestic policy, Bayh is to the right of Snowe. On foreign policy, he’s to the left of Lugar. He’s wrong about everything and still wants a pat on the back for being reasonable. Stuff in your hat you himbo ninny. This idiot read the Judgement of Solomon and took away the lesson that splitting babies was the height of moderate wisdom. EARTH TO EVAN: YOU’RE MISSING THE PLOT.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Regarding filibuster reform, what if they changed the rules to maintain the 60 vote requirement, with an option of needing only 50 votes if at least 3 votes come from outside the majority party? You wouldn’t have to wait for supermajorities to come along once every generation to get legislation through and it would provide incentive for senators to become independents in name and action. Maybe even pave the way to a third party! Maybe the Liberal Party. Of course, we might have to put up with the Ultra-Conservative Party.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Somebody ask Evan Bayh which of the various health care proposals in Congress he prefers. I guarantee he does not support the one that is scored to save the most money and provide the most coverage. When it comes to health care, suddenly their mantra isn’t fiscal responsibility, it’s “the American way of life” or whatever other vapid platitude he can spew in order to plant his ass squarely in the middle of the status quo.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Who are the Republicans they’re going to work with?
Snowe and Collins, obviously.
It’s going to be a profitable time for government contractors in Maine.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Who are the Republicans they’re going to work with?
I’d like to think George Voinovich (R-OH), whose retiring, would be amenable to reason on say, health care issues. But then I’d still like to believe in the Easter Bunny.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:52 am
no need to reform the filibuster other than in the sense that ‘threat of filibuster’ should no longer be taken in the same way as ‘actually following through on the act of the filibuster’.
instead, what I’d like these geniuses to consider, is that Dems have 59 god damn votes. 59 once Franken is in!! they are 1 short of the supermajority. and they’re really, (really???) sitting around worrying that the Republicans will successfully be able to stall Obama’s agenda, with 59 Dems all condemning them at once?
god it just makes me so mad! what fucking LIARS these people are! THEY are the ones writing to Obama telling him not to put the whole budget through the reconciliation process!! THEY are threatening to vote against it! Obama wouldn’t NEED to worry about ANY of this if they would just shut the fuck up and act like god damn Democrats and vote for his budget!
these people are parasites, and its a real shame to see Clare McCaskill signing up with them, Warner too. what a useless bunch of luke-warm hacks. fuck these guys.
March 25th, 2009 at 10:58 am
My rant above should read ‘Bayh is to the RIGHT of Lugar’ on foreign policy.
This pseudonymous commenter regrets the error.
March 25th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Regarding filibuster reform, what if they changed the rules to maintain the 60 vote requirement, with an option of needing only 50 votes if at least 3 votes come from outside the majority party?
Deeply unworkable – the Senate rules make no mention of party, as I understand it.
Beyond that, I don’t see how filibuster reform is an option that Bayh, et al, aren’t taking into account – amending the rules is itself filibusterable, or it requires a 2/3 majority (I don’t remember which) – the Democrats need to get in a stronger position before this becomes a realistic possibility at all.
Personally, I just like the idea of changing the filibuster to be 3/5 of those present and voting, rather than 3/5 of sworn in members, to put the onus of the filibuster back where it belongs, on the people filibustering. This situation (part of a compromise that was supposed to make filibustering harder) is what has, if anything, turned the Senate into an institution where if you have 41 votes, you can prevent anything from getting passed. But, again, this, or any other filibuster reform, doesn’t seem likely to happen, because there just aren’t the votes for it.
As for the Republicans to work with, even if Specter becomes mr. reliable Republican (Jesus Christ, man, show some dignity. Retire and vote for what you actually believe in – you’re 79 years old!) there’s still at least Snowe and Collins, who don’t have to worry about primary challenges, and who hail from a state where Obama is quite popular. There’s also individual Republicans who can be brought on individual issues.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I’m not in favor of changing the filibuster, it is a useful way for a minority party to highlight big differences. What needs to change is how it is put to use. The minority party needs to be forced to set up on the Senate floor and actually filibuster.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
The filibuster has its strengths and weaknesses and without it we might have had Social Security reform under Bush. Scary. What’s important to note here is that this is a bunch of no-name senators trying to strengthen their resumes for their more conservative constituents when election time comes around.I have to admit I was a little worried at first, but then realized that any group lead by Bayh is nothing to fear.
March 25th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
So, Matt, does this mean your pessimism yesterday with respect to the prospects for cap-and-trade is unwarranted? I must admit reading that post rather bummed me out.
March 25th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
These are not moderates but muddled Democrats who misread the public mood, as a recent CAP report suggests.
March 25th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
The Democrats should go nuclear, declare that it only takes a majority vote to amend the Senate rules, eliminate the filibuster, and pass Obama’s agenda by majority vote.
March 25th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Though I think of myself as a math person, I must admit it took me a while to realize that, in a two-party system, a 60% requirement is qualitatively different than a 50% requirement: with two parties, you’re always guaranteed a passing majority party of >= 50% but not >= 60%. Given the parties’ competitive nature and the pendulum swings of the electorate, it’s very unlikely we’ll ever get out of this ditch of do-nothing. The only working strategy is to take a totally hypocritical position on the appropriate use of the filibuster: uphold it as sacred when out of power and decry it as obstruction when in. (Don’t worry about the media remembering your former position.) Our problem, of course, is that this shaming and scaring only works on Democrats.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
So the question is…why isn’t filibuster reform on the table? Does anyone have any idea? It seems like a no-brainer. There must be some reason they don’t want to touch it…but what?
April 9th, 2009 at 7:22 am
My fellow on Facebook shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed at all that I came here.