Obama and Congress
David Brooks says “The great paradox of the age is that Barack Obama, the most riveting of recent presidents, is leading us into an era of Congressional dominance.” Jon Chait says we can’t blame Obama for this, it’s congress that’s asserted its dominance:
Now, it’s true that, when Congress was controlled by the GOP, it generally followed the lead of the Bush administration. But, as I’ve argued, Democrats do things differently. To say that this is Obama’s choice is to miss the power dynamic. If Democrats in Congress decided their role was to advance the agenda Obamwas elected on,then we wouldn’t have an era of Congressional dominance. Instead large numbers of Democrats in Congress have decided to protect their own priveleges and those of their affiliated interest groups. If Obama had some method to persuade his fellow Democrats to instead act in the general interest of the country or their party, he would have done it.
One thing that I do think is missing from this, however, is the Republicans. Specifically the group of Republicans—Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg, Richard Burr, Mel Martinez, George Voinovich, Richard Lugar, Chuck Grassley, and John Ensign—who represent seats that Obama won in the election. When Bush was President, it wasn’t just that Republicans saw it as their job to push the Bush agenda, Democrats who represented areas where Bush was popular were reluctant to stand in his way. You’re not seeing much of that on the GOP side these days. And I don’t feel like you’re seeing much in the way of deliberate efforts by the White House to bring pressure to bear on that crew.
The other thing is that the White House hasn’t so much as offered up a teensy-weensy whine about the fact that the Senate has changed the rules and decided to start applying a routine 60-vote supermajority requirement to his nominees and legislation. Obama is an ex-senator and perhaps as such has personally bought into the bizarre self-justifying myths that circulate in the world’s worst deliberative body. But I think that this is a giant mistake. The President should be pointing out that majority-supported policy ideas and nominees are being bottled up by insane procedural tactics.
63 Responses to “Obama and Congress”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
In the spirit of Bill Hicks:
-The puppet on the left shares my opinions.
-Well I agree with the puppet on the right.
-Wait a minute — both puppets are being operated by the same guy!
-Move on America, keep watching ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8′…
[fin]
July 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I know the Republican Party is a movement masquerading as a political party, but it really is remarkable how Senate Republicans have basically managed to rewrite the Constitution through sheer audacity over the last three years. The filibuster has been abused so badly that it now requires a supermajority to confirm sub-Cabinet level officials. Just absurd.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
It has to be at least a little early to declare war on Congress.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
It really is tragic. Obama seems quite content with letting this ridiculous 60-vote “civility & bipartisanship worship” fest ruin his young presidency.
He is going to be blamed for the failure of the economic recovery. He’s going to be blamed for the failure of health care reform. And then he’s also going to be blamed for failing to hold Bush and Cheney and their crooked cronies accountable, while also establishing a new, very unconstitutional permanent detention status for “prisoners” who were so badly tortured by the U.S. that we “can’t” set them free.
That is a lot of fail, and barring some miracle, it will make him a one-termer. He’s got to do better than this.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Well it is the Congress’ job to make the laws, not the president’s. It is not the House’s fault if the Senate has become so horribly corrupted. Were Pelosi running things, she would pass better and bolder laws than anything Obama has suggested.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I agree completely about the inexplicable lack of pressure being brought to bear on the GOP Senators from blue states. Where are the ads on Maine TV stations blasting Collins & Snowe on health care? On in Iowa or Indiana? I don’t get it. I thought that was how politics was played.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
An interesting comparison is with the last Senator to be president, Lyndon Johnson. Johnson expanded the power of the Senate when he was Majority Leader. And then he expanded the power of the Presidency when he was President. He only bought into one concept: that he should have all the power. We could use a little more of LBJ in Obama. Say what you will about Johnson’s policies, but he sure knew how to ram them through.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Obama didn’t buy into any of those Senate myths. He found the place to be such a shithole that he decided it was easier to run for President as a black man in American and win than it was accomplish anything in that arcane cesspool. And he was right.
Obama likes the House (which largely reflects his mandate) and tolerates the Senate. Poking those silly Senate asses with a stick by calling out their traditions isn’t going to help matters. See Harry Reid’s ‘we don’t work for him’ BS. Of course the Senate doesn’t work for the White House but it’s not like they are working for the American people either. They are refusing to do things that are REALLY popular because of traditions that never really existed.
Watch President Obama tackle health care in reconciliation in this budget and address climate change in reconciliation in next year’s budget. Then increase his majorities in 2010. Rinse. Repeat.
Obama’s internal dialogue about the Senate is like AI talking about practice or Jim Mora talking about playoffs. He’s not all that concerned with everybody’s uberfascination with the Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus. He just doesn’t give a fuck and thinks people who do are crazy. Just watch…
July 1st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Is anybody here on Obama’s campaign mailing list? They are raising funds as we speak for an ad campaign to share health care stories. My guess is when they start running the ads they will be targeted effectively. Stop channeling Veruca Salt and wait for your bean feast. It’s coming, it’s just not coming NOW.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Where are the ads on Maine TV stations blasting Collins & Snowe on health care?
That would be a waste of money. Collins just got re-elected, and Snowe is super-popular.
Besides, Snowe will vote for the bill anyway.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Matt’s basic complaint seems to be that Obama is not spending enough time whining in public about Republican obstruction, as opposed to doing things like framing issues in ways that make his positions much more popular in comparison to the congressional Republicans’ positions. I think a more strategic person would realize Matt’s proposal isn’t really the smartest idea at this stage of the game.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Funny to see people complain about Bush’s dictatorial ways and mock the Republicans auoritarian propensity to walk in lockstep
and then wish the Democrats were more like them.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Well, this is a good thing constitutionally, isn’t it? In the American system Congress, that is, the House and Senate enjoined, is supposed to be designing, drafting, and making laws, not the presidency.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I don’t see a made-up, anti-democratic requirement that all votes in the Senate require a 60-vote super majority to pass as a good thing, Myles, no.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Brook’s phrasing is misleading here:
“A few years ago the European Union passed a cap-and-trade system, but because it was so shot through with special interest caveats, emissions actually rose.”
What he should have said is “emissions initially rose”, after some bumps at the start, the cap & trade in the EU began working quite well and emissions have been steadily declining in the EU.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Duvall Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I know the Republican Party is a movement masquerading as a political party, but it really is remarkable how Senate Republicans have basically managed to rewrite the Constitution through sheer audacity over the last three years. The filibuster has been abused so badly that it now requires a supermajority to confirm sub-Cabinet level officials. Just absurd.
============================================================
Don’t know if the numbers bear you out. This is an interesting scoreboard on Obama’s nominations
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2009/federal-appointments/
According to this there are 384 available positions requiring Senate confirmation. So far 174 (45%) have been confirmed, 80 (21%) have been nominated or identified, and the Administration has even gotten around to identifying nominees for 131 (34%).
July 1st, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I don’t see a made-up, anti-democratic requirement that all votes in the Senate require a 60-vote super majority to pass as a good thing, Myles, no.
A return to the requirement for actual, physical, round-the-clock filibuster in return for a return to the two-thirds override requirement would be ideal.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Chait is letting Obama off the hook far too easily. Obama himself doesn’t seem to see it as his role to advance the agenda he was elected on – so then why should the Dems in the Senate see it as THEIR role? (I mean, I certainly wish they would, but that’s not really the point here).
The filibuster focus is interesting, but Obama’s ability to wield power effectively is also a key part of the story here, and at this point very much an open question.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Instead large numbers of Democrats in Congress have decided to protect their own priveleges and those of their affiliated interest groups.
That would bother me less if they’d been as active in trying to do so during the Bush years. Hell, if they’d even been as active in trying to do so just during the 2007-08 Congress, when they were in the majority.
But they weren’t. They roll over for a Republican President, then stand up to a Democrat. How on earth they think that’s going to advance a Democratic agenda is beyond me.
The President should be pointing out that majority-supported policy ideas and nominees are being bottled up by insane procedural tactics.
The trick is, how do you do that without sounding like you’re whining?
Other than that, I’d agree.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
A return to the requirement for actual, physical, round-the-clock filibuster in return for a return to the two-thirds override requirement would be ideal.
That sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
And improve CSPAN’s ratings.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
In the American system Congress, that is, the House and Senate enjoined, is supposed to be designing, drafting, and making laws, not the presidency.
Though in practice, it’s the corporate whoremasters (to whom you’re just about to pledge your maidenhood) who do the fine print.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
To given an example in support of what I was noting above, consider this:
Obama hugs cancer patient, pitches care overhaul
Now I guess Matt wouldn’t classify that as “deliberate efforts by the White House to bring pressure to bear”. But note the story includes this bit:
You can’t ask for better framing than that, and this is all in the context of Obama hugging tearful cancer patients who can’t get insurance. That’s bringing pressure to bear.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
So the Senate hasn’t confirmed one third of those that Obama has nominated and Campesino thinks this undermines Matt’s point?
Just wow.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Obama is an ex-senator and perhaps as such has personally bought into the bizarre self-justifying myths that circulate in the world’s worst deliberative body.
I think Matt’s way off base here.
I believe everything has to be viewed through the prism of healthcare reform, and then it all makes sense. They’re trying to cultivate comity at present — because they are determined to make sure a bill gets out of the Senate. Rightly or wrongly they’re soft-pedaling everything — gay rights, climate change, banking reform, domestic surveillance, etc. — and taking a conciliatory tone — until a healthcare reform bill reaches the president’s desk. If, when crunch time on healthcare reform comes, presidential arm-twisting means the difference between a good and bad bill, I’ll predict we’ll see a more aggressive (and progressive) Obama. I also predict we’ll see a more aggressive and progressive Obama after he signs a healthcare bill come what may. They just wanna get this sucker done. I think for a variety of reasons they’re probably correct to prioritize in the manner they’re doing.
In short, Axelrod, Emmanuel and Obama himself believe the president’s numbers will soften if they give the right wing press (and indeed the “reasonable” centrist Beltway punditocracy) easily hittable policy targets out of which can be spun a meme depicting this White House as radically to the left. A president with soft numbers is a president who is easier to oppose (or harder to defend, if you’re a Democrats from a conservative state) on a big issue like healthcare. Bill Clinton tried to do the right thing by gay people early in his administration and then got around to healthcare. He failed at both. I counsel patience. If the healthcare time table I keep hearing about is correct, by Halloween we should start to see more of the boldly progressive Obama.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
What I find fascinating is how progressives, who allegedly hated the Bush Administration for its imperial political world view as much as for its specific governing philosophy, now want Obama to channel his inner Bush and start kicking ass and taking names.
News flash: Obama is not, and never was, going to govern as such.
Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America sets out, in quite specific detail, the structure, the duties and powers and the responsibilities of the legislative branch of the government (aka Congress), in about 2300 or so words.
Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America sets out, in very general terms, the structure, the duties and powers and the responsibilities of the executive branch of the government (aka The Presidency) in about 600 words or so (plus or minus 100 or so words due to subsequent amendments. The most specific the Constitution gets is when it sets out the Executive’s power vis-a-vis foreign affairs.
Yes, there are checks and balances among all three branches of government, but clearly, the framers of the Constitution decided to vest the most power and authority to the legislative branch of the government. Naturally, the complexities of effectively running a modern, industrialized nation in an increasingly globalized planet lends itself to having a more assertive centralized authority than envisioned by some of the original framers, who believed that a decentralized, agrarian union could last into perpetuity, so the powers of the executive branch have increased over time, especially since the mid-to-early 20th Century, but the idea that it is Congress that makes laws and it is the Executive who executes said laws, though disputed among a very, very small and elite group of policy makers, is essentially an unchallenged idea among the majority of Americans, blue and red, liberal and conservative, and is a fundamental strand in the cultural and political DNA of the nation.
Obama, the former Constitutional scholar, understands not only the Constitution better than most bloggers (even glib talk show hosts like Bill Maher and progressive wonks like Matt and Ezra Klein), he actually believes that, as structured, the unique structure of American federalism can and will work and produce needed change. And he understands that for serious, fundamental and lasting change to happen, especially after the rabid, partisan cycle of the last 20 years, he needs to walk two steps behind Congress or risk that everything accomplished will be set aside in 8 or 10 years by partisan adversaries.
The other approach the legislating, which seems to be the+, is to split the country in half, make sure you at least have 50.1%, then ram things down people’s throats. The problem with that is that the Constitutional structure all but ensures that the 49.9% can extinguish the political lives of the 50.1% in short order. Karl Rove thought that he could overcome this structural hurdle by capitalizing on a national security emergency, that only worked for two measly election cycles (2002 and 2004).
And what did the Buchanan/Rove/Yglesias philosophy of governing produce: one war that is being wound down, tax cuts that expired, the “No Child Left Behind Act”that is in danger of expiring, a prescription drug bill that will be moot if and when health care passes, and no social security reform, no “ownership society,” no immigration reform. Nice legacy there.
If Obama shoves health care down Congress’s throat, despite the current popularity of the public option, you know what you’re gonna get? A Republican House in 2010 and Mitt Romney as president in 2012. How’s that gonna work out for y’all.
I think what makes me scream more than anything is the fundamental dishonesty of Matt and more than a few commenters. They’d like you believe that they only have problems with a governing structure that simply needs tweeking here and there (no supermajority requirement for the Senate) when in fact the Senate is working exactly as intended. In reality, Matt and a few of his biggest fans have a much bigger problem: the entire United States Constitution.
Just admit it, Matt and more than a few commenters hate the Constitution, thinks it sucks, and that they much prefer an English style parliamentary system with a Prime Minister and a House of Representatives that moves in lock step with the Prime Minister and a Senate that does little or nothing but sit around, tell off-color jokes and wear powered wigs. Then, maybe, Matt can start an honest debate.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
…admit it, Matt and more than a few commenters hate the Constitution, thinks it sucks, and that they much prefer an English style parliamentary system
I prefer a Westminster-style system. I admit it. And what of it? Is that supposed to be some kind of black mark on my character?
Most democracies have chosen the British model over the American for good reason. I think it’s a far more democratic system. The people — shockingly — actually get the chance to see their will enacted into law by their servants in government. Why or why do you conservatives hate democracy so much?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Well, you know how that goes- the President starts complaining that an unresponsive oligarchic Senate is blocking popular and much-needed legislation, and the next thing you know, a company of soldiers are taking him away in his pajamas to an exile in Toronto.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Obama, the former Constitutional scholar, understands not only the Constitution better than most bloggers
He happily ignores the Constitution every time he feels like it, for example on torture, civil liberties…
Are you happy that he knows he is ignoring the Constitution, unlike Bush?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:39 pm
If Obama shoves health care down Congress’s throat, despite the current popularity of the public option, you know what you’re gonna get?
Not sure the operative word here is “despite.”
A Republican House in 2010 and Mitt Romney as president in 2012. How’s that gonna work out for y’all.
Although you’re engaging in sheer fantasy (it’s virtually impossible to defeat an incumbent US President when the economy is growing briskly, which it will be by 2011), I’d take that deal in a heart beat (if need be) if it’s true, solid, European or Canadian-style universal healthcare we’re talking about here. De-fanging America’s whackjob party of the right along the lines of Canada’s or Britain’s Conservatives would be a huge improvement to the American polity, which is partly what would transpire as yet another Republican absurdity (“Socialized medicine! Evil! Waiting for hip replacements! Michael Moore is the Antichrist!”) is exposed, and people grow less tolerant of politicians who want to fuck with the safety net. And at any rate, a people won’t willingly give up a valuable extension of social insurance once it’s been won. So a president Romney under such a scenario would be forced to operate in a decidedly more European-style, kinder, gentler America.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
That’s what progressive Democrats in the Senate should do, and not only on health care:
Of course there are no progressive Democrats in the Senate (maybe Al Franken now?), and Sanders is an Independent. But one can dream.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
shine,
I agree the Constitution clearly envisions a country run by legislation. That said, the Constitution also gives the President two clear roles when it comes to legislation.
First:
So, recommending legislation is certainly within his powers.
Second:
So if he doesn’t approve legislation, he can send it back with his objections for reconsideration.
Accordingly, while I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Constitution makes the President into a co-equal in the legislative process with Congress, it certainly gives him a substantive role to play, both in proposing measures for original consideration and in asking Congress to reconsider their measures if he objects.
All that said, I think you are correct that Obama sees himself playing the role defined in the Constitution, and generally respects the primacy of legislation in our system of government. And I think he also understands that he has at least four years, maybe eight, and he wants to make the most of all of them.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Of course there are no progressive Democrats in the Senate (maybe Al Franken now?), and Sanders is an Independent. But one can dream.
Progressive or not, I’d bet there are enough Democrats in the Senate who support a public option to basically back up Sanders on his strategy.
And I think we might start seeing more of this in general with the Democrats now officially having 60, meaning Senate Democrats being asked to vote to end debate even if they don’t want to vote for the bill. Call it the “neutron bomb option” as opposed to the “nuclear option” (less bang, leaves the Senate rules technically intact, but kills the automatic filibuster nonetheless).
July 1st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The fair thing for me as a classical liberal, here, is that we are able to filibuster very major pieces of despicable legislation (EFCA and the sort of public option that necessarily leads down the road to single-payer), which do not have consensus support, while letting other things pass.
So, two-thirds override and around-the-clock physical filibuster.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
And what did the Buchanan/Rove/Yglesias philosophy of governing produce: one war that is being wound down, tax cuts that expired, the “No Child Left Behind Act”that is in danger of expiring, a prescription drug bill that will be moot if and when health care passes, and no social security reform, no “ownership society,” no immigration reform. Nice legacy there.
I don’t think this failed legacy has anything at all to do with the tactics Bush and Rove employed to enact this or that policy. I think the failed legacy flows from the fact that the policies in question were bad policies. What if Bush had used his small majority to, say, pass a solid tax reform bill that boosted national savings and erased the deficit? What if he had enacted climate change legislation, and substantially boosted spending on infrastructure and public transport? What if he had passed universal healthcare? What if he had pursued productive relationships with other countries and kept the country out of war?
July 1st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
(By the sort of public option necessarily leading down to single-payer, I mean one with significant government subsidy and excessive, national-based bargaining power.)
July 1st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
And I think we might start seeing more of this in general with the Democrats now officially having 60, meaning Senate Democrats being asked to vote to end debate even if they don’t want to vote for the bill.
That’s not going to work. People aren’t stupid, and the filibuster essentially equals the real vote in the health bill context.
National health care is the sort of major bill that genuinely deserves a workable filibuster system that could fully protect minority objections. Something as significantly as this is the very reason the chamber of sober second thought was ever hatched.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Shorter Myles: when Republicans are a tiny minority, they should make the laws.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
What we need is to ditch the Democratic Party and start afresh. A No Swine Party.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:09 pm
That’s not going to work. People aren’t stupid, and the filibuster essentially equals the real vote in the health bill context.
I don’t think it requires “stupidity” to see the distinction between a vote to end debate and a vote on the bill itself. Heck, the GOP laid most of the necessary groundwork with all that “deserves an up-and-down vote” and “nuclear option” stuff.
But yes, this means Senate Democrats are going to have to start making clear choices between obstructing the President and his congressional allies or not. And I don’t think they need to be “stupid” to understand that clearly obstructing a popular President from their own party isn’t a wise choice.
Something as significantly as this is the very reason the chamber of sober second thought was ever hatched.
For the purpose of relative sobriety, the Senators were given six-year staggered terms, and originally weren’t directly elected. The idea of 41 Senators being able to oppose 59 Senators, a majority of the House, and the President was never part of the original design.
Now if you want a version of the filibuster that requires a decent length of debate on serious matters, fine. But a permanent block? Nope, that serves no legitimate purpose.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Shine — Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America sets out, in quite specific detail, the structure, the duties and powers and the responsibilities of the legislative branch of the government (aka Congress), in about 2300 or so words.
True. Now look for the words “committee” and “filibuster” in Article I, or any other description of powers over certain policy areas to be granted based on seniority, or any description of a 60-vote supermajority requirement to pass legislation in the Senate. Keep looking. And looking.
Then get back to us on how what we’re currently seeing on Capitol Hill has a damn thing to do with the legislative process outlined in the Constitution.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:00 pm
The White House doesn’t really want those appointments filled. People with titles just get in the way of decision making. In the case of the Treasury where power is concentrated with one man and an army of Wall Street contractors they are not even pretending about this. Many posts have yet to have candidates named at all.
If the GOP thinks it is hurting the administration they are wrong. The relentless concentration of power into the hands of every smaller groups continues apace.
Controlling the bureaucracy? What bureaucracy?
July 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pm
The problem isn’t that a minority of senators can overrule a majority, it’s that no matter who is doing it, it’s always easier to obstruct in the Senate than to pass legislation. It just creates an environment that favors doing nothing, ever.
I just wonder at which point progressives stop expending so much energy promoting dramatic plans to fix health care and climate change and instead promote dramatic plans to fix the Senate. It doesn’t seem like a particularly difficult sell: the quirks by the Senate are abused by both parties for purely obstructionist purposes and basically represent everything that people hate about the government; the constituents favored by the Senate’s structure are a tiny minority of the country’s population; Senators are already massively unpopular among pretty much everyone. It seems like whipping up a nice (and bipartisan!) populist anger to reform the Senate should be a heck of a lot easier than whipping up a popular push for, say, cap-and-trade, and it fits nicely with the promise implicit in Obama’s campaign of better, more honest governance. No one has to be told twice that politicians are lazy lying bums who take advantage of the system, and this is a situation where that sort of anger could be channelled into incredibly useful reforms.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Good!
The executive has gotten completely out of control over the past few decades, especially over the past 8, and I love the idea that the balance of power might be returning to something like the co-equal branches the founders envisioned.
One of the big reasons I supported Obama over Clinton, even more than the Iraq War, was her almost Bushie stance towards executive power.
I certainly hope Brooks is right about this. The Delay/Lott/Frist Congress was nothing but a rubber stamp for the White House, and I’m glad to see the legislature reasserting its rightful role.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Hey, who’s office was that in Ohio? I worked field there for both the primary and the general, seeing a bunch of offices throughout the state (granted we had the most FOs in the country for the general) and I don’t recognize that wall.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:45 pm
National health care is the sort of major bill that genuinely deserves a workable filibuster system that could fully protect minority objections
The institution that protects minority objections is the known as the equal representation of states in the United States Senate. There is no reason to insist on mechanisms to protect the minority objections within that minority-protecting institution.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Obama is trying to get Congress to assert itself. That is what people miss. He’s not leaning on them as much as he could for a reason. OTOH, when he wants to lean on them(see war supplemental that just passed), he can get the Blue Dogs to vote for something he wants. It’s a matter of how often he wants to crack heads.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Now if you want a version of the filibuster that requires a decent length of debate on serious matters, fine.
Quite so, physical filibusters (a la Strom Thurmond) and two-thirds override.
Presumably, if Republicans are serious about this, they would organize an around-the-clock physical filibuster of health-care public option. As well as for the EFCA, which for all intents and purposes is abeyant.
It would at least establish some differentiation in the intensity of opposition; opposition to some minor matter, and opposition to potentially single-payer down the role or opposition to EFCA, are matters of differing gravity.
But my point is that there has to be a filibuster mechanism. A two-thirds override physical one would do fine.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
But a permanent block? Nope, that serves no legitimate purpose.
Now, if the minority could actually physically organize an around-the-clock permanent revolving filibuster (you need something like 10 or 15 senators to do this effectively), and the majority cannot conjure up two-thirds for an override, then I see no objection to their exercising that very mechanism.
My guess is that they probably won’t do this for anything short of card check. Even health care, barring the certainly of single-payer down the road, could not potentially be worth having elderly senators go through this.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Hey, who’s office was that in Ohio? I worked field there for both the primary and the general, seeing a bunch of offices throughout the state (granted we had the most FOs in the country for the general) and I don’t recognize that wall.
Ah, another person who cannot read. It reads OH-10, or Kucinich.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Hey, who’s office was that in Ohio? I worked field there for both the primary and the general, seeing a bunch of offices throughout the state (granted we had the most FOs in the country for the general) and I don’t recognize that wall.
I daresay that had it not been for the circumcision of the Lords by Parliament Act 1911, the United Kingdom would not have gone down so terrible a path during most of the 20th century.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Sorry, wrong quote.
This is it:
Now if you want a version of the filibuster that requires a decent length of debate on serious matters, fine. But a permanent block? Nope, that serves no legitimate purpose.
The Lords’ power to outright reject legislation was curtailed in 1911 in favour of temporary holds.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Do you ANY idea how fucking stupid this statement is?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Now, if the minority could actually physically organize an around-the-clock permanent revolving filibuster (you need something like 10 or 15 senators to do this effectively), and the majority cannot conjure up two-thirds for an override, then I see no objection to their exercising that very mechanism.
I do. It has no legitimacy under our Constitution or any respectable theory of republican governance. Again, a mechanism for the minority to require thorough debate is one thing. A mechanism for the minority to permanently block legislation is illegitimate.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Do you ANY idea how fucking stupid this statement is?
As usual, I am awed by the substance of your contributions to these discussions.
Anyway, Obama’s contingent praise of single payer systems and then framing of the public option as the ideal middle ground between single payer systems and the status quo was and remains a brilliant political tactic. You probably don’t have the slightest clue why, but of course you have yet to demonstrate the political savvy of the average losing candidate for Student Body Treasurer.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:54 pm
“Do you ANY idea how fucking stupid this statement is?”
Do you have any ides how stupid the average American is?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Matt unfairly maligns George Will re Eisenhower. Will is in print repeatedly praising Eisenhower in disparate domains, including ending the Korean War, driving the interstate highway system, etc.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I say just watch,Obama has something cooking and it will be done before we know it.I think he will pull an LBJ and ram some shit through just to prove his point.Hell he has done more for this country in 5 months than 8 years of the Shrub,unless of course your in the top 2percent,but for the 98 percenters Obama has done quite a bit and has a ways to go with DADT,DOMA,Iraq, Banking regs,health care and green jobs.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
I think the key to your relationship with Congress as president is determined by whether you need and/or can get the legislation you want. President Obama needs congress right now. Progressive plans require legislation. Imagine a world in which the legislative goals are passed early in the term and now the key to success is administration of the new health care regime, cap and trade, etc. Now, Congress becomes less important. This nicely follows the cycle of Presidential power where every single President in my lifetime has been less able to move the Congress as the term moves alone, oddly enough for very different reasons. Thus, most Presidencies become more imperial as they go along, leading to confusion during transitions.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 am
Myles SG is illustrating what has to be some kind of principle of self-similarity of a belief in minority objections: the structure is such that minority objections on a macro scale are accounted for by giving the minority increased representation via equal apportionment of senators for each state. Then in the senate itself the minority there (which represents an even smaller minority, since the majority is an over-represented minority interest) demands rights of minority objections. Drilling down even further, the Republican minority in the Senate has its agenda driven by its own minority of the fundangeical southern base.
The entire dynamic is a beautiful fractal!
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 am
Tyro,
I believe the ultimate goal is to have the outcome in the Senate reflect what the junior Senator from the smallest state doesn’t quite support in his own mind.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Besides the enshrinement of “tiniest possible electoral minority controls the legislative process,” MSG’s repeated calls for physical around-the-clock filibustering ignore the fact that reading the phone book isn’t required:
Thurmond kept talking because he wanted to put on a show, not because he had to filibuster that way. Contrast with Alan Simpson in 1988, who simply used the quorum calls.
So, given that it hasn’t actually become procedurally easier to filibuster compared to Days of Yore, why do we suddenly find ourselves with a 60-vote requirement for virtually everything? I’m going with “sore-loser Republican shitbags throwing a tantrum.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] I wrote yesterday, to an extent it should be possible to counteract this trend by bringing pressure to bare on Republicans who represent Obama states, but so far that hasn’t been very effective. And [...]