Calling BS on Markos

Because somebody has to.  Might as well be me.

Markos, today:

No one is arguing that Democrats shouldn't turn out. We're terrified that they won't. And whether they vote or not is dependent on what Democrats can deliver in DC. Right now, it's not much of anything, and if this keeps up, Democrats are in deep shit.

Markos, yesterday:

Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate.

You can't have it both ways, Markos.  With 40 filibustering Republicans in the Senate, and another half-dozen 'centrist' Dems, each looking for a reason to kill one bill and water down another, the best the rest of the Democrats can do is pass a bunch of half measures.  It sucks, but that's the best we can do in this Congress.

So you're either for the Dems' passing a bunch of half-measures, or you'd prefer to get nothing at all instead.  You've chosen nothing.

Then you, by your own admission, are advocating the circumstances that will discourage Democratic voters from voting.

I guess it doesn't terrify you that much after all, or you'd be encouraging the Dems to pass what they can, rather than go into next year's elections empty-handed.

Because whatever else the Dems do or don't pass, it's going to look a lot more meager without a health care reform bill in there.  Then our folks really won't show up next November, we'll lose some Senate seats, and that'll be the end of Obama's domestic agenda altogether.  We won't even be able to pass the half measures that we're able to pass now.

We'll still be in the majority in Congress, so people will still wonder why the Dems can't pass anything, and we won't have anything to run on in 2012, 2014, or 2016, so even that majority will just slowly trickle away.  Boy, won't that be fun.

Look, you've put in a lot of work over the past several years to advance Democratic and progressive prospects.  I personally believe it's made a big difference: we wouldn't even be in as good as a position as we're in (such as it is) without your having done as much as you have to turn the lefty netroots into a political force.  And you're right - Dems need to produce some results between now and next year to get people to go out and vote.

But you can't say that, and then turn around and tell people that we should kill health care reform.  Because if we don't have that, you're right: they'll stay home.  And the work you've done over the past few cycles will be so much dust in the wind.

Comments

[Crissa]

I dunno, you could suggest that Dems come out to support the neophytes that are replacing the retirees and to push out Blue-Dogs and Republicans...

...But instead, you seem to be mostly whining that we have a minority, when in fact we have a majority. More than half the blue-dogs are voting with the progressives right now, on this issue.

If we can move a couple more seats, this just wouldn't be an issue.

[Crissa]

Yesterday (give or take) you were whining that it was Obama's fault we were failing, and that it's Obama's fault that he can't get a 60-vote block.

You can't have it both ways.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

Yet another sell out heard from.

Crissa,

I'm not sure if I follow what you're saying -- whether you are critiquing low-tech cyclist or Markos here. I think low-tech cyclist and I have both been pushing the notion that we need to get a couple of more Senate seats in progressive hands so that we are not constnatly facing a situation where we have to run the table of assholes (Lieberman, Nelson etc.) to pass each and every law.

[Sir Charles]

Oy! I actually went over to the great Orange Satan's site -- one of the ugliest sites on the web by the way; not Drudge ugly, but ugly nonetheless -- and read some of the comments. It did not improve my mood.

[low-tech cyclist]

I'm not sure of your point, Crissa. I was saying (and I still strongly feel) that Obama's overused the inside game, and could have done much more this year to keep the grassroots involved and feeling like he was on his side and needed their help. (I was also clear that taking this approach would probably not change any legislative outcomes; it would just change how the grassroots felt about the way things were going.)

But that doesn't change the fact that killing HCR would be a major disappointment to much of the grassroots, on and off of tne blogosphere, and would make it a lot harder for Obama to convince people next fall that his accomplshments this past year actually add up to something worthwhile.

My suspicion is that Team Obama has a game plan here, in terms of rallying the troops for next November. If their idea was to have 2009 be a year of just getting stuff done, and 2010 was going to be the rallying-the-base year, then (a) I think that division was something of a mistake, and (b) it may well work anyway if HCR is passed.

If it isn't, I think November's gonna be rough.

[MR Bill]

Ok, Pass this abomination and then go back to fixing the problem. History, if there is one, will not deal well the with the forces arrayed against Universal Health care.
And the left should raise hell. And money to go after Pharma, Nelson, Baucus, Leiberhosen, the Insurance industry, Coal and Oil and the Banksters. Bitch and moan and write and Make Obama Do the Right Things, or at least go on record telling the premature truths. And stop tearing each other apart.
Because the guys who want to end the minimum wage and Social Security and any regulation are waiting and working... Rush and Beck and Jim DeMint are heroes to these folks and they got their way pretty much for the last decade.

Some rabbi or other said "Though we will not finish the Lord's work, we may not desist from it."

[Sir Charles]

MR Bill,

I don't think going after Nelson does us any good. Much as I loathe him, he is probably the one Nebraskan we can get who will vote with the caucus at least half of the time. Going after Baucus probably doesn't make sense either. Montana is not the kind of state where we have excess strength to spare -- a grueling primary campaign is probably going to lead to a loss. Connecticut, on the other hand . . .

What we really need to do -- and I know I keep saying this -- is to expand the majority in the Senate by adding at least two or three fairly progressive members. It will diminish the individual clout of the Blue Dogs and give the leadership some different options for 60 votes. Right now Reid basically has to run the table every time and that leaves us at the tender mercies of these clowns.

I do think pressuring the administration to be more populist in tone is a good thing.

Also, the base clearly needs some red meat, even if it is largely rhetorical in nature.

[MR Bill]

I bow to your superior tactical knowledge.

BTW, it appears I have a real job: host (and some server/sous chef) in a local high end restaurant.
30hrs. a week, $8=10 of tip pool. It's a 20-40 a plate (and now serving wine and beer). They wanted someone well spoken and knowledgeable about the area as well as a foodie.
And for what it's worth, the Georgia republican party is in disarray just now: the House Speaker Glenn Richardson attempted (or acted out) suicide attempting to stop his estranged wife from making public emails to his mistress (who just happened to be a GA Power lobbyist, who got some extremely favorable legislation passed..), and there are rumbles of corruption through out the Legislature, mostly on the Republican side. Pity there is no organized state party to take these bastards on..

[Sir Charles]

MR Bill,

Glad to hear about the job. May the tips be generous.

I have to read about the travails of your speaker -- what do you know, though, another week, another Republican sex scanadal. These guys are nothing if not consistent in their hypocrisy.

[oddjob]

Some rabbi or other said "Though we will not finish the Lord's work, we may not desist from it."

Obama thinks that way, too. His comments about the legacy of the USA are filled with such thinking.

[oddjob]

These guys are nothing if not consistent in their hypocrisy.

It's all of a piece with driving on the Interstate in Bible-Belt parts of Florida and passing the huge billboards for strip clubs.

[Sir Charles]

Hey, most of those young women have Med school tuition to pay. Or so they tell me.

[Davis X. Machina]

Hey, most of those young women have Med school tuition to pay. Or so they tell me

That's a coincidence. Most of the clients tell me they're swotting up for their comparative chordate anatomy final.

[Sir Charles]

DXM,

"Swotting up!" Once again, two people separated by a common language. I take it (or do I "twig") that this means to study hard?

[low-tech cyclist]

I'd go so far as to say I'd like to see a primary challenge to Ben Nelson.

I doubt that there's anyone on the left in that state, who's sufficiently outside the Nebraska Democratic political establishment to be willing to take him on, who could get more than maybe 30% of the vote in a primary, so it's not like some candidate with no chance in November is going to knock him off. And defeating the DFH in the primary will, if anything, help him with the bulk of Nebraskans in the general.

But still, having to come home and spend time competing in a primary, or even spending some of your campaign war chest on TV ads for the primary, is a nontrivial nuisance. It would get his attention, for good or ill, if someone opposed him in the primary.

I'm a big fan of primaries in general. I think it's important for members of a party to choose who represents their party in general elections, rather than be stuck with an incumbent, or with the party organization's handpicked challenger. Even if the incumbent (or party org's favorite) still wins, the nature and strength of the opposition gives the incumbent and the party organization a clear message of who they're not pleasing, and which way they might want to move.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

oddjob: this is similar to one of the concepts that makes me respect Judaism so highly, tikkun olam (?olun? I just saw it, but more than a little distracted today -- my 89-yr old mother-in-law is having hip surgery in a couple of hours.) The idea that it is a moral obligation to 'leave the world a better place than you found it.'

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I'm not a fan of primaries without a purpose. They drain energy and money away from the general election and can wound a candidate.

I am fine with primaries that prompt greater adherence to party principals (Yes, Senator "Mr. Democrat" Specter, I am talking about you) or where the incumbent is just flat out wrong and obnoxious on an issue, see e.g. Joe Lieberman.

Jim,

Good luck with your mother-in-law.

[Demosthenes]

This would be a lot more substantive defense if the glaring problems with the bill weren't something that the Republicans could use to great effect in 2010 or 2012.

"Empty-handed" might be a better position. It will mean losses, but it may not mean apocalyptic losses. Mandates-without-a-public-option will be a disaster.

And, yes, primaries do wound candidates. That's the whole point. A candidate who fears losing a general after a bruising primary is a candidate who is not going to ignore his or her base. Since the Dems have been ignoring progressives only when they aren't whipping them bloody, I fail to see why primary challenges shouldn't be loud, vicious, and destructive as hell.

[Sir Charles]

Demosthenes,

Doesn't it depend where? Connecticut -- hell, yes. Pennsylvania - ditto. Arkansas -- not so much.

What I'm hearing from you (and many of the other commenters) is this inchoate rage against our Blue Dog friends. And I can't really say I blame you. But once the loud, vicious, and destructive primaries have played out, how have you strengthened the progressive position? Our leverage over Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, etc. just isn't that great -- maybe enough to topple them and elect a Republican. I can't really figure out how this gives us a better hand to play.

[oddjob]

If the Ark. Lt. Gov. is a sufficiently popular candidate to win in Nov., and more liberal than Lincoln, that qualifies as a sensible primary challenge. I haven't read of any similarly plausible challengers in Neb. or La.

[Davis X. Machina]

"Swotting up!"

The classical-studies community is pretty violently Anglophone, and it rubs off.

Me, born as I was in swank Dorchester, MA, I've gotten no closer to Oxbridge than the lighthouse at the eastern tip of PEI.

[Sir Charles]

DXM,

Another Masshole! We are well represented on this site.

And a slavish anglophile to boot. Bet you didn't say "swotting up" too much in the old 'hood -- that would've earned you a beating.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And primary challenges can hurt a good Senator as well. Apparently there is some talk about Bill Thompson -- who, as candidate for mayor managed to be the only Democrat in recent memory who convinced me not to vote for him -- challenging Sen. Gillibrand, who has proven to be, as Senator, a consistent progressive despite her record as Representative from a much more conservative district.

I hope this doesn't happen. If it does, I hope some of the check-writers on our side see through his willingness to tell people exactly what he thinks they want to hear. He would, as far as I can tell, be an extremely dangerous person to have on our side.

[Corvus9]

I like Gillibrand all right lately. She was on of the few Senators to vote on the bill to allow certain Gitmo prisoners to enter U.S. soil a while back. It was like, her, Durbin and Burris, and maybe Franken, if he was in the Senate then. (Burris has actually kind of grown on me too. He's done an exemplary job at being a chastened Senator. Lieberman could learn from his example.)

[Eric Wilde]

With 40 filibustering Republicans in the Senate, and another half-dozen 'centrist' Dems, each looking for a reason to kill one bill and water down another, the best the rest of the Democrats can do is pass a bunch of half measures. It sucks, but that's the best we can do in this Congress.

People seem to be ignoring the tactic of forcing the Rs to filibuster. Bring a big spotlight on the real problem - Conservatives and moderate Democrats. This publicity may change a few Senators minds after a week or more in a filibuster.

SC: I do think pressuring the administration to be more populist in tone is a good thing.

Why not?

Also, the base clearly needs some red meat, even if it is largely rhetorical in nature.

Nothing but more rhetoric from Obama on the top issues will simply turn me off more.

You listed some good accomplishments from Obama recently. This administration has accomplished (or fractionally accomplished with respect to the economy) a number of good things. But on the most important topics (jobs, health care, wars) he hasn't pulled through.

There's something I tell all my managers at work that is applicable here. If you have a list of 10 critical things to do and you get nine of them done, #2 - #10, you failed. If you get only one of them done and its #1, you succeeded. I don't see Obama and his Democratic partners in Congress succeeding yet.

[Eric Wilde]

I do think pressuring the administration to be more populist in tone is a good thing.

Why not?

Doh! How did I get the polarity of your comment reversed even after reading it twice!?!?

[oddjob]

People seem to be ignoring the tactic of forcing the Rs to filibuster.

I don't think Reid has the stomach for that.

[Sir Charles]

It doesn't work that way -- as others have explained (and I can't recall where) the way the rules work it is not really possible for the requirement that an old fashioned filibuster occur. I believe that it is because the other side merely needs to object to a request to proceed on unanimous consent to grind the Senate's business to a halt.

I also am pretty confident that would not stop the filibusters -- witness Coburn forcing the reading of Sanders' amendment yesterday. These guys are shameless and hard core.

[oddjob]

"I think people are pissed right now less at the fact that they didn't get what they wanted, and more at the fact that they feel like their people didn't really fight for it. Leaders don't always get what they want. But people recognize when true leaders at least give it a shot. And people judge that leadership by what they say in public and how hard they see them publicly pushing for it. Closed door negotiations don't count.

They wanted to see Obama push the public option and say that it was crucial, important part. His broad outlines of "cuts the deficit, improves coverage" is too bland and not something people can rally around, and he gives the impression that he's ceding power and leadership to a less capable bunch in the legislative branch.

They wanted to see news stories about how "staffers close to the majority leader" say that chaimanships and other perks were on the line for any Democrat who talked about filibustering this crucial bill.

They wanted to see congressional leadership and the president campaign hard for an "up or down vote on healthcare" the way the Republicans did so effectively for the judge appointments.

But none of that happened, and the things that people care about died with a whimper.

I know there's been a lot of game theory from people about how that would never work, etc. But the fact is that you can show leadership for big ideas and there's always still room to compromise at the end. At least then it would be clear that there was no other way, that you put up the good fight, better luck next time.

Instead they feel like the people they voted for and trusted to lead them failed. And it's hard to imagine making that same emotional commitment again in the future. Self defeating, yes. Temporary, maybe. But we're talking primal stuff here - people don't like wimps, not matter what party."

I fully recognize not everything mentioned in this quote was realistic, but I also think that, at least for those interested in politics this is a pretty good summation of why Dem. seats are at risk. For myself I like that Obama left things in the hands of the Congress. That's where they should be. Unfortunately Reid very clearly comes across as a weak leader. While I strongly suspect his being weak was no small part of why the Caucus picked him, at this time in history I think picking him was a very unfortunate decision.

[oddjob]

Ezra Klein also posted a response to Kos.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Now that I have a little more time, I can finaly bring up the question of filibusters, because something hit me about two days ago. Yes, the Republicans can, if I have this correct, be 'forced to filibuster.' The trouble is the 'two-track' system, the ability to handle two topics at once. (It was the lack of this pre-1975 or thereabouts that made 'classic' filibusters possible.)

Now there are three possibilities concerning the 'two-track' system. It may be mandatory, somehow written into the rules. If this is true, then we're doomed until we can change the rules, or unless we 'use the nuclear option' of either having the parlimentarian declare filibusters unconstitutional, or starting and winning a legal case based on that. (It would be tricky on questions of standing, but perhaps it would be possible to do it if Senators themselves were willing to institute the case.) I do not think this would be a good idea -- I am very worried about the 'law of unintended consequences' that would result from a total end of the filibuster. (After all, the 'two-track' system itself was seen as a good thing, and was, until the Republicans discovered how to game it.)

The second option is that the 'two-track' system requires unanimous consent to operate, that 'switching tracks' is a routine matter, usually passed by unanimous consent, but that it could be blocked by a Democratic Senator simply objecting. (The idea that a call for 'regular order' could be blocked by one Senator objecting is, sorry, SirC, almost certainly wrong. I believe such a call is not debateable, and goes into effect automatically -- thus the Coburn tactic was a form of 'calling for the regular order.')

If this is so, wh6y don't they do it? Because sometimes yopu don't see something in front of your nose --as would be true if this assumption is.

However, the most likely option is that the 'two-track' option is simply a matter of scheduling, that it is entirely in the hands of the Majority Leader. This doesn't mean that Reid is nefariously blocking a return to a 'one-track' option -- just, again, that he isn't seeing an opportunity he has because he is so used to the standard operating procedure in the Senate.

I believe that Reid could -- and could be told to -- refuse to let the Senate switch topicws, could demand the Republicans actually filibuster, and could (I KNOW this is true) refuse to bend to one cloture vote but could contuinually keep bringing them -- one a day is the rule, I believe -- as long as the Republkicans were filibustering -- even under the two-track system.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Meanwhile, on a related topic, the other day one of our newcomers, and a younger one, I believe, responded to Sir Charles' demand that he explain how we were supposed to get a better bill passed by saying, more or less, "I don't know, but Obama should find a way, that's why we elected him.'

The response to a story that made the rounds yesterday shows why that has become nonsense. The story -- probably false, certainly denied by all concerned -- was that Obama was threatening Sen. Nelson with the closing of an important military base in Nebraska unless he voted for cloture.

Of course, every Republican was "shocked, shocked" at this sort of thing going on."

The funny thing is, I don't think they were being hypocritical. The fact is that 'old-fashioned politics' seems to have disappeared. Presidents don't have the option of arm-twisting, of rewarding favorable votes or punishing unfavorable ones, not in today's 'transparent government.' Nor do you find the sort of 'horse trading' that was once common -- 'vote for my bill that doesn't affect your constituents, and I'll vote for yours."

Maybe, overall, this is a good thing. (I'm not sure how any person today would feel about FDR's rumored blackmailing of the gay Sen. David Walsh of the home state of so many of you to get his vote on an important War Preparation bill -- though without his vote, things might have gone less well in WWII, or at least would have been slower.)

But the result is that, unnoticed, we have gone from the "Imperial Presidency" to the sort of Presidency we saw in the post Grant-era, a Presidency limited to 'giving advice' and 'executing the laws' but one with virtually no power to implement its own ideas against the will of Congress.

[Eric Wilde]

Unfortunately Reid very clearly comes across as a weak leader.

Because he is a weak leader. I see him more as drag against momentum, not leading or building momentum in any real sense.

[oddjob]

sometimes yopu don't see something in front of your nose

Sully's blog cites a George Orwell quote:

To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.

TRUTH!

[oddjob]

It was the lack of this pre-1975 or thereabouts that made 'classic' filibusters possible.

I don't clearly remember the details, but I know I was in college when the filibuster rules were changed. Robert Byrd was the majority leader then, and I think Jimmy Carter was the president. As I said, I don't recall the details, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn a trade in protocols was made in exchange for getting the GOP to agree to drop the limit for passing cloture down to 60 votes from the previous 67 votes.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sorry, Oddjob, but the Majority Leader when the 3/5th Cloture was passed was Mansfield. Byrd became Majority leader in 1977. And, in fact, he made several moves that limited the use of the Filibuster.

I was afraid the my source was only available on questia, but it is available here and is worth reading and seeing some of the available options, as well as the history behind it.

[oddjob]

My mistake.

[John]

Prup - I think you're right that Reid could force multiple cloture votes. But that's meaningless. The Republicans would only have to have one guy show up to object to unanimous consent. The Democrats have to get 60 votes to get cloture. They could get 59 votes for, and one vote against, and they still wouldn't get cloture.

Furthermore, to keep the debate going, the Democrats would have to show there was a quorum. So, basically, in this situation, all the Democrats would have to be there, so as to maintain a quorum, but the Republicans would only have to have one guy there at a time to object to unanimous consent.

[Sir Charles]

John,

Thank you. That was what I was ineptly trying to describe.

[Eric Wilde]

So, basically, in this situation, all the Democrats would have to be there, so as to maintain a quorum, but the Republicans would only have to have one guy there at a time to object to unanimous consent.

That's the least we could ask of our elected Democratic officials. Show up when its hard and do the right thing.