Eight Dem Senators Defend the Right to Filibuster Climate Change
When President Obama submitted a budget that predicted passage of a revenue-raising climate change bill, hopes rose that Congress could successfully rein in carbon emissions this year.
But a cap-and-trade climate bill is almost certain to be filibustered by Republicans -- and in a letter delivered to the Senate Budget Committee yesterday, eight Democratic senators joined 25 Republicans to defend the GOP's right to set a 60-vote margin for passing emissions limits.
"We oppose using the budget process to expedite passage of climate legislation," the senators, including eight centrist Democrats, wrote in their missive.
Using the procedure of budget reconciliation, which would allow a climate change measure to become law with 50 votes while preventing filibusters, "would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the administration's goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness," the 33 senators wrote.
Budget reconciliation was used by George W. Bush and congressional Republicans to prevent Democrats from stalling both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. The opposition of nearly one-half of the Senate, however, means that President Obama's party will have little room to use the tactic as successfully as Bush's supporters did.
Filibuster-proofing the upcoming health care reform bill through reconciliation already has been ruled out strongly discouraged* by pivotal Democratic senators on the Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).
Democrats' reluctance to take advantage of their procedural arsenal to pass climate change and health care this year doesn't mean that both pieces of legislation would necessarily fall to filibusters. But it does mean that Republicans will have significantly more opportunities to insert pro-business provisions into these pivotal bills.
Late Update: The eight Democratic senators who signed on to the letter are Robert Byrd (WV), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Evan Bayh (IN), Mark Pryor (AR), Bob Casey (PA), Carl Levin (MI), and Mary Landrieu (LA).
*Late Late Update: Baucus has not ruled out reconciliation entirely. As he told the Kaiser Family Foundation last week, "I am doing whatever I can to avoid reconciliation [on health care] and don't take it off the table totally, because it is a backup.
Josh
Matt
Eric
I'd love to see all the mocking of Reid that goes on in the GOP caucus. These are the same clowns who thought it was a legitimate ploy when Bush used it, and when roles are reversed, they'll do it again.
March 13, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just fucking nuts. The democratic party platform and agenda is being held hostage by disloyal blue dog Senators who are being allowed to block progress. Vote with the party on preventing filibusters and then vote what you consider to be in the best interests of the country. Our party needs a strong displined approach and we need it now! Hand out some measure of enforcement before Obama's agenda slips away.
March 13, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"disloyal blue dog Senators"
No they are being very loyal to their corporate contributors.
March 14, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's weird? I've seen a couple dozen of your comments, and I can't recall a time when you attacked Republicans. It's always the moderate Democrats that get your wrath.
March 14, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm usually one to stick up for moderate Democrats, but this isn't an act of moderation. This is nothing less than capitulation.
These blue dogs never showed nearly as much resistance to Bush as they have to Obama. Like far too many of their GOP pals, they don't seem to have noticed that there was an election last November. The things that they're helping Republicans block are the same things that voters turned out to the polls in record numbers to see passed.
I see them as lacking in principle. They're so obsessed with their own re-election that they won't stand up for anything if there's the slightest chance it might upset their corporate donors or the right-wing blowhards in their states. And, if you don't have any principles worth defending, what the hell are you doing running for the Senate in the first place? They should resign and join a lobbying firm. They're much better suited for that, anyway.
I'm generally inclined toward moderation, but not if it's going to keep us from fixing health care and dealing with the effects of global warming. This is serious stuff. It calls for serious measures, not perpetual dawdling.
April 2, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Primary their conservative rear ends, until they're out of office or change parties.
March 13, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Running Democrats out of office or into the waiting arms of republicans? Yeah, that's the ticket!
We'll really get climate change legislation and healthcare reform when we have 49 Senators instead of 59!! Thanks for pointing out how much stronger and more relevant we Democrats will be once we shrink the party just like the Republicans did by forcing its moderates out!!
Genius. Pure genius, I tell ya!
March 13, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering why anyone commenting here would promote the idea of leaving the disease-ridden DINO's alone to infect the party and ruin the country, for fear that these good "Democrats" would bolt and turn Republican (quake, quake...).
Then I read the byline. Hi Freeper. Good to see you haven't lost your... certain nothing.
Nothing to see here, folks. Troll cleanup on aisle 6...
March 13, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, anybody who thinks the party is big enough for Barbara Boxer AND Blanche Lincoln is just a troll.
Nothing to see here folks. Just a stupid ass ignoramus who is clueless enough to believe Arkansas voters will be angry at their senators for voting against EFCA.
Just a brain dead maggot who thinks we should kill off all the moderates and replace the Repugs as Whigs in waiting.
Just a mouth-breathing, knuckle-scraper who knows he could run the country so much better but can't even get elected poop scooper on his block.
Yep. Nothing to see here!
March 13, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The party, in fact, suffers greatly from "being large enough for" Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, etc.
The Republicans made their most effective and long-lasting damage occur, during the era when the R's all worked from the same page, harboring no ideological diversions.
Somehow, I think you knew that when you suggested that we allow Democrats to try and rule effectively, by take the opposite tack.
I may be a "brain dead maggot", but I'm pretty fucking sure you know exactly what you're doing. Good thing you're targeting an audience here that's pretty much already dismissed you as... what you are.
March 13, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't get it, do you, asshole??? I'm NOT against Democrats working together. I WANT them to work from the same fucking playbook.
My beef is ONLY with the notion that we should get rid of the moderates!!
The Republicans did that. Look where they are today! They didn't get more ideologically pure Republicans; they got Democrats.
My newly-elected Congressman is a Blue Dog. He replaced a disgusting reprehensible SOB republican. I wish with all my heart he was a liberal but a liberal would NEVER get elected in my district. And if we primaried him with a liberal and the liberal won, the end result would be another disgusting reprehensible SOB republican.
You may think it's no difference but I know better. My new congressman is pro-choice, pro-stem cell, pro-union, pro-stimulus. The old one was NONE of those things.
March 13, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I "get":
1. That Blue Dogs are hardly "moderate", despite their p.r. and conventional wisdom;
2. That there certainly IS an "asshole" amongst us. It's his right to be here. Ain't America grand? :-)
March 13, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a liberal would NEVER get elected in my district"
How about a loyal Democrat who represents the voters, not their biggest corporate sponsors.
They don't have to be liberal to be loyal.
That's the issue.
March 14, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hackery at its finest. Getting vitally important legislation passed doesn't matter, all that matters is having a certain number of Congresscritters with "D" after their names. Electing anybody willing to call themselves Democrats is the end, not just a means. Nothing could better illustrate the intellectual decrepitude of the Democratic Party.
And just so you know, I'm not even going to bother looking at whatever stupid reply this comment elicits, so you can save yourself the trouble. Or not, as you like.
March 13, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll read it. You always do because you can't help yourself.
Remind us again how decrepit the Democrats are now that they control the WH and both houses of Congress.
Remind us again how we'll really succeed at getting what we want when we're in the minority.
March 13, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are so inept and fail to understand strategy and party politics. Your comments are pathetic and biting towards other posters. Maybe you'll take a lesson from others here who doi in fact partry politics and accomplishing a broad sweep of the agenda laid out by President Obama.
March 13, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Maybe you'll take a lesson from others here who doi in fact partry politics and accomplishing a broad sweep of the agenda laid out by President Obama.>>>
Whhhhhaaaaaatttttt???
My feelings are really hurt when I'm criticized by someone who can't even write a coherent sentence. Try again, Einstein!
March 13, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have those paragraphs saved in a text file? Anytime anyone on this site mentions bringing a challenge to any of these DINO's in a primary I can count on finding those ridiculous words of yours, pretty much exactly the same every time.
Understand that bringing a primary challenge can be used to make a candidate, who may have become insulated from his / her constituents, open their eyes to the real views of the people they represent. Do you think healthcare reform would be as important to President Obama if he did not have a primary where one Rep. Kucinich brought it up early and often? BTW 59 Dems unwilling to stick together as far as getting legislation to the floor, might as well be 49 Dems. It is time to get to work, let the Limbots do the obstructing and shine the light on them so that we can leave them behind for good.
March 13, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're so full of shit.
>>BTW 59 Dems unwilling to stick together as far as getting legislation to the floor, might as well be 49 Dems.>>
WRONG, Jr. 49 Dems would be a MINORITY and we wouldn't have to worry about how they voted on cap-and-trade because Mitch McConnell would never bring it to the floor.
Also, Obama worked to expand healthcare in IL before Kucinich and a primary.
People like you mock the republicans as self-destructive for threatening to primary Specter and Snowe but advocate doing it to Democrats. Priceless!
March 13, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, you are being generous with 49 dems that would fit the idealogical purity test. The puritans would be lucky to get 30 dem senators. And, we all know how much influence the "moderate" republican senators had on the republican party, zip. Sooo, the puritans would be handing the keys to the kingdom to the likes of turkeyman and kyl and cornyn. Oh, that's brilliant.
March 13, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people here NEVER address what will happen if we lose the Blue Dogs. They never address the fact that NONE of the things we care about would ever get to the floor.
I've never seen so many self-righteous, self-destructive ideologues in my life! Oh, yes I have. They're called Republicans.
March 13, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just reminded me of something with your comment. For the last 10 years or so, I heard more and more and more whining from republicans about RINOs. They had to purge the party of RINOs and become "pure." Well, they have been almost 100% successful. They are down to 3 RINOs in the Senate and are facing the loss of about 4 or 5 more seats on top of that in the name of intellectual purity. At the end of the day, they will be at what 33 seats. Oh, that's brilliant.
Maybe the two party system does make some sense. The 30 to 40 seats in the middle swing back and forth to moderate the wings of the respective parties. Kind of funny when you think about it.
March 13, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably worse than that. The ideologues are never satisfied. Even when they're down to 30 they're still going to be campaigning to eliminate a few of those who are STILL not pure enough.
Evidence? Just look at the Republicans. After getting their asses handed to them in two straight elections they're convinced that their problem is that they're STILL not pure enough.
March 13, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hit a nerve did I? Do you think that meaningful, needed climate change and health care legislation are going to come out of the Senate? But we should not push on these DINO's because of why? Meaningful, needed climate change legislation won't come out of the Senate run by Mitch McConnel?
Come on, unseating a sitting Senator in a primary is close to impossible. Let them know where they can improve by pushing or pulling them back to where their constituents live every day. Also, I think you over estimate the average Arkansan on their opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act (I'm not talking about those people working in Wally World HQ).
March 13, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would you think you hit a nerve? Duuhhhh.
I was born and raised in Arkansas. I have friends and relatives in Arkansas. I visit Arkansas AT LEAST once a year. I have in no way "over estimated" the average Arkansan about their anti-union bias.
The South is anti-union. And Arkansas is one of the worst because of Wally World. They have done a great job convincing struggling folks to vote against their own economic interests.
March 13, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the south is anti-union"
There's a mouthful...
It may be some sort of vestigial remnant of that arcane mentality, "who needs to pay workers when you can have slaves?"
An old abolitionist from Kansas named Lane once told a story about how he and a friend were applying for a carpenter's job on an big, antebellum Arkansas hemp plantation, back in the 1850's.
The plantation owner derisively laughed at them and said, "I just BOUGHT four carpenters, why would I want to hire one?"
Some old ideologies abide through time, and the anti-union sentiment you mention might wee be attributed to that fact of history.
March 14, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand, if we don't forcefully push the Democratic party from the left, then we guarantee that they will compromise and enact conservative policies. It's a "now make me do it" issue.
Also, not all of the blue dogs are from areas where more progressive candidates would struggle in a general election. Take Congressman Tim Holden, a blue dog from the 17th District of Pennsylvania. The 17th includes Harrisburg, which is an oasis of minorities in central Pennsylvania. There may have been a time, not too long past, when only a conservative Democrat had a chance in this District. I think times may have changed though.
You have a valid point, but it shouldn't foreclose progressives from pushing the Democratic party from the left, and primary challenges are an important part of that push, especially in areas where more progressive candidates may do well in the general election.
March 13, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit thinking of them in terms of being democrats ...and please stop suggesting that getting rid of these dems means they'll automatically be replaced by republicans. Yeah that's the ticket...pure genius...primary challengers so strong that it makes these DINOs stop ignoring the dem majority for fear of being replaced...by more responsive dems.
The "people united" can be as influential as their "corporate masters" but not if we just sit back and say "oh well, at least their not republicans".
March 15, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, goody. More ideological purity tests.
There's a name for parties that engage in that kind of practice. The name is minority party. See how much legislation you passed then.
March 13, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. I guess people aren't happy unless they are bitching. The thing that is funny is that they would be bitching about the same thing with 30 democratic senators that couldn't mount a filibuster. Gee, let me see, the dems get 90% of their agenda through with dino, should be in the republican party senators or . . . the dems can't stop anything and we have a fascist state with the bulk of the population begging for food and healthcare. Hmmm, I wonder which one I would rather have.
Unbelievable.
March 13, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't you know we're all trolls. How dare we think it would be political suicide to rid the party of all the moderates.
March 13, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I swear to god you three (FR, MBF, and MichaelA) sometimes seem like the only people around here without their heads so far up their asses that they see their molars.
I can't believe it sometimes. What the fuck are all these purists thinking????
We want the same thing they do, but they just don't get that they won't get what they want without enough senators and congresspersons.
A message to all you purists: YOU SOUND LIKE THE DUMBSHIT REPUBLICANS WHO THINK THEY DIDN'T RUN CONSERVATIVE ENOUGH!!!!
March 13, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a big difference between Republican wingnuts lamenting lamenting he purity of their party and Democrats recognizing that these MODERATE changes should be supported by both liberal and moderate Dems.
We aren't exactly talking about some sort of extreme leftwing manifest being foisted onto and unwilling public petard, we are talkng about common sense, MODERATE legislation here.
This attempt to push global warming back to the debate stage is by no means a "MODERATE" tack, it smacks of corporate management, and we've seen where that bunch of CEO's have gotten us.
So I guess my question is, why are people defending the blue dogs as if they are moderates and all the other Dems as if they are ideological lefties?
March 14, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because these 'moderates' are all we've got, and they're all we're going to get from some states (I'll be the first to concede that we can do better than some of them, but most, not so much). On a practical level; in Arkansas for example, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln may well be more conservative than I would like, but a conservative Democrat is better than a Republican any day of the week, which is realistically the only other option from AR. A conservative Democrat is better than any Republican.
Sure, we can do better than Feinstein, Shaheen, Casey, or Gillibrand (especially Gillibrand), but look at it this way: Bob Casey Jr, a pro-life Democrat, replaced Rick freakin' Santorum!!!!
Be happy with what we've got. A big tent and internal dissent are the costs of being the majority party. A majority that tries to root out dissenting opinions or 'moderates' as they're called, very quickly becomes a minority party. (hence RI voting Sheldon Whitehouse (a stellar senator) over Lincoln Chaffee (a moderate and respectable Republican, a decent senator crippled by attacks from the Right).
We don't want the same fate as the GOP.
March 14, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
obama has shown he is weak and can be rolled( just look at whos laughing at him over the freeman issue), so why shouldnt every senator play hardball and get exactly what the y want for their vote?
its going to get worse since obama has shown his true colors so save your blood pressure and just let the repugs and so called blue dogs get their way without getting yourself upset.
they certainly will anyways.
March 13, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Troll go away: http://www.agoravox.fr/IMG/do_not_feed_trolls.jpg
March 13, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is all about Senators being in the tank for the Banking Industry, The Oil and Coal Lobby, The HMO lobby, and the Chamber of Commerce.
We may have a progressive majority among the voters but the Senate is still controlled by the right wing. Harry Reid is an ass.
March 13, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carl Levin is right wing? And all this time I thought he was a liberal!
This is about some conservative Democrats like Pryor and Lincoln teaming up with rust-belters who mistakenly believe that cap-and-trade will hurt their already devastated manufacturing base (Levin/MI & Casey/PA).
March 13, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carl Levin, idiot, is from MICHIGAN... where he services his johns in the (thriving! LOL) American auto industry.
That would be the same American auto industry that has spent millions over many years, fighting pollution regulations whenever possible. Money that could have been spent developing the transportation of the future.
I really can't find the adjective to describe you, Freeper. Perhaps it's because I don't really think you believe in any of this corporatist crap (oh I know, disguised as being a sensible moderate Democrat). I don't really think you "believe in" much of anything. This is a job, ain't it, pal?
March 13, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm. I know Levin is from Michigan. That's kinda why I posted it in my post. {Reading is fundamental, johnny}.
OK, let's stop here for a moment. Point to ONE post in which I have said anything even remotely close to being supportive of "corportist" crap.
I am a liberal who always takes the liberal point of view. I don't like what the conservative Democrats are doing any more than you do. I'm pissed that they don't vote with the President.
BUT . . . thinking we'd be better off without them is just fucking STUPID!!
Are you too dumb to realize that (1) we would not survive as a majority party without the Blue Dogs and (2) if we are not the majority party, there would be NO CHANCE to get ANY of these things done?
People like you and Labonne NEVER address what would happen if we succeeded in getting rid of all the moderates.
Your little fantasy stops at the glorious day that we frog-march them into the Republican party. But you don't talk about how miserable it would be to have a Republican majority.
Excuse me for being a fucking grown-up who thinks results actually matter.
March 13, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are well and truly dumb
March 13, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and 'way past the point, by his own words, where anyone with a clue could possibly consider him a "liberal". "Liberals", generally, are not such vocal defenders of Blue Dogs. In my experience, anyway.
March 13, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
When have I EVER defended the Blue Dogs?
I've been here over a year. Our posts are archived. Find one post where I've defended the Blue Dogs. Find one post where I've said anything other than "if we get rid of the Blue Dogs, we'll only get more Reublicans."
You never seem to address that little point. So, it seems like you're the covert republican here, working to shrink the size of the Democratic party and make it irrelevant.
Instead of calling me a troll, why don't you address the merits of what I say? Because you're a coward and you have no rational response.
March 13, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW BORING ME.
March 13, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Is that why you keep posting to me--because I'm boring?? NOT.
You won't respond because you can't. You're a liar who can't support your ridiculous positions so you resort to lying and calling people trolls.
If you can't defend a position, don't take it.
March 13, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, great, you're right and I'm wrong. Happy now? This is how people like you "win" your asinine "arguments"* (* = planted talking points): you get us to the point where we finally realize how stupid WE are, for trying to "debate" a PROPAGANDIST. A propagandist is not there to exchange ideas. He is there to frame a public argument, whether or not it has factual or intellectual merit.
I may not think you're "right", but feel free to pat yourself on the crotch, for wearing me out to the point where I just wanna get the fuck away from you, now.
March 13, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, you're a liar AND a pussy??? Okie doke!
March 13, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know guys, there are arguments that get small and personal because there's no substance to the ideas of either side and the stakes are small. No one gives a crap about those arguments and the fighting can be kind of amusing.
This isn't one of those fights. Both the stakes and ideas are important but the ad hominums and personal attacks you all invariably descend into turns the whole thing so toxic that you all pretty much destroy the will of the audience you're presumably preaching to--because god knows you're not going to change each others' minds--to read it.
March 13, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's just one bi-polar poster and his sock-puppet? Now that's an interesting read...
March 14, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed...all this assuming the motivations behind the comment and name calling accusations really is undeserving by either of you. A complete distraction from what is being said.
March 15, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"if we get rid of the Blue Dogs, we'll only get more Reublicans."
You mean like Lieberman, as much as I dislike him, who got primaried yet still caucuses with the Dems--as opposed to becoming a Republican? But these other Dems will all go running to the other side if anyone so much as suggests holding their feet to the fire because....you say so.
Uh huh.
Of course I don't expect a self-important, condescending jackass such as yourself to ever admit they're wrong. Find a typo and attack that instead, we're all really impressed.
Some self-reflection might be in order, but I'm sure you're as incapable of that as you are of admitting you're wrong. Jackass.
March 13, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know why he still cacuses with the Democrats? BECAUSE HE WON THE GENERAL!!
If you think every Democrat we defeat in the primary will (a) run as an independent and (b) win the general, you're too stupid to sip water through a straw! A lot of states have "sore loser" laws where you can't run if you've been defeated in the primary.
There was no viable Republican in the CT senate race and Lieberman got all of the Republican votes and a lot of Democratic votes.
The Republican party is weak in the NE. Not so in the South. So if we run off Hagen (NC), there's a strong Republican waiting to kick the liberal ass of the Democratic candidate.
You ignore the fact that what happened to the Republicans is likely to happen to us if we continue to insist on "purist" like they did?
March 13, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freerider, I think you are stuck in the Bush era. You just assume the Republicans will step in to any perceived Democratic vacuum, and recent history suggests our political winds have shifted away from that pattern.
The obvious trends are moving from right to center, it is just as likely a centrist Dem will beat a corporate Dem in a primary these days as it is that a corporate Dem will beat a corporate Republican (corporate Republican, now there's a redundancy). And the more we get to the real middle, and not the media-contrived right-leaning version, the more likely those populist Dems will beat those corporate Republicans. The public has surely soured against "corporate" candidates, especially when we watch those CEO's floating through our troubled skies in their golden parachutes.
And it is even more likely that a corporate Dem might be nudged into loyalty before they are willing to defy the will of their constituents.
What good is all that corporate money if they can't get elected?
March 14, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every time somebody criticizes the Freep Rider he howls, But I'm a liberal!
March 13, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last time I took you on, you ran away like a pussy. We can do that again but promise me you'll stay and fight. OK?
March 13, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you can respond on the merits, get back to me.
March 13, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phuc the lap-dog Demoncrats. Time to force a filibuster, AND eliminate Reid in 2010.
March 13, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
59 - 8 = 51 = cap and trade passes as part of the budget.
F 'em.
These Senators just want to have outsized influence in the negotiations on cap and trade (like they had on the stimulus) so that they can force major concessions for their carbon-emitting campaign contributors. F that.
March 13, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, voting Senators right now are 58. 58-8=50. Then there's Biden, so 51 and you are right. Problem is, the possible filibuster.
I can't believe we still are avoiding climate change--what happened to McCain? I know he wasn't supporting volunteer CO2 cuts. What gives here?
March 13, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
*I* can't believe they're avoiding fillibusters in general, as if they would cause actual bloodshed and death or something.
The way I see it, it would be an embarassment of riches, in these troubled times. in the "sound byte" and "video clip" department. All those obstructionist R's, stumping belligerently for America's rightful corporate and financial owners. Which will really help Republicans hold their seats and elect more of them, won't it?
March 13, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the thousandth time, that is hollywood folks. That's not the way it works. There is no thumping and reading from phonebooks and stuff. Nope. Sorry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
There is no theatrics to the way the system works now.
March 13, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, Michael, a few things you need to appreciate, here:
Perception is reality. I know there won't be any Jimmy Stewart (say... when, exactly, did that guy get to PEE? :-). I know the visuals will seem soporific and a nonentity... but they will exist, and their perception will be managed when a 5-second clip of the chamber is shown on the news, as Brian Williams intones, "The Senate continued its fillibuster, today, of the ___ Bill..."
It will have its consequences. Trust me.
Also, the impression I get is that the author of that article, while technically correct, has a vested interest in supporting the Democratic Establishment, as led by Harry Reid. Not that that's inherently evil or anything, but it colors his overarching message, which is that we should all simply submit to the intimidation by the R's, and Harry knows best.
I respectfully disagree with that. A lot.
March 13, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trent Lott was on Hardball explaining why he didn't make the Democrats filibuster. He said he tried it once and Kennedy kept the filibuster going for a week. There was nothing to see or do. It was a complete bore because there was nobody giving long speeches, etc. The media didn't even report on it after the first day.
In the end, all he got was their agenda delayed for a week.
March 13, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael, unless I am missing something all that article says is that filibustering senators can't be required to actually speak until they run out of quorum calls. (The Republican party can only make 82 quorum calls on a matter before the Senate; that's two for each senator.) Harry Reid could certainly refuse to back down and force the filibustering senators to hold the floor. He can also compel all the senators to remain in attendance. There's certainly plenty of room for filibuster "theatrics" if the Democrats want to take a strong stance.
March 13, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's why it needs to go through the budgeting procedure. no filibusters allowed. but looks like they're taking that off the table too. losers. addicted to losing.
March 13, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ehh, I really don't think it's "addicted to losing", or, as many have complained, having been trained by Grover Norquist to be perpetually "neutered farm animals" (LOL!).
I just think there's a culture in DC, in which longtime government players exhibit a certain decorum and deference to their fellow congresscritters, regardless of party. The Dems are addicted to THAT.
The only time the Marquis Of Queensbury Rules were ever thrown in the trash can, is when Newt Gingrich got every insurance salesman and exterminator from Dumbfuckistan elected to Capitol Hill, and they rode roughshod over everybody.
Ironically, that's the only time any party ever had a blank check to rewire the American system to their heart's content. Kids... I realllllly think we need to learn at the feet of those miserable little bastards! It worked.
We need to "work".
March 13, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to "work".
Nah, we just need a whole bunch of Senators with a "D" next to their names. Never mind whether they actually vote for any part of a progressive agenda. ;)
March 13, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, they NEVER vote with the Democrats. 80-90% voting with the party doesn't count!
Joke = YOU.
March 13, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i know i know.
March 13, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The filibuster isn't an issue if they do it as part of the budget. That's the whole current debate.
(And, yes, I know that Franken hasn't been seated yet, but I hope he will be seated in time for the vote on the budget resolution.)
March 13, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cogs of our legislative system turn more quickly with grease than with frustrated applications of force.
Yes, we're going to have to mitigate the moneyed interests' pain somehow to make positive steps towards emissions reduction or more expansive health coverage. It'll probably fall just short of a naked bribe. So what?
March 13, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except we don't, actually. Their magic number is 9 (or 10 once Franken is seated), but they only have 8 Democratic senators.
March 13, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are all of them trying to protect their right ass-cheeks?
March 13, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Earlier this week, there were a bunch of editorials attacking scientists for being given a free hand to research stem cells. Much from politicians. Much of the reasoning was that scientists lack the ethical restraint to be able to regulate themselves.
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is a phenomenon that is occurring that will likely cause significant devastation and hardship to huge parts of the Earth's population. The more we do now, the less the devastation.
Congress, despite mandates from the people and several attempts by leading scientists to school them on this matter, is instead paying more attention to corporate donors, and is still more worried about lucre than lives.
And scientists are the ones who don't get ethics? If you'll excuse me, I'll be down in my lab constructing a death ray and an army of robots. No more mister nice science.
March 13, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...a free hand to research stem cells."
Scientists have always had "a free hand to research stem cells," they just had to use private funds for embryonic stem cell lines that didn' exist before Bush's ban on federal funding. Bush blocking science has been a lie from the begining.
March 13, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of money for research comes from the Federal government in some form. Yes, there is private funding, but that is where the ethical issues will arise, so it's better the government funds it and thus, can regulate it also.
March 13, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I understand it, if a facility did any embryonic stem cell research (other than with the few lines that Bush decided didn't have any moral standing), the whole facility could not get federal research dollars.
Since most of the research is done in large facilities (schools, labs, etc.) which rely on federal grants for other projects, it pretty much killed embryonic stem cell research in this country.
Sort of like the "logic" of killing off all female healthcare if any abortion counseling is done at all. (That'll teach those wayward tramps!)
March 13, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, scientists can always hold bake sales to fund their labs. No money, no science. Yes, he didn't stop all this work from going forward, but he stopped all funding from the NIH. That counts as stopping most of it. Funding of research from the NIH is much greater than funding from biotech companies, especially for parts of these procedures that are not patentable. Also, control of the process would be in the hands of the corporation that paid for it, who would likely keep a tight lid on the data, as opposed to independent scientists who are more collegial in aiding fellow scientists in similar pursuits.
Bush was not against all science, just much of it involving stem cell research, environmental protections, global warming and evolution. He also was against clean coal research in Illinois, while supportive of it in Texas.
March 13, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't hold this against the Dems really as they were probably pissed when Bush used it against them. I just want to know how many GOP hypocrites are on the list of 25 - how many of those who signed the letter went along with it when Bush played the game.
March 13, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this, friends, is why 60 dem votes doesn't matter.
March 13, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Primary their conservative rear ends, until they're out of office or change parties."
"... just let the repugs and so called blue dogs get their way without getting yourself upset."
" Harry Reid is an ass."
"...eliminate Reid in 2010."
I don't think I've ever for a thread that I agreed with more posts in...
March 13, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
This definitely has to be a fun thread for you. Hope you are enjoying yourself reading the posts. Totally different from the kind of echo chamber stuff you read on republican sites. Major food fight in the making.
March 13, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
reminds me of how the wingnuts treated McCain...
March 14, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats' reluctance to take advantage of their procedural arsenal to pass climate change and health care this year does mean that they are not serious about making the changes the President promised the nation and that folks voted for.
March 13, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is correct. The supposedly "moderate" Dems are out of touch. That is, they are working for the other side. Now, if we actually had a majority leader who had any authority, these bozoa might have to think twice before undercutting the Obama administration's agenda, which is pretty popular these days, I hear.
March 13, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Landrieu and Byrd are the chief problems here:
Bayh, Casey, Levin, Lincoln, Nelson, and Pryor all voted for going forward on the Warner Lieberman cloture vote in 2008. That was not a great bill, but at least it means they are already on the record in favor of letting a cap-and-trade bill go forward. Byrd and Landriue are a differerent matter given their coal and oil ties. If there votes are necessary the question is what kind of stinker "sweetener" will it be necassary to get them on board. Neither has a great excuse to block the bill, Byrd cannot reasonably imagine that he will run again, and Landriue is just starting a six year term.
March 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I think about it, the more I think 'f**k em' is the right strategy. If they're so worried about their Conservative cred, let them worry about that while the rest of us do what is universally accepted (by all but the Lush dittoheads) as BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY.
They have a problem with progress? Too bad.
Actually, I bet in many cases their formerly conservative constituents are beyond these stupid parlor games and just want the country fixed. It's probably just the big money interests in these states (WV = Coal; NE, IN, PA, AR = Ag; MI, LA = Oil/Auto) keeping the idiot blue dogs from doing the right thing.
March 13, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
These "centrist" Dems are just evil. What total f-in' losers. What corrupt, useless bastards. I don't know what else to say. Just the fact that these idiots are teaming up with the Repugs against Obama - he sure as hell damn well should ram cap and trade through the budget process if they're telegraphing their intention to filibuster. What horrible, horrible human beings.
March 13, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That gives 8 Dems to expel as their terms expire.
March 13, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again the question is, Will Sen. Reid permit the GOPpers to win with filibuster lite, or will he force the GOPpers to mount a genuine filibuster, stop the business of Congress and face the wrath of the voters?
Let's face it. Sen. Reid has a track record. Appeasement.
March 13, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight. If the Republicans are going to stop the government from saving the world, I think the least the Dems can do is see if their resolve is stronger than their desire to watch "Wheel of Fortune".
March 13, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like 8 more primary challenges to support.
Not one cent for DSCC/DCCC/DNC.
March 13, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a better chance of persuading many of these Senators than there is in replacing them.
Landrieu, for example, is not running for six years, and withot some radical change it's hard to imagine that she will be defeated to her left. Obviously her state has large oil and gas interests. At the same time, much of coastal Louisiana stands at risk of being wiped out if global warming continues and accelerates. There needs to be a much more targeted campaign starting now to convince wavering as well as downright obstructionist senators of the need to pass a cap-and-trade bill and of the need to pass a real national health insurance bill.
March 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly cannot believe what a pack of rabid dogs got let loose in this comment section.
You all are advocating the Democratic Party follow precisely the course of action that destroyed the Republican Party in eight short years. F*** the moderates, pander to the base. Screw a deliberative process where all parties come to consensus, ram an ideological "solution" down the country's throat, damn the torpedoes, full kool-aid ahead.
Jeebus, people, we are supposed to be better than Republicans. Not just the same old pigs with different colored lipstick.
March 13, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you, but am concerned that we're already way too late to pass anything involving Global warming. This may be Obama's honeymoon. It may go downhill from here, and he may not get another chance. I hope myself and the majority of scientists are wrong about the urgency of global warming. "Wait and see" has been done. The science is done. Waiting and playing bipartisan on this may just give them more time to dither, delay and quite possibly defeat the legislation.
March 13, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We will get a climate change bill, and we will get a health care reform bill. All the constituencies for both are lined up, fired up, and ready to go. They are both juggernauts that nobody can stop.
What we won't get -- and should not get -- are bills written by a tiny, vocal fraction of the political left. Any more than we should have had government hijacked by a tiny, vocal fraction of the political right most of the last decade. Again, this is the crap that put us in the wilderness for a quarter century, it is what will put the Republicans in the wilderness for a quarter century -- unless, of course, we show ourselves to be even bigger d*cks than they were and blow our chances in one administration.
March 13, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck them.
March 13, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like Rahm needs to pay these guys a visit, I'm all for diversity, but not when the nation is in peril and these people are threatening to give the Republicans a new majority. They didn't throw us a bone during the last 8-12 years, why should we play into their hands now?
March 13, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
These people are TONE DEAF!! They do not hear the people, they do not realize that the people who put them in office WANT health legislation and WANT the climate protected (to the extent that's even possible at this late date).
March 13, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the frustration with some right-leaning (or more likely, lobbyist-leading ) Democrats is justified.
Few are calling for a rigid ideological party. But there needs to be some discipline in supporting core values and key legislation of the president. I have no problem with differing views, but some of these folks seem to flake out at the slightest Republican opposition.
I'm all for a big tent D party. We have that. But some pressure on pols is a necessity, otherwise the lobbyists and punditry will have the upperhand. In a sense, they need to know WE are counting their votes and making lists, and will remember who stuck by us during tough fights. Not just business lobbies, but voters need to have some clout. Pols need to fear our wrath too.
There's that old quote from FDR to progressives -- now go home and make me do it.
March 13, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is Bob Casey doing on this list? Last I saw Pennsylvania is not a southern, knuckle dragging state or is it? Why do Dem's always act like they've lost the last election even though it was a clear win, a huge mandate really. WTF?
March 13, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
tmc,
Casey is one of my Senators. I just called his office in DC and expressed my displeasure at his signing the letter.
Look at the company he's in; Landrieu, Pryor, Nelson of Neb., Bayh. Its sad that he's aligning himself with this gang.
March 13, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll also join the chorus of
"f#ck 'em".
This is a big deal and if Obama has to pass cap & trade with 50 senators + Biden, that is exactly what he should do.
March 13, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if cap and trade isn't the right solution? What about carbon taxes, with the proceeds used to offset payroll taxes?
Don't you think maybe we should take a couple of weeks to have that debate, rather than steamroll a prepackaged "solution" with no deliberative process? Isn't that what we dissed the Repubs for? Isn't that the definition of democracy, which we are supposed to be better stewards of than the Repubs?
March 13, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure most of the people insisting that we pass "cap and trade" right away don't actually know much about it. Wasn't it not very long ago that we were hearing many of the same voices talking about how cap and trade wouldn't work and a carbon tax was so much better?
March 13, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I remember it pretty much the same way. Wonder how long it will take these hypocrites to call us cowards.
March 13, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
These cowards never stood up Bush Thanks for nothing
March 13, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
These so called Dems can be summed up thus: cars, coal, oil, and hick!
March 13, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding me why I am no longer a member of the DNC and *never* give money to the Democratic Party but only to true democratic candidates.
All of them can go suck on a tailpipe or sit on a smokestack!
March 13, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thought there was ever a snowball's chance in hell that Robert Byrd wouldn't do everything in his power to stop any kind of limits on CO2 must have access to some mighty good weed. It might help to recall that none of these people were elected by the people of the United States as a whole.
Landrieu's state is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil, Casey's state is both a major coal producer and a major emitter, Levin's state is built on an industry teetering on the brink of extinction. None of those three are going to sign on to cap and trade or any carbon control measures without getting something big put back in to their states in return.
But West Virginia? If we actually reduce coal consumption by a quarter or a half, West Virginia is freaking doomed. If demand falls, West Virginia and Kentucky simply cannot compete with Wyoming, Montana and Colorado. It just costs too much more to get it out of the ground in Appalachia. The wonder isn't that Byrd signed this thing, but that Jay Rockefeller didn't.
Nelson, Bayh, Pryor and Lincoln, however, are just stupid, short-sighted, self-aggrandizing assholes, best I can tell. Makes me wonder whether the reason Bayh was floated as a veep possibility was because the notion of getting him out of the Senate was so attractive.
March 13, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carl Levin. I hardly knew ye. For shame.
March 13, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where I think David Plouffe needs to get "the army' engaged - he's got millions of email addresses and names...why aren't they rallying the troops to put pressure on these 8 Dems to get them in line with this? It's too serious to water down, just like health care - we can't keep giving in and chipping away at America and our future.
This has got to stop. Elections have consequences. Even for Democrats.
March 13, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody nudge me, when Evan Bayh supports anything this administration does.
March 13, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I looked at the title, turned to my sister and said "I GURANTEE you Evan Bayh is on that list" granted she is 10 and doesn'tkno who he is a say "BOOYAH!" when I read that he was.
He makes me sick.
March 13, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed... not many of us were really surprised at that one. Levin is the only one I flinched at, but considering his district, he has been hooked-up to the auto industry for so long, he can't help himself.
March 14, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I assert that the Democratic party will suffer virtually no electoral cost whatsoever for taking the "rough" approach of utilizing the budget reconciliation rules to pass any of these contentious pieces of legislation.
I can grudgingly understand why senators in certain states feel that they must vote in their state's narrow financial interests on cap & trade. Beyond that though, it is naive to believe that there will be any real difference in the opposition's behavior whether we play nice or we play rough.
I have watched as these people sink to ever lower lows of outright lying, complete fabrication, and character assassination in order to get their way. And the reason they keep going lower?
It works.
Regrettably, it is past time to concern ourselves with perception. It is time to win. Budget reconciliation is an entirely legal and ethical way to pass legislation when that legislation is crucial to the success of our country, and will otherwise fail to be enacted.
Come election time, the American people will remember only that it got passed, and it works. The Republicans are going to employ the same strategy, tactics and rhetoric anyway - so let them employ it in a losing cause.
March 13, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quick math lesson:
In a group of 100, what constitutes a majority?
WRONG!
The 60-vote bar is accepted (by almost everyone now) as the way the senate was intended to run by the Framers of the Constitution.
But who cares about the framers of the constitution when the conservatives are the framers of the debate?
JQPublic: "Oh yeah, that's right, don'tcha need 60 votes for anything to pass in that there Senate?"
March 14, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, by golly, maybe we just need to work hard again, in 2010, to make certain your magic #60 is surpassed.
If your premise about the intent of the founding fathers were true, then why CAN a bill be passed with a simple majority? It only takes the 60 votes to bring it to the floor over a filibuster, not to get it passed. I realize it effectively produces a 60-vote requirement but the letter of the law says that it takes 50% + 1 to pass legislation. If that weren't true, why wold the VP have a vote to cast in case of a tie?
But still and all, this seems well outside the mandate that our lawmakers were given, which started in 2006 and was unquestinably certified in 2008.
I think our Democratic Party turncoats still believe they are elected by the right, not the center, and they are sorely mistaken. The only other exp[lanation is that they really represent the corporate intersts in their districts, not the public in general, but certainly good Democrats would never sell out to corporate America, would they???
Would they???
Because, except for coroporate money contributions, what they are doing only appeases wingnut members of their constituency who would NEVER vote for them, come hell of high water (that high-water comment was for Landrieu's sake, the "hell" comment is for all of them)
There are times my tinfoil deerstalker tells me that the media and DC and Wall Street love that campaign money so much, they keep moving the bart on us so we continue to spend billions on political advertising.
OK, so that's quite a stretch, but if there is a single identifiable beneficiary of political hardship and divisiveness, it is the dead-tree and tube medias.
March 14, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know you were being sarcastic, but thought it a good opening to make a comment on these identity-challenged Dems.
March 14, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
btw...when have the repubs obstructionist ever refused any opportunity to filibuster anything that might make dems look good or lead to success for the dem party.
The republicans have already come right out and said that if dems pass a national health care plan it will make them undefeatable for years to come in elections so they must be stopped from doing this no matter what the cost if republicans are to survive as a party.
The object is to ruin or defeat any national health care plan...period. These same republicans will use "cap and trade" issue to accomplish this because their real goal is to filibuster helath care reform.
Just put John Boehenr's face on these 8 dems because that is essentially what they have become.
March 15, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink