An Accidental Moment Of Candor From Judd Gregg: With Franken Tied Up, 'We Can Do A Lot With 40 Votes'
A Congressional Quarterly article about GOP efforts to get conservative Democrats to oppose major legislation contains an interesting admission from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH).
Acording to the piece, Republicans "have vowed to block, reshape or defeat a number of Democratic initiatives in coming months, even though Specter's defection has left the Senate Republican caucus with just 40 members."
But in a 99-member Senate, 40 votes are enough to keep Democrats from cutting off debate on major legislation. "Usually you need 41 votes to get anything done around here. But right now, you can do a lot with 40 votes,'' said Judd Gregg
In a 99-seat Senate, 40 votes isn't nearly enough to "get anything done." Not at all. It is rather the bare minimum necessary to make sure nothing gets done. And it explains why so many Republican senators will routinely vote against cloture on major Democratic agenda items. It's called a filibuster--and it isn't typically thought of as way to "get stuff done."
You'll seldom hear Republicans admit that this is their legislative strategy--even though it manifestly is their legislative strategy--but sometimes obvious and uncomfortable truths are hard to deny, and slip out accidentally. And it's an important truth.
This strategy is crucial to understanding the GOP's gambit in the Minnesota Senate race. When that issue is decided, the Senate will have 100 members, and if Franken is declared the winner (as is widely expected) the Republicans' 40 votes will no longer be enough on their own to mount a filibuster.
For his part--in the weeks since he decided not to join the Democratic administration and chose instead to lead Republican opposition to the President's budget--Gregg has become one of the filibuster's strongest proponents.
He compared efforts to circumvent the filibuster to mob tactics, despite the fact that he used those same tactics when Republicans were trying to advance the Bush agenda. It's a sort of...flexible philosophy. One has to imagine, though, that if he'd gone through the nomination process to become Commerce Secretary, and 40 senators had filibustered his confirmation, he'd have had a suspiciously different take on minority obstruction.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Gosh, it's almost like Coleman is only going through all this to keep Franken from taking his duly elected seat in the Senate. You don't suppose...
May 12, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, no no! Coleman is the first to tell you that this isn't about politics, or even him but about making sure that our democratic processes have a chance to work themselves out. It would be darn right unAmerican to ask Coleman to drop out of the race at this point when there is still so much left to be decided. The election laws practically require him to file these appeals.
And if you can get behind that, Norm would ask that you donate the maximum to his legal assault fund and then hire his wife's consulting firm for something that requires no actual work. You know, so he and Specter can get to work on finding a cure for cancer.
May 12, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only real vote that is important this year IMO is the health care reform vote. The good news is that this can be done by reconcilation thus the Democrats can get what they want if they so choose it.
May 12, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well actually with the conservative Democrats also trying to suck up to big insurance and pharma corporations it is likely that we will need EXACTLY 51 votes even in a reconciliation mode.
Honestly I just do not get how anyone with a heart and a mind can say Americans must pay the most money for the worst health care just so some corporate fucks can get rich off the deal. WTF??!!
If Obama cannot get 51 Senators to back a public option for health insurance in this country then I completely give up hope that there is any true decency in the American soul. It is then completely a Darwinian game of who can fuck the weakest to get more money to buy more shit for themselves period. This is it.
May 12, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not give up. Instead let's elect more Democrats in 2010 to the Senate so these shenanigans are brought to a close. We all need a breather from these nuts.
May 12, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would help some to elect more Democrats, but there are still too many Dems who are too beholden to the moneyed interests (see: Landrieux, Mary) and place them before any other constituents.
What we need is public financing of campaigns so that nobody in either party goes scrounging for campaign bucks from oil, pharma, banks, etc. I've heard Al Franken advocate public financing for years and I sure hope he sticks with that when he gets to the Senate.
May 12, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now the Blue Dogs are barely even trying to pretend that they are in service to traditional Democratic constituencies (i.e., the working class and minorities in particular).
How many actual votes do CEOs control? Labor and community groups should be declaring war on the Landrieus, Bayhs and Lincolns of this world.
May 12, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywood...I share your thoughts completely and really have concerns that the health lobbyists are winning this battle at our expense! I would like to massive public protests to get a single payer plan as a choice.
May 12, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Howard Dean, Dr. Howard Dean, on the Rachel Maddow Show last nite kind of pouting and hinting that it was too bad that the advocates for single payer universal care did not as of yet have a "seat at the table" for negotiating the final outcome of "reform"
Why on Earth is Howard Dean begging on national TV for the Obama administration to include advocates of single payer as a voice to be heard? Survey after survey shows huge numbers of Americans would prefer a public insurance option instead of literally betting their lives on the motives of these profiteers, but at this point we are still begging to be taken seriously.
Why oh why do these corporations own our lives?
May 12, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to the insurance profit/corruption angle, rich people who can afford to pay if necessary for any health care they want are terrified that we might have a system where access to treatments is controlled on any basis other than the ability to pay. When they pull out the scare talk about "rationing," they really mean "rationing for meeee!" (In other words, a variation on the basis of conservatism, "Screw you, I got mine!")
(If they actually looked at other countries with national health, they'd know that having plenty of money still gets you whatever you want, but...)
May 12, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't tell us. Tell your senators and congress critter. Tell them over and over again that you want them to work for you, not big time pharma or medical insurance companies. Tell them that you have a long memory and you want their support. Tell your friends. Tell them over and over again. It might not influence your current senators and representative but if enough of us say enough you might be surprised at how much attention they start paying to us.
May 12, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been screaming this at everyone everywhere since 1994 when the corporations took down the Clintons like they were wimps. I am amazed it has taken 15 years to get this boiling again. I was always kind of pissed that Obama took a more corporate position when Clinton took a more universal angle but I like Obama for lots of other reasons.
My congresscritter is Henry Waxman, who I like a lot, and I think he is on our side on this. Barbara Boxer is also a good go too Senator for progressive common sense. My other Senator is Diane Fienstein, and honestly her husband is so damned rich that she usually comes down somewhere rich people feel good whether it screws the 98% of little people who vote for her or not.
Honestly I NEVER stop hammering this issue because the older I get the more I realize that someday in the future my life will literally and absolutely depend on the outcome of this war of profit over human decency. Unless of course I win the lottery and can pay cash for everything .......
May 12, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one tragic difference between the Dems and the Repubs; the GOP makes good on this kind of promise to obstruct the agenda on the opposite side of the aisle. Democrats run around in circles and then throw up their hands in capitulation when the number in their ranks is low. If they don't have 60, what will they do?
May 12, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting nothing done is their plan. They have nothing else. The GNOP leaders are the Big Fat Idiot and the drill here drill now Pumpkinhead, catapulted by Fixed News.
May 12, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dump the filibuster. It's anti-democratic. It allows the large businesses and other interest groups to control too much. A majority is a majority.
May 12, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think the filibuster is an important tool to keep a bare majority from running roughshod over a sizeable minority, but I do think there should be a potential political price for using it. Democrats should be sure that the GOP pays that price by pointing out loudly whenever the GOP is being obstructionist.
I think they are paying a political price right now, and it's why you see the party's poll numbers in such serious decline, but I think we progressives need to turn up the heat and make it even more painful for them than it already is.
May 12, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a cost built in to the system already, but nobody uses it.
Make them filibuster.
Pointing the bat as an indication you're going to hit the ball out of the park doesn't count, you actually have to hit the ball.
So call their bluff. Make them stand up there and talk, and talk, and talk. There will be attention paid to this, and whoever is doing it will be seen as obstructionist, unless they can make a compelling case. And be prepared to hit back. Have the debate. Make it clear to everyone what the issues are.
I support the use of the filibuster (by both sides), but not of the "intent to filibuster."
-- MarkusQ
May 12, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right.
May 12, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except there was a very informative piece a few months agot by Ezra Klein (I recall) about how under Senate procedure you don't actually have to stand and filibuster.
May 12, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lars baby... you rightly refer to the subtle difference here, i.e. that between stalling legislation by exercising one's privilege of conducting endless debate (filibuster), and the incapacity to close floor discussion for lack of a supermajority. Many Americans have the image of the legislator going hoarse by reading from the phone book in order to keep the floor; there is something principled, almost noble, in the attempt by a lone member or minority clique to hold the floor at all costs to prevent repulsive legislation from reaching a vote. It is certainly another, far more cowardly, matter to possess a slim minority overage to use as a perpetual stranglehold on the progression of any legislation.
May 12, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Ryan Grim at HuffPo (unless you have a different link). It was also wrong. Stenography at its worst. A Reid flack conjures up a memo that doesn't really say much, but that Reid can use for CYA purposes. I still can't figure out why so many people are willing (without doing a shred of their own research) to cover for this spineless bum.
May 21, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Much as I'd love it, too, it won't (can't?) happen.
Check out this memo from Sen. Reid's office (couldn't find my PDF, but this blog over at Kos has the whole thing:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/2/26/0157/51535/15#c15
Then review this piece from Ryan Grim (indeed!) over at HuffPo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
They've sterilized it in practice, so that there are no negative public consequences, which would be oh so lovely in the time of C-SPAN.
May 12, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell..a GOP Senator speaks the truth to America! They will do anything to keep America prisoner of the corrupt twisting of our values. Franken has been robbed of what is his and MN's right to representation and they are proud of it!
May 12, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
and who didnt know this???????????
look, the time is NOW.
obama and the dems must do everything they need to, to pass their programs.
its bad enough that the agenda falls farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr short of any real progressive change.
but, forget the repigs.
pretend they are not there.
do whatever it takes to get what you want done before it is to late.
May 12, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has been noted before but the rules of the senate do not require someone to stand up and talk to keep a filibuster going. All people would see if no one present and nothing happening. Unless the media noted this was due to a Republican filibuster they would just blame the dems as do nothings. Cannot really count on the media for accurate reporting now a days.
May 12, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, isn't it, the way that the GOP has used Gregg to come out with their outrageous talking points and used him as newly-minted attack dog. The high profile was clearly his gift for standing-up Obama and making him look bad.
BTW, I wonder if the GOP bother to ask or poll the people of Minnesota how they feel about being denied 1/2 of their U.S. Senate vote for a can't-win boondoggle from the national GOP party?
May 12, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah-HA!
May 12, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So many of these guys need a good ass-whoopin'.
May 12, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gregg is retiring in 2010, meaning he can say whatever the hell he wants without having to answer for it.
It's unfortunate that other than Specter there isn't a Republican senator up for re-election in 2010 from a Dem trending State.
Snowe and Collins will use their pull to ravage bills into the center.
Dems need to force them to actually filibuster, and not use the threat of it to tear down bills to finally get enough votes. Really paint the Republicans as the Party of Obstruction/Party of No.
Remember Reid first suggested Gregg for the Commerce post. They're probably bosom buddies in the Senate Country Club.
May 12, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you mean a "read from the phone book for hours" spectacle - I don't think it's even possible to force them into it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
The dems should threaten the "nuclear ... er ... constitutional option" on Souter's replacement - like the GOP did a few years back. Reid would have to backtrack his previous position a bit, but it would send one hell of a message.
May 12, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, the talking heads are still flogging the 'let every vote count' story.
May 12, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
A temporary ability to block the majority in exchange for pissing off Minnesota voters to the point that they won't elect another Republican for a long time to come.
Dumb strategery, if you aks me.
May 12, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recent GOP "strategy" is all about short term gains vs. long-term strategy. Their strategy, if they were playing chess, is to go aggressively for a checkmate within 15 moves, otherwise they lose.
Short term thinking is a natural human tendency. But for a government, it's a great path for eventual irrelevancy and decline. And for a party? The same.
May 12, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the dems would only need 50 to pass something in a full senate, as VP joe can break the tie. How many dems will consider a public plan inclusion as a deal breaker? Benny Nelson plus how many others. Any idea on public statements? At the end of the day, I think you get 55-60 votes for health care, as Snowe and Collins will turn when the bill is a lock for passage.
May 12, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off the top of my head: Lincoln, Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu. Possibly Tester?
May 12, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was there ever any doubt that this was the strategy of the Republicans, and the reason why they continued to support the Coleman suits in spite of the conclusion that Coleman would never be named the winner? The next best scenario for them is to tie up Franken in law suits, preventing him from being seated in the Senate. With the closeness of the Democratic majority to the magic 60 vote cloture number, anything that keeps them away from it is a win to Republicans.
May 12, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to Norm Coleman's litigation is, unfortunately, more litigation.
Minnesota DFL voters and their friends ought to seriously consider filing a class-action suit that names both the Coleman campaign and the RNC as defendants, citing the repeated and now-blatent attempts by both to violate of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause and deprive Minnesota citizens of their right to have two senators seated on their behalf in Congress.
May 12, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink