Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Crazy in the mailbag: Coral Ridge Ministries TV special - ‘The Obama White House Radicals’ Previous entry: It’s A New Day In Gay America

Up or down vote

CongressLanguage

Catching up on reading Balloon Juice, I saw that John Cole was thinking what I’ve been thinking: Democrats need to be saying the phrase “up or down vote” until they’re blue in the face. I’ve been amused all this past week, watching Rachel Maddow run a contest to see who could rename the filibuster problem in a way that was soundbite-friendly and attention-grabbing.  When people ask my advice on getting people engaged with your message online, I tend to suggest just this—-reward them for creativity and listen to their opinions, and you’ll find progressives respond really well to that.  And that’s what her show is doing with this contest, driving people to the website and, more importantly, getting them to really think about and care about the filibuster issue so they’ll talk to friends, blog, and call their Senators.  I also applaud the daily touting of Senators who answered their calls, which is a good way to shame those who didn’t. 

Here’s the “but”.  But the problem is that the winner—-“The Tarantino”—-is cute but not actually a good frame, since it doesn’t make you think about the actual problem, but about a bunch of movies.  Granted, the intention of the contest was never to actually come up with decent framing of the filibuster issue so much as to raise awareness of the “boring” problem to political junkies who don’t think it’s actually boring, and to have an excuse to talk about it when the news cycle doesn’t produce any impetus to do so.  But I think it’s time to talk about the actual frame to use.  And luckily, the Republicans have done all our work for us, both in terms of coming up with the phrase and popularizing it.  They even perfected the tone of moral indignation with which to pronounce the phrase.

“Up or down vote”. 

God, it’s a brilliant phrase.  (Another reason I vote “evil” in the “stupid or evil” debates, because many Republicans are good at being simple in a way that’s deceptively hard to do.)  Why?  Well, it’s simple and descriptive.  You don’t have to know the particulars of how a vote is being blocked to know that it’s going on, and to relate immediately to the frustration being expressed.  It conveys the idea that the minority party threatening to filibuster is preventing the government from working, and this pisses people off, because we fund their paychecks.  But above all other things, the phrase taps into Americans’ deep and understandable loathing of interminable meetings.

This loathing is why movies and TV shows that have cops impatient with meetings and protocol that decide to cut the crap and do it their way are endlessly popular.  Few of us have escaped a work environment where you and probably some to most of your colleagues just want to start to work on something, and you feel you know what needs to be done, but oh my god, someone’s called another meeting where everyone can rehash the same issues over and over again.  And while you’re sitting around discussing the work, the work is not getting done, and you have that dreadful feeling you get when you begin to realize that while you thought you had a lot of time to finish your work, it’s getting eaten up by fucking meetings and you’re beginning to panic.

Or worse!  You’ve been in a work environment where the bosses prefer to call meetings to tell their disempowered underlings things that would have been communicated nicely by a memo, thank you very much.  If you’ve worked in service, you’ve experienced these meetings.  Everyone is forced to come in an hour early so the boss can tell you that you need to wear 20 pieces of flair now, asks for comments, and then gets aggravated because no one has anything to say because the whole fucking thing is a farce anyway, and no one is unaware of the fact that speaking up and arguing with the boss will mean exactly nothing. 

The filibuster is both these meetings rolled into one. The Republicans are both wasting time for the hell of it, and playing the role of the aggravated boss man who feigns interest in having a discussion and gets pissed when you correctly assess that he’s full of shit and won’t—-or can’t—-budge an inch.

The phrase “up or down vote” is the cop who plays by his own rules in this system.  It hits on a major fantasy enjoyed by the vast majority of voting Americans who’ve been subject to boring meetings, that you could simply cry foul and take a vote that would shut down the meeting so you can all do something that isn’t a meeting.  Democrats should be using the phrase to describe the issue both because it’s a good phrase, and also because you can demonstrate that the Republicans feigning outrage were singing a different tune when they were in power.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:31 PM • (73) Comments

<blockquote> The phrase “up or down vote” is the cop who plays by his own rules in this system.  It hits on a major fantasy enjoyed by the vast majority of voting Americans who’ve been subject to boring meetings, that you could simply cry foul and take a vote that would shut down the meeting so you can all do something that isn’t a meeting. </blockquote.

I’d add that “up or down vote” also appeals to our sense of fair play, i.e. don’t procedure something to death - say directly whether you are for or against something, count the votes, and do what is decided.

Comment #1: Richard Goblin  on  02/24  at  01:08 PM

Urg.  Preview is your friend.

Comment #2: Richard Goblin  on  02/24  at  01:08 PM

The problem is that the Democrats are stuck on the issue of whether or not adding about 30 or 36 million people to health coverage is more important than the public option while the Republicans don’t want anyone new to have healthcare because that will help the Democrats.  Republican evil is a simple thing to accomplish, while the Democrat’s flailing attempts at incompetence require a lot of hard work.

Comment #3: 3letterjon  on  02/24  at  01:17 PM

And the phrase has already been focus-tested by the GOP.

Comment #4: paul  on  02/24  at  01:17 PM

Ugh, thank you for calling out “The Tarantino”.  I know Maddow’s intellect blows mine away, but her affection for cutesy snark irritates me sometimes.  For someone who’s not much into pop culture, the reference wouldn’t even make sense.  There were far better suggestions in the contest that more accurately and accessibly framed the problem while still retaining a measure of snark. 

Then again, maybe this will be the next santorum.  Words have come into usage in stranger ways.

Comment #5: bomberE  on  02/24  at  01:18 PM

That problem can’t be addressed, 3letter, until the filibuster is.  Or they’ll hide behind it until infinity.

Comment #6: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/24  at  01:18 PM

The problem of the misuse of the term “filibuster” is also an issue.  What is happening isn’t a filibuster, it’s a “minority hissy-fit legislative block”.  I’d like a better term or phrase, but my etymological skills aren’t as honed as those of the professionals.

Comment #7: 3letterjon  on  02/24  at  01:25 PM

What’s happening is never a real filibuster.  The filibuster is corrupt and evil, but even more corrupt and evil is simply lying down at the very mention of a filibuster.  Make’em DO it, don’t just run away from the threat.  Stoopid Democrats.

Comment #8: Older  on  02/24  at  01:40 PM

“What’s happening is never a real filibuster.  The filibuster is corrupt and evil, but even more corrupt and evil is simply lying down at the very mention of a filibuster.”

...but, don’t you see?  The Democrats are merely trying to avoid A Taste of Armageddon!  If they didn’t voluntarily <strike>report to the disintegrators</strike> roll over and play dead, imagine the awful holocaust that would result!...

Comment #9: MikeEss  on  02/24  at  01:52 PM

They democrats can’t let it come to a filibuster because the democrats would back down before the republicans would and the only thing worse than looking like you have no spine is proving that you have no spine. Hence the importance of killing the filibuster.

Comment #10: pharmakos  on  02/24  at  02:08 PM

There’s a frightening theory being floated by Glenn Greenwald right now, and as much as I think that Greenwald can be paranoid about a lot of this stuff, his argument makes a lot of sense right now…

He thinks the Senate Democrats are intentionally sabotaging themselves - they have no plans of getting truly meaningful reform accomplished.

The way it works is this - the bulk of the Senate caucus pays lots of lip service to something they recognize to be popular.  Currently, they know that the public option is extremely popular with the American people.  They pick one or two of their members to be the bad guys on the issue, but they rotate around who has to play that role so that no one single Senator takes too big of a hit in his favorability ratings.

Guess who the bad guy is this week?

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) drafted a letter to Majority Leader Reid a few weeks ago pushing to have the public option passed by reconciliation with 51 votes.  To date 22 or 23 of Bennet’s colleagues have signed on to the petition, including Arlen Specter, who is at risk in his own upcoming election.

For several months, Sen. Rockefeller has been one of the most outspoken proponents for the public option, saying that it was an absolutely necessary component of HCR if the bill was to have any meaning.  He’s been making the rounds on all the cable news programs saying how we have to have the public option for the last six months.  So naturally, when one of his colleagues begins a petition to try to whip up votes to support including the PO via reconciliation, you would be inclined to believe Rockefeller would sign on to that petition in a heartbeat.

Guess again.  Sen. Rockefeller not only didn’t sign the petition, he publicly declared that he was opposed to the idea of passing the PO via reconciliation.

WTF?

Anyway, Greenwald’s principal theory is that this isn’t a sign of Democrats’ ineffectiveness, it’s a willful ploy to play the public for suckers… as long as they can pretend like they are working their hardest to get meaningful work done, they can always fall back on the tired old “Well, we really, really tried, but we just didn’t have the votes.  Sorry everybody.”

As long as we are willing to believe that they truly tried their best but just couldn’t pull it off, the ruse continues.  But if the truth is that they never had any intentions of including a public option, that they would willfully concoct a kabuki show to make it appear as though they tried their best, then we’ll gladly just fall in line, and continue to support them despite our frustrations with them, because we believe that they really do mean well.

It’s depressing as hell.

Comment #11: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  02:33 PM

Jeez, how hard is it to say “This is America, let’s vote on it.”?  Seems like you’d have a soundbite that everybody’d get behind.

Comment #12: Brian  on  02/24  at  02:41 PM

An interesting point I just learned - as much as some are trying to make the claim that pushing healthcare reform through via reconciliation would be some unprecedented act and terrible violation of the spirit of the procedure, nothing could be further from the truth…

Ever been on COBRA?  If you have, you’ve gotten extended healthcare benefits because of a law passed by the U.S. Senate via reconciliation.  It’s the “R” in COBRA:

It’s the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985.

Comment #13: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  02:42 PM

I don’t get “the Tarantino.” I know his movies are mostly talk, but then stuff happens. What am I not getting?

Obama was a master at this kind of messaging during the campaign… hope, change we can believe in, yes we can. The only reason he hasn’t embraced “up or down vote” or something even better is that he was perfectly happy with Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman delivering the bill he wanted from the beginning. We’re seeing that again now with his bullshit reconciliation bill (after a month of telling us a reconciliation move couldn’t work).

And it is the same reason the Senate won’t reform the filibuster or the hold—it gives each of them so much power. This game, the Republican’s game, is exactly the game they want to be playing.

Comment #14: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  02:47 PM

Tarantino directed Kill Bill.  Filibusters are used to kill bills.

Comment #15: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  02:52 PM

“Ever been on COBRA?  If you have, you’ve gotten extended healthcare benefits because of a law passed by the U.S. Senate via reconciliation.  It’s the “R” in COBRA:
It’s the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985.”

...oh yeah?  Well, you know who else used reconciliation?  Adolph Hitler, that’s who!  And Joseph Stalin did too!  And Mao Zedong once wrote that “Power comes from the mouth of reconciliation”.

President Ahmadinejad uses it in Iran every single day, and twice on Sunday, right after he burns an American flag and an effigy of Ronald Reagan…

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  02/24  at  02:53 PM

Thanks, DTG.

Yeah, that’s too clever by half. Like, “for my birthday, I’m hoping to get some Ned Beatty.”

Comment #17: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  02:58 PM

Greenwald’s principal theory is that this isn’t a sign of Democrats’ ineffectiveness, it’s a willful ploy to play the public for suckers

I’ve said my share about Greenwald in other threads in other places, but ultimately I don’t see why there’s a need for an ingeniously coordinated scam that masquerades as ineffectiveness when _actual ineffectiveness_ is a fairly self-evident proposition.  The problem is that there are a large number of Democrats who aren’t liberals and genuinely don’t support liberal policies.  Why there needs to be multiple layers of conspiracy explaining that is a style of analysis peculiar to Greenwald.

Comment #18: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  03:00 PM

FlipYrWhig @ #18:

Perhaps… but how do you explain the fact that one of the most staunch proponents (supposedly) of the public option has suddenly decided that he’s no longer quite as in favor of it as he used to be when the option to push it through via reconciliation comes up?

It just doesn’t make sense.  It would be like me talking about wanting to buy my kid a car for months on end, but oh, woe is me, I just can’t scrounge together the cash, and then all of a sudden I come into a big chunk of money and suddenly I decide that maybe I really don’t think buying my kid the car is such a hot idea.

The Rockefeller Reversal defies logic.

Comment #19: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  03:09 PM

I guess my bottom line position at this point is that if the Senate Democrats really wanted to get a meaningful HCR bill passed, then they would do it.  If it doesn’t happen, it wasn’t because it couldn’t happen, it was because they didn’t really want it to happen.

Comment #20: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  03:12 PM

There’s a number of very effective things the Democrats could be doing but resolutely will not.  They don’t want to.

FlipYrWhig is correct, a great many Senate Democrats are not liberal.  Not in any sense or fashion.  Many, like Lieberman and Feinstein, almost hate us, they loathe us so much.  They don’t want change or help for the little people, it would mean the liberals would gain politically.

Obama is happy to accomodate them, anyone but the liberals and the little people.  Obama and Rahm don’t want liberal goals, they don’t like them.  They sure as hell do not like liberal bloggers.

We’re going to get crushed for this.  Obama thinbks he can get away with it after the campaign and he’s wrong, no matter how utterly fucked up the Republicans are people hate being taken for suckers.

Comment #21: paradox  on  02/24  at  03:13 PM

The first time I ever watched Maddow was the unveiling of the Tarantino.  My reaction was basically “bwuh?”  Too cute by half for messaging purposes.

Comment #22: damnedyankee  on  02/24  at  03:23 PM

Yeah, that’s too clever by half. Like, “for my birthday, I’m hoping to get some Ned Beatty.”

Alright, I’m an airport, and that one just flew right by me…

Splain, please?

Comment #23: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  03:25 PM

re: FlipYrWhig #18 and DTG at #19,

There’s a big fat pot of lobbyist dollars sitting there for the Democrats if they can triangulate an effective corporatist agenda with an ineffective populist/progressive agenda. That’s the whole point of the New Democrats, and the whole reason Obama brought Rahm into the White House.

That said, I’m not sure Rahm is nearly as clever or effective as everyone says he is. I can’t find it now, but I’ve seen a good rundown of his last decade in the House and as chair of the DCCC, and there aren’t a lot of shiny spots. That Jane Hamsher seems to be having an actual impact on where the HCR bill ends up is a pretty solid bit of evidence that, whatever the faux-progressive’s intentions, they are massively ineffective.

Comment #24: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  03:30 PM

It was kinda meant to. Think Deliverance.

Comment #25: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  03:35 PM

I didn’t think Glenn was suggesting it was a conspiracy so much as the way things work in the Senate.  All you need is for a significant number of Senate Democrats to feel that passing health care reform would be bad for them—-perhaps because lobbyists made this clear—-and they’ll behave this way without conspiring.

Comment #26: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/24  at  03:35 PM

The way it works is this - the bulk of the Senate caucus pays lots of lip service to something they recognize to be popular.  Currently, they know that the public option is extremely popular with the American people.  They pick one or two of their members to be the bad guys on the issue, but they rotate around who has to play that role so that no one single Senator takes too big of a hit in his favorability ratings.

Guess who the bad guy is this week?

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

The Rockefeller Reversal defies logic.

Firstly, the Rockefellar Reversal DOES make a lot of sense, if you think Rockefellar is a better vote counter than Reid.  Likewise, Obama leaving the public option out of the health care summitt (which is already going to be a farce and clusterfuck if the GOP has anything to say about it), doesn’t indicate “betrayal” nearly as much as it indicates the looming specter of more Senatorial gridlock.

Whitewashing “the Democrats” as some collective sinister force is absurd.  You’ve got a very clear cut block of populists (Feingold and Sanders and Boxer for instance), a very clear cut block of corporate obstructionists (Bayh and Lieberman and Lincoln and Nelson), and a grayer middle (ranging from Schumer to Baucus) that have still be reliable votes on the final bill.

The only “rotating” going on has been on the part of the corporate Dems, and they usually don’t rotate too far so long as they can get a pay-out (like with Nebraska or Louisiana) or claim a scalp for shits and giggles (Lieber-ass).

Rockefellar is convinced that putting the public option in again is a fool’s errand, as it’ll just get stripped back out in a Lieberman-inspired hissy fit.  Given the current political state, I can’t really argue with him.  And there are just enough corporate Dems in office to really fuck over even the 50 vote threshold necessary to build the bill to begin with.

But don’t go smearing the entire caucus as one grand evil conspiracy to dangle HCR in front of us and jerk it away again.  It sounds insane, of starters.  We need some kind of HCR, and if the Democrats can’t deliver, the Republicans will just pass a pile of corporate handouts and tax cuts, and call it reform when they get back in office.  You’ve got a solid 40 Senators that genuinely want reform.  That just doesn’t happen to be a majority.

Comment #27: Zifnab  on  02/24  at  03:36 PM

Or, I tend to favor evolution over intelligent design in these sort of things.

Comment #28: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/24  at  03:36 PM

I really, really do hope the rumors floating around the Village about Rahm Emmanuel’s imminent dismissal turn out to be true.  Sadly, even if they are true, I fully expect him to be replaced by another DLC type.

I’m not holding my breath.

Comment #29: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  03:37 PM

Carter’s biggest mistake was to stop serving alcohol in the White House. Clinton’s biggest mistake was not being nicer to Sally Quinn. There is already a backlash building inside the beltway against Obama’s Chicago crew—Axelrod, Gibbs, Jarret. And who did Rahm just tap Dickwhisperer to broadside? Axelrod, Gibbs, and Jarret. That’s no accident.

Rahm is way off the reservation, but he is making it clear that he’ll go down swinging. Obama runs a real risk of offending the chattering class if he moves aggressively here… I really hope he does, but this is a more delicate situation than the netroots would like.

Comment #30: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  03:54 PM

Well, maybe this is an American cultural thing, because I have not the foggiest idea what the phrase “up or down vote” is intended to communicate.  Either that or I’m really really stupid.  Better hope it’s the former, since there is a considerable proportion of the American population (28% or something?) that falls into the latter camp.

Comment #31: Katherine  on  02/24  at  03:54 PM

Well, what I want to happen is this.  I want an up or down vote on the public option, even if it can’t pass.  I want these assholes to go on record with a vote opposing one of the most popular components of healthcare reform.  I want Reid to hold his caucus’ feet to the fire by demanding that they take a stand, and cast a vote either supporting the public option, or opposing it.  If it can’t get 50 votes (which it probably can’t), so b it… but I want the 15-20 Democrats who block real reform to have to own it, with a vote.

We deserve that much.  But it won’t happen, as long as they can simply pay lip service to a cause without actually having to take a meaningful stand on it, they’ll continue to say, “well, hey, we tried!”

Why isn’t Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders out there saying, “You know what, we should have a public option, but we won’t.  You know why?  Because my colleagues Sens. Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Bayh, McCaskill, Baucus, Nelson, Pryor, and Carper won’t have it.  We can’t get 50 votes because these so-called Democrats won’t vote with their own caucus on it.  That’s why there isn’t going to be a public option.”

The progressive Senators won’t call out their corporatist caucus colleagues because comity in the chamber matters more to them than actually getting shit done.

Yes, I hold even our progressive allies somewhat responsible for this, because they are unwilling to call out fellow Democrats by name who are acting as obstructionists.  Quit bleating about Republican obstructionism.  Start getting real about Democratic obstructionism.  Name names, stand up for what you say you believe in, and tell us why we’re REALLY not going to get a public option.

Comment #32: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  03:57 PM

Well, maybe this is an American cultural thing, because I have not the foggiest idea what the phrase “up or down vote” is intended to communicate.

It means put the bill to a vote, and if it can secure a 51 vote majority, then it should move forward.  As it stands right now, the filibuster is being used as political cover - it’s a parliamentary procedural move which requires at least 60 votes (out of 100) to move forward with pending legislation.

Comment #33: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  04:00 PM

There is already a backlash building inside the beltway against Obama’s Chicago crew—Axelrod, Gibbs, Jarret. And who did Rahm just tap Dickwhisperer to broadside? Axelrod, Gibbs, and Jarret. That’s no accident.

The irony there is that Rahm himself is technically part of the Chicago crew, as well - his old House seat was IL-05, which represents the North Side of Chicago and the western suburbs.  That said, he’s been a Beltway asshole for the last 15 years - one of his early major gigs in that city was serving as a senior advisor to President Clinton, the same job now held by Axelrod and Jarrett for President Obama.

Comment #34: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  04:07 PM

Republicans are going to start their own narrative, about being rushed into a decision by slick used-carsalesmen tactics by the democrats. Imagine you’re about to buy your first house and you want to make sure everything is right, and the inspection comes back clean, and there aren’t any liens on the property, etc, but the realtor is saying “if you don’t sign this RIGHT NOW, you don’t get the house!” A *lot* of Americans are going to prefer to err on the side of caution and lose the potential dream home.

Of course, the majority of americans want health care, they want a public option, that’s what we voted this congress in to do. The fact that they’re not doing this is the reason we’re sitting here watching stupid CNN reports about “broken government” and the Republicans are all excited that they’re going to steal a bunch of seats back this year. They got that shit together really quick last year with the Tea Party conventions to try to create some semblance of outrage against what the majority of americans voted for in the previous election. But it’s important, because the Dems still haven’t managed to get their shit together and keep control of the narrative.

If the Dems are going to go with “Up or Down Vote” then they need to make sure they’ve got a backup plan in place for the Republican twisting of the narrative. And now that corporations (like insurance companies) can donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns, I’m pretty pessimistic.

Comment #35: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/24  at  04:11 PM

I know, there’s a lot of irony that Rahm is an insider and the rest of the Chicagoans aren’t. But Rahm has gone native, just like most of the rest of Congress. Probably the best way of summing it up is in how tight-lipped the Obama campaign was (something journos openly complained about), versus Rahm “anonymous high-ranking administration source” Emanuel.

Comment #36: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  04:22 PM

If the Dems are going to go with “Up or Down Vote” then they need to make sure they’ve got a backup plan in place for the Republican twisting of the narrative.

The response to that narrative is simple - if the Republicans try to claim that this bill is being “rushed” through in an irresponsible manner, the Democrats simply point out the fact that the negotiations for healthcare reform have been going on for over a year now, with countless attempts to include Republicans in the process, and there is absolutely nothing “rushed” about any of this.  That the Republicans have been unwilling to work with Democrats on any of this despite numerous attempts to reach out to them is the Republicans’ problem, and the Democrats have decided that they can no longer wait for an opposition party that is acting in bad faith to get willing to join in passing this critical legislation.

The claim that it’s the Democrats’ fault that they can’t get bipartisan support for HCR entirely lacks credibility, when the numerous attempts by the White House and Congressional Democrats to include Republicans are pointed out.

The Democrats need to frame a reconciliation bill passage as, “the Republicans left us no choice on the matter - we tried to work with them, but they were never willing to work with us.  The American people should not be expected to wait indefinitely for something that was obviously never going to happen.”

But I don’t hold my breath on them doing that.

Comment #37: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  04:24 PM

I don’t get either “The Tarantino” or “Up or down vote.” I really don’t. Tarantino films are known for both a lot of talking AND a lot of violence, and it’s kind of unclear which they’re referring to. Also, the type of talking that Tarantino films are known for isn’t the type of talking they’re going to be doing on the floor when they’re trying to hold up legislation. I just… no. And again, I don’t understand “up or down vote.” Is that referring to the filibuster itself? Is that what we’re doing, looking for other ways to say filibuster? Because I think we could probably just explain filibustering to people. “It’s a maneuver where a senator extends debate on a bill indefinitely. In order to stop the debate, 2/3 of the legislature has to vote on it. So if even a third of the senate doesn’t want something to pass, they can just extend debate indefinitely so that nothing else can get done. It’s a way of killing a bill before people are even allowed to vote on it.”

I dunno. Just explain it to people.

Comment #38: Jenny Dreadful  on  02/24  at  04:25 PM

”“Up or down vote” means, stop using the procedural motion of cloture to enforce a defacto supermajority requirement on legislation, and allow bills in the Senate to pass or fail based on simple majorities, like the Constitution specifies.”

...but that makes Baby Jesus cry!  (Unless used to confirm insanely Reichwing Supreme Court appointments and so forth…)

Comment #39: MikeEss  on  02/24  at  04:25 PM

Not to call anyone out, but I am a little frustrated with these explanations of “up or down vote.” It is simple:

The US Constitution says to pass a law you need a simple majority vote in each of the House and Senate. The Republicans are using the rules of the Senate—which don’t exist in the Constitution—to keep that vote from ever happening. America deserves an up or down vote on [your legislation here].

Comment #40: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  04:26 PM

Oh Jesus. I’m reading about the history of filibustering right now. a 14 hour address by friggin’ Byrd held up passage of the Civil Rights Act? Fuckin’ A.

Comment #41: Jenny Dreadful  on  02/24  at  04:29 PM

1. Amanda, can I get a ruling on whether “hissyfit” has shifted far enough from its original misogynist meaning that I can use it to describe Republicans without making it appear as if I’m gendering the two-party struggle?

2. I like Tarantino’s films and it took me until DTG way above to get what Maddow et al meant by it. Any dumb pop culture reference is the wrong approach: you want people to think you’re taking the whole thing seriously. Up or down vote is perfect, because it turns their phrase back on them, which is what they’ve been doing to us for decades.

Comment #42: felagund  on  02/24  at  04:33 PM

All you need is for a significant number of Senate Democrats to feel that passing health care reform would be bad for them—-perhaps because lobbyists made this clear—-and they’ll behave this way without conspiring.

Oh, definitely.  I think that people like Mark Warner are very nervous about the plan and let known villains like Joe Lieberman take the brunt of the attacks.  But I understand Greenwald to be saying that it’s _all_ a sham, that The Democrats have it all worked out so that there are always just enough naysayers so that they never have to change the status quo.  I think that implicates people like Sherrod Brown and Pat Leahy and Barbara Boxer too, which I find far-fetched.

The Jay Rockefeller example is instructive too.  It doesn’t seem contradictory to say both that (a) the public option is good policy and (b) putting in the public option this way is a bad idea.  If Rockefeller thinks that adding the public option will kill the bill—i.e. that there aren’t even 50 votes for a bill including the public option—that’s a sensible statement to make.  That’s how the White House statements have sounded to me:  yes, it’s a good policy; but for various reasons it antagonizes too many of our members and can’t pass, so we’re not willing to blow up the whole bill for this one element.  I don’t understand why what seems to be a fairly straightforward logical proposition requires a special explanation.

Comment #43: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  04:43 PM

Oh Jesus. I’m reading about the history of filibustering right now. a 14 hour address by friggin’ Byrd held up passage of the Civil Rights Act? Fuckin’ A.

To Robert Byrd’s credit, he has long since stated that he is deeply ashamed of taking that position nearly 50 years ago.  Despite his shameful early life experiences, he has evolved into one of the more progressive members of the U.S. Senate on a lot of issues.  He was one of the most staunchly vocal opponents of AUMF - the Congressional resolution that authorized Dubya to invade Iraq.  He considers his “Nay” vote on AUMF his proudest moment in his Senate career, because he was decidedly in the minority at that time - 29 of his Democratic colleagues at the time, including Senator Clinton, voted “Aye” unfortunately, and the bill passed 77-23.

The most egregious use of the filibuster was by Senator Strom Thurmond, in which he continued talking for more than 24 straight hours to try to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

The filibuster rule was changed in 1975 - the old rule required 2/3 of the Senate to invoke cloture, but the standard was lowered from 67 votes to 60 votes when the current rules were implemented.  The problem is, they also got rid of the requirement for an actual floor filibuster to take place, and introduced what is known as a “procedural filibuster” - nobody actually has to talk endlessly to filibuster today, they just need to get 41 Senators who are willing to block cloture to invoke the filibuster.

Comment #44: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  04:48 PM

The Jay Rockefeller example is instructive too.  It doesn’t seem contradictory to say both that (a) the public option is good policy and (b) putting in the public option this way is a bad idea.  If Rockefeller thinks that adding the public option will kill the bill—i.e. that there aren’t even 50 votes for a bill including the public option—that’s a sensible statement to make.  That’s how the White House statements have sounded to me:  yes, it’s a good policy; but for various reasons it antagonizes too many of our members and can’t pass, so we’re not willing to blow up the whole bill for this one element.  I don’t understand why what seems to be a fairly straightforward logical proposition requires a special explanation.

That makes sense… though I still think there’s a degree of conspiracy to shield the coporatist members of the caucus from having to own their obstructionism.

Why can’t Rockefeller come out and say, “You know, if I actually thought we could get a public option via reconciliation, I would completely support that.  But I know that we can’t, because I know of at least ten Democratic Senators who would vote against it, and we wouldn’t be able to achieve the 50+Biden threshold necessary to get reconciliation passage.  And here are the ten Democratic Senators that I absolutely know would still block passage even with reconciliation…”

That’s the conspiracy… not that there aren’t any good progressives who want good progressive legislation to pass, but that even the good progressives aren’t willing to publicly shame their more corporatist Democratic colleagues, even when those colleagues obstructionism is the reason they can’t get progressive legislation passed.

They refuse to name names, because they value comity in the chamber more than they value doing everything they can to get the most progressive legislation passed.

Yeah, I get that it would be damaging to party unity if Russ Feingold would go on Countdown and say, “You know what, Keith, I want the public option and a few dozen of my colleagues want it, too.  Unfortunately, because assholes like Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and about ten other Senate Democrats like them are going to block it, we’re not going to get it.”

What good is party unity if it can’t actually be used to unite on passing meaningful legislation?

As much talk is there is about the GOP being on the brink of a civil war, I think the Democrats really need their own civil war at some point, as well.  The big tent may work in the short term to win a lot of seats, but once in power, the whole party falls apart because they can’t find common cause on anything, and the progressive wing winds up suffering because they are expected to shield their corporatist brethren from criticism by not calling them out directly.

Comment #45: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  05:04 PM

I guess my point is this… why is it that when Republicans hold a 51 or 52 seat majority in the Senate, they are absolutely great at enforcing party discipline and twisting their members arms to vote in lockstop with the conservative agenda, but when Democrats have a 59 or 60 seat majority, they constantly bend to the whims of their least liberal members and fail to pass much of anything that can be considered truly progressive?  I mean, the public option looks great right now compared to what it looks like we’ll probably get, but it isn’t even the most progressive policy that could have been promoted.  They weren’t even willing to have a serious discussion of single-payer healthcare proposals.

Comment #46: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  05:19 PM

They refuse to name names, because they value comity in the chamber more than they value doing everything they can to get the most progressive legislation passed.

I don’t know if the underlying issue is comity exactly, but I think there’s real concern that some of the people who don’t support the public option _do_ support the reconciliation fix, and pissing them off about the public option might come at the cost of their support for reconciliation.  It seems to me that there have been almost-but-not-quite 60 votes for public-option-less comprehensive health care reform in the regular process, and almost-but-not-quite 50 votes for public-option-ful comprehensive health care reform in the regular process, and maybe-just-barely 50 votes for public-option-less comprehensive health care reform using reconciliation.  So everyone is trying hard not to make big sudden movements.

I think that’s _cautious_, but I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.

Comment #47: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  05:20 PM

And why is it “The Tarantino” instead of the “Beatrix Kiddo”?

Comment #48: humanadverb  on  02/24  at  05:24 PM

Since they don’t have to talk, only fail to invoke cloture… what do they do during the filibuster? Doesn’t anyone think it’s weird when they’re like, “We need further debate!” and then nobody says anything? They should go back to the old rules, where someone has to take the floor in order for the filibuster to remain open. Anyone who talks for twenty-four hours straight is going to say some stupid shit. Upload the best clips to YouTube.

Comment #49: Jenny Dreadful  on  02/24  at  05:25 PM

why is it that when Republicans hold a 51 or 52 seat majority in the Senate, they are absolutely great at enforcing party discipline and twisting their members arms to vote in lockstop with the conservative agenda

Because they don’t care what people think.  That, to me, is the root of virtually all Democratic failures:  Democrats worry about what people will say.  They worry that the New York Times will editorialize against them.  They worry that they’ll get angry emails.  Democrats don’t like to obstruct what a Republican president wants because pundits will write and talk about how they’re standing in the way, not playing fair, etc.  Republican like to obstruct what a Democratic president wants because they don’t care how much the Democrats or the media might squawk.  Democrats feel guilt.  Republicans never do.

Comment #50: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  05:26 PM

Also…. isn’t there something that Biden can do, as the leader of the senate, to stop the filibuster? I heard something about it on NPR. Can’t he declare that chamber rules no longer apply? Why doesn’t he do that, if that’s the case?

Comment #51: Jenny Dreadful  on  02/24  at  05:36 PM

It seems to me that there have been almost-but-not-quite 60 votes for public-option-less comprehensive health care reform in the regular process, and almost-but-not-quite 50 votes for public-option-ful comprehensive health care reform in the regular process, and maybe-just-barely 50 votes for public-option-less comprehensive health care reform using reconciliation.  So everyone is trying hard not to make big sudden movements.

I wasn’t a math major, but that doesn’t exactly make sense.

“Almost-but-not-quite” to me means that they are maybe 2 or 3 votes short.

On the one hand you say that they are “almost-but-not-quite” at the 60 votes threshold to pass a bill without a public option - meaning they have 57 or 58 votes for that.

You also say that they are “almost-but-not-quite” at the 50 votes threshold to pass a bill with a public option - meaning they have 47 or 48 votes for that.

But then you say that they have “maybe-just-barely” 50 votes for a bill without the public option - meaning they only have 52 or 53 votes for that.

Which is it?  Are they just “almost-but-not-quite” at the 60 vote threshold for a bill without a public option - 57 or 58 votes - or are they “maybe-just-barely” over 50 votes for that bill - 52 or 53 votes?

That’s about a 4-6 vote difference… I have difficulty believing that these folks aren’t in communication with each other enough to know whether they are closer to 50 or 60 votes on this thing.

If they know for certain that the public option absolutely cannot ever get past the 50 vote threshold, they should just come out and just say so, and quit playing fucking games with it by dangling it out there in front of us like it’s a viable possibility.  Reid needs to say, “We cannot ever get 50 votes on the public option, so we’re going to quit talking about it”, and then he needs to instruct the rest of his caucus to drop it and quit talking about it, because it’s only building false hope for an apparantly unattainable goal.

This game of going back and forth between saying that the public option is dead and then it comes back to life is seriously infuriating to a lot of progressive voters, because all they are doing is building hopes up only to later go back and tear them down again.

If the public option can happen, then they need to make it happen.  If it can’t happen, then they need to admit that openly and then shut the fuck up about it already.  This game of letting the public option constantly float out there as a possible but unlikely HCR component isn’t winning them a lot of favor from the base.

Comment #52: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  05:42 PM

Also…. isn’t there something that Biden can do, as the leader of the senate, to stop the filibuster?

Yes, he can invoke what’s been referred to as “the nuclear option”.

There’s a myth floating that the Democrats must abide by current filibuster rules until the start of the next Congress in January 2011.  Untrue.  The chair of the Senate - currently VP Biden - can bring a point of order contending that the filibuster is unconstitutional.  If a simple majority agrees, the filibuster is gone for the remainder of the current session, and cannot be reimplemented until the start of the next Congress.

The name “nuclear option” was coined in 2005 when the majority Republicans were demanding that the Democrats give an “up or down vote” to Bush’s judicial nominees without using the filibuster.  Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott threatened to have VP Cheney (whose was then Senate Chair) use the nuclear option if the Democrats didn’t back down on filibustering.  The end result was that the filibuster was preserved with the formation of the “Gang of 14” - 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans who agreed that they would always vote for cloture on judicial nominations to allow an up or down vote, even though they reserved the right to vote “Nay” in the final vote.  Senator Lieberman, who was one of the “Gang of 14”, did this with Justice Alito’s confirmation - he voted for cloture so the final vote could move forward without being filibustered, but voted against his confirmation in his final vote, when his “Nay” vote wouldn’t be consequential.

Comment #53: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  05:54 PM

@ DTG, there are people who support the public option but don’t support using reconciliation to get it, because they’re sticklers for process.

I think the public option came back this time because people like Gillibrand and Michael Bennet wanted to rally the base as they head into reelection season.  I don’t think this is something the leadership particularly felt like doing.  I take them at their word that there aren’t 50 votes.  My hunch is that there are maybe 45.

Comment #54: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  05:58 PM

What’s the reason why Biden wouldn’t invoke the nuclear option, though? I know this isn’t US GOVT 101 but I don’t know where else to look and y’all are s-m-r-a-t.

Comment #55: Jenny Dreadful  on  02/24  at  06:02 PM

By the way - the only party who would ever seriously consider getting rid of the filibuster is the Republicans, because they have no objection to passing legislation with the slimmest majority possible when they are in charge.  Of course, right now they would be vehemently opposed to eliminating the filibuster, but only because they aren’t in charge - they don’t object to the filibuster when it serves them well.  Democrats, on the other hand, will never seriously threaten using the nuclear option, because it would reveal the fact that more than small handful of them really aren’t as much for the little people as their party claims them to be.

Right now, the filibuster is working perfectly for both parties - it allows Republicans to block anything they want to block, and it allows Democrats to hide behind it when they can’t get anything progressive passed.

If the Senate Democrats really wanted to get rid of the filibuster right now, they would.  But they know that more than ten of them explicitly don’t want that to happen, which is why the prospect of using the nuclear option will never even be discussed by Harry Reid or the White House.

Comment #56: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  06:06 PM

What’s the reason why Biden wouldn’t invoke the nuclear option, though?

Because he knows that if actually put to a vote, at least ten Democrats would vote against killing the filibuster, which would need to happen to invoke the nuclear option.

I’d prefer it if he did call the point of order, and the 10+ Senate Democrats who don’t really want progressive policy to ever happen were forced to go on record as obstructionists.

But it won’t happen.  The good progressive Senators provide cover for their corporatist buddies by not outing them.

Comment #57: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  06:11 PM

Also, Senators care a lot about the power they wield as Senators, which includes Filibuster Power.  They relish that prerogative more than they care about any particular policy item, because policy comes and goes, but power is lasting.

Comment #58: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  06:14 PM

I think the public option came back this time because people like Gillibrand and Michael Bennet wanted to rally the base as they head into reelection season.  I don’t think this is something the leadership particularly felt like doing.  I take them at their word that there aren’t 50 votes.  My hunch is that there are maybe 45.

I don’t dispute that.  But it’s a pretty big dick move to dangle something out there that you know isn’t realistically going to happen.  And while I realize that they are both new and fairly inexperienced senators, they’re building up false hope when they shouldn’t be doing that.  Don’t talk about giving us something that you know you can’t deliver.  And if they don’t know it, the party leaders need to tell them it.

If the public option is really dead as a doornail (and I’m inclined to believe it probably is), then Harry Reid needs to make a statement to that effect, and he needs to tell Bennet and Gillibrand to quit building up false hope among the people.

I’m sick of voting for people because they are good at saying the right things, but then fail to deliver.  I’m enough of a pragmatist to realize that as awful as our Democratic leaders have been on delivering the goods, we would be far worse off with Republican back in power, so of course I’ll vote again this November, though it will be more about voting against Republicans than voting for Democrats.

Sadly, I think that many of the millions of first-time voters in 2008 aren’t gonna bother showing up this November if the party in power fails to deliver on much of what it promised, and the voter enthusiasm polls all reflect this reality.  People like President Obama as a person, but the majority of the country now believes that we are decidedly on the wrong track, and frustration and disillusionment among Democrats and Independents can’t get much worse.  All of the enthusiam and optimism we felt as a nation in November 2008 has been completely sucked out of the room by these idiots.

The Democrats are behaving like inneffective and gutless twits who don’t deserve the mandate they’ve been given… and if they continue to fail miserably at getting shit done, they’re gonna pay a pretty big price nine months from now.

Comment #59: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  06:26 PM

“I have difficulty believing that these folks aren’t in communication with each other enough to know whether they are closer to 50 or 60 votes on this thing.”

yeah, but there is the “Im a strong supporter of the PO as long as it has no chance of ever being brought to a floor vote” caucus to factor in

Comment #60: jefft452  on  02/24  at  06:35 PM

My cynical view is that Michael Bennet’s move was a bone to the progressives back home, and he knew it was pointless. He has a primary opponent who is running the outsider/anti-corporatist theme, and is favored in many grassroots Dem circles. Bennet has far more money and media attention than Andrew Romanoff, but probably doesn’t want to take anything for granted.

Comment #61: Shiny  on  02/24  at  06:35 PM

My cynical view is that Michael Bennet’s move was a bone to the progressives back home, and he knew it was pointless. He has a primary opponent who is running the outsider/anti-corporatist theme, and is favored in many grassroots Dem circles. Bennet has far more money and media attention than Andrew Romanoff, but probably doesn’t want to take anything for granted.

Makes sense.  It also explains why R-to-D Arlen Specter is one of the 22 signatories on Bennet’s letter, knowing he’s facing a primary challenge from the left in Pennsylvania.

Comment #62: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  06:44 PM

Mighty, Republicans can try, but they have to get past a very basic issue with Americans, which is our collective sense of fair play.

Comment #63: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/24  at  07:20 PM

On the “nuclear option”....

First, the GOP nuclear option involved a Senate ruling that the filibuster was unconstitutional only in the case of judicial appointments. This is even worse constitutional law an a finding that the filibuster is generally unconstitutional.

Second, one doesn’t need to believe (or pretend to believe) that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Nor does one need to wait to the start of a new Senate. The Senate, unlike the House, does not, in fact, readopt its rules every two years. This is because the Senate operates as a “continuing body,” meaning that the rules simply carry over from session to session.  With the exception of the handful of Senators who were in place in the 1970s, the last time Rule 22 (the filibuster) was amended, none of the members of the US Senate has ever voted for this rule.  This Gordian knot can be cut with what is sometimes (somewhat confusingly) called the “Constitutional Option” (link is to a .pdf), which consists of the chair ruling that the Senate is not, in fact, a continuing body, finding that it is, therefore, operating without rules entirely, and then readopting new rules by a simple majority vote that would last until the next Congress is seated.

On Glenn Greenwald’s “conspiracy theory”....

It’s not really a conspiracy theory.  It’s pretty standard behavior. And both parties do it.  The Republicans, while happy to make abortion less accessible to poor people, are never going to pass a Human Life Amendment. And the Democrats are never going to pass a PO or union card check.  Both parties will happily vote for these things when they’re in the minority, however.  It’s a matter of behaving in ways that please your base while never actually doing anything that angers the folks paying the bills.

And despite what some have argued, this is the explanation suggested by Occam’s Razor.  Otherwise one has to posit that Democratic Senators don’t understand how their own legislative body works, care more about what pundits say than what their voters think, and are otherwise simply incompetent.  This is a party that has promised national healthcare since the late 1940s, during which time it has usually had majorities in both houses of Congress and, on seven occasions, larger Senate majorities than you see today. 

It seems to me that the conclusion that they’re not really interested in fulfilling this promise makes more sense than the notion that three generations worth of Democratic Senators have really wanted national healthcare but are simply too clueless to get it done.

Comment #64: Ben Alpers  on  02/24  at  07:30 PM

I think what pisses me off the most about the likely upcoming losses in the midterm elections is the media narrative that I’m certain that it will produce - that the American electorate has turned against progressivism and has returned to its supposedly conservative roots.  The truth is, if the Democrats lose this fall as bad as they very well could, it won’t be because the electorate is collectively rejecting liberal policy, it will be because the electorate will reject the idea of bothering to vote for Democrats who proclaim their liberal beliefs on the stump but then fail to deliver anything resembling liberal policy.  Enough low-information Independents who buy into the meme that the Democrats couldn’t govern their way out of a paper bag will swing to the Republicans, because they’ll believe that voting for Democrats is an utterly pointless waste of time.  Obama’s approval and the Congressional Democrats approval among Indies is right now under 40% in most polls - that’s not a good sign.

If it plays out the way most expect it to play out, it will be a rejection of ineffective milquetoastism, not a rejection of progressivism.  People don’t give a leaping shit about process issues like bipartisanship, they care about good governance.  Not one person collecting a Social Security check gives a shit about how many Republicans voted for the establishment of Social Security.  When the party in power fails to deliver good policy because they allow themselves to get hamstrung by process issues, the electorate rebels against them and “votes the bums out”.

Sadly, we’ll be told by all of the talking heads and the Villagers that America really is a center-right nation, and that the voters have rejected the “radical liberal agenda” of all those communfascists who took power in 2008.  In reality, a big GOP victory this fall is a sign that the voters are unwilling to accept spinelessness, not a sign that they are unwilling to accept strong progressive governance.  President Clinton once made the astute observation that “strong and wrong always beats weak and right.”  Republicans may be a lot more wrong on the issues than Democrats, but they aren’t nearly as weak at implementing their agenda, and weakness in governance is an even bigger liability than being wrong on the issues.

The Democrats still have a strong mandate for the rest of 2009 - it’s use it or lose it time.

Comment #65: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  07:39 PM

It’s not really a conspiracy theory.  It’s pretty standard behavior. And both parties do it.  The Republicans, while happy to make abortion less accessible to poor people, are never going to pass a Human Life Amendment.

See, I disagree with that.  If the Republicans had a whole party full of Jim DeMints and Sam Brownbacks they would stomp that antichoice gas pedal and do their worst.  Likewise, if the Democrats had a whole party full of Pat Leahys and Barbara Boxers, they would formulate and enact liberal policies, even ones that stood to alienate Big Money in various ways.  What stops them from doing that is actual differences of opinion and ideology. 

For the Democrats to assemble this big majority, they’ve had to encompass the kind of center-right people who used to be the leftmost edge of the Republican party (like Mark Warner and Jon Tester); and for the Republicans to retake the majority, they’re going to have to encompass the kind of center-right people who have been the rightmost edge of the Democratic party (like Mark Kirk and Mike Castle).

I think the whole “centrist” thing is overdone, but it feels like a good explanation in this case.  Some so-called centrists are really corporate sell-outs (like Evan Bayh and Mary Landrieu, IMHO), but there are centrist true believers out there, who _really do_ distrust government, who _really do_ care more about business than the environment, who _really don’t_ care much about civil liberties, and so forth.  They don’t need to be bribed into these positions, they actually believe them.  I get the impression that there are 32-35 liberals, 37-40 conservatives, and a swath in the middle that sets the agenda.  The polarized wings aren’t in on the scheme to prevent their policies from getting enacted, which is my reading of the Greenwald argument; they’re frustrated by it.

Comment #66: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  08:10 PM

Actually 32-35 liberals is probably a huge overestimate.  It might be more like 22-25.

Comment #67: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  08:19 PM

The polarized wings aren’t in on the scheme to prevent their policies from getting enacted, which is my reading of the Greenwald argument; they’re frustrated by it.

What pisses me and many off is the fact that they refuse to stand up for their principles enough to call out those who block them from implementing those principles into policy.

It’s not enough for the Feingolds and the Sanders in the Senate to merely believe in good progressive policy… I want them to fight their heart out for it and do everything in their power to enact that policy, and if they can’t get enough of their fellow caucus members to join them, I want them to have the guts to come out and say, “Hey, if it weren’t for corporate fucksticks like Evan Bayh, we could have a public option.  But because dickheads like him and Joe Lieberman are more beholden to health insurance lobbyists than they are to the American people, we aren’t gonna be able to get this done.”

Quit feeding us lines of bullshit about the opposition party being fully responsible for your own party’s failure to achieve its agenda, because it’s starting to ring pretty fucking hollow to most Americans these days.  When they had 60 votes in their own caucus and they still couldn’t get a public option into the Senate bill, it wasn’t because they couldn’t get Republican votes, it was because too many of their own party’s members were behaving like selfish corporatist assholes.  Covering for your backstabbing colleagues doesn’t endear me to you.  Progressive Democratic Senators need to start flinging the word DINO out as much as Conservative Republicans have been willing to fling out the word RINO, and the party needs to stand for something collectively, and be willing to root out its bad seeds.

Lovely platitudes and pandering soundbites to progressives mean jack shit if progressive policy isn’t actually going to be passed.

Loyalty to their principals demands that they be willing to call out members of their own party when those members are preventing them from being able to enact their principles into policy.  Sadly, I believe loyalty to party does and always will trump loyalty to principle.

Comment #68: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  08:35 PM

The Republicans, while happy to make abortion less accessible to poor people, are never going to pass a Human Life Amendment. And the Democrats are never going to pass a PO or union card check.  Both parties will happily vote for these things when they’re in the minority, however.  It’s a matter of behaving in ways that please your base while never actually doing anything that angers the folks paying the bills.

There’s a key difference here.  A theoretical “Human Life Amendment” banning abortion is not the conservative equivalent of the public option as a liberal policy.

If you poll tested Americans on both of those issues that get lip service from the respective parties, you would get wildly different results.  The vast majority of Americans would oppose an outright ban on all abortion, and only the fringe conservative base would support it.  Conversely, the vast majority of Americans have been shown to support the public option - it isn’t just a DFH policy piece, it’s wildly popular with more than just the progressive base.

Even Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman wouldn’t get punished by their voters for supporting the public option, because both Nebraskans and Connecticutans support it.  But the insurance industries in those states donate tons of cash to those two senators, and they would assuredly punish them for supporting it.

But you are right about not wanting to piss of the folks paying the bills… which simply tells me that we don’t really have a government “by the people, of the people, and for the people”, but rather a government by the corporate fatcats, of the corporate fatcats, and for the corporate fatcats.  The problem for Democrats is that if they enact too many policies which reflect their stated agenda of being “for the little people”, they piss off the corporate fatcats.  Republicans never run the risk of alientating corporate fatcats by passing too many conservative tax cuts.

Comment #69: DTG in STL  on  02/24  at  09:05 PM

“Hey, if it weren’t for corporate fucksticks like Evan Bayh, we could have a public option.  But because dickheads like him and Joe Lieberman are more beholden to health insurance lobbyists than they are to the American people, we aren’t gonna be able to get this done.”

That would feel sweet.  But it would also lead to a lot of trouble winning future votes.  We all dream about going in to the office one day and telling off the boss, or ripping into that coworker who never has his shit together.  But what happens the next day?  George Costanza tried that.

Comment #70: FlipYrWhig  on  02/24  at  09:28 PM

Thanks for the explanation, various commenters.  Thing is, I do vaguely understand the whole 51 votes, 61 votes, cloture, filibuster stuff.  What I still don’t get is why on the earth the phrase “up or down vote” is intended to encapsulate the concept of just getting on with it already. 

I was thinking there might be some cultural explanation for why that phrase explains the concept, but it looks like there isn’t.  It seems therefore to be an unselfexplanatory explanation to me, so you’d better hope that a lot of good explanation does, in fact, go on.

Comment #71: Katherine  on  02/25  at  11:08 AM

I was thinking there might be some cultural explanation for why that phrase explains the concept, but it looks like there isn’t.  It seems therefore to be an unselfexplanatory explanation to me, so you’d better hope that a lot of good explanation does, in fact, go on.

I don’t know if this is helpful, but the phrase first gained popularity in 2005, and it was the Republicans who used.  Many of Bush’s judicial nominees were fairly controversial, and the threat of a filibuster by the Democrats (who were then in the minority) looked like it was going to prevent some of them from being confirmed.  The Republicnas demanded that the nominees be given a straight up or down vote, and they believed that if they could secure 51 “up” votes, they should be confirmed.

It basically means “51 vote majority rules”.

Comment #72: DTG in STL  on  02/25  at  04:32 PM

why is it that when Republicans hold a 51 or 52 seat majority in the Senate, they are absolutely great at enforcing party discipline and twisting their members arms to vote in lockstop with the conservative agenda

Because they don’t care what people think.  That, to me, is the root of virtually all Democratic failures:  Democrats worry about what people will say.

Oy, so late to the party, but no.  The reason that the Republicans are better at enforcing party discipline is because they will punish members of their own caucus who stray from the party line.  And I don’t mean they will frown in their general direction.  I mean that they will yank any committee chair they had coming their way in the event of a Republican majority.  Who becomes a chair is determined by the will of the majority of the Republican caucus.  Olympia Snowe isn’t going to vote for health care reform if it means she loses her spot as chair of the Small Business Committee, and Susan Collins isn’t going to vote for health care reform if it means she loses her spot as chair of the Homeland Security Committee.  They don’t want to become the next Arlen Specter, who had to beg his colleagues to let him be chair of the Judiciary Committee because many thought he was too liberal.

In contrast, the Democratic caucus hands out committee chairs on the basis of seniority.  Which means that Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, and Byron Dorgan can be as obstructionist as they want to be, because they have seniority, and will remain chairs of the Small Business Committee, the Agriculture Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Budget Committee respectively until they leave Congress, or until a better seat opens up.

IIRC, around the time Max Baucus was dragging the markup process out for months, Rockefeller suggested that the Democratic caucus use the method employed by the Republican caucus to determine who may chair a committee.  That’d be nice.  But they’re Democrats; they’re constitutionally opposed to being effective.

Comment #73: Drew  on  02/26  at  03:54 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.