Today, David Sirota continued his psychedelic pony-ride and, this time, his criticism was actually on target. Anyone who argues, seriously, that playing nice with the Republicans will get them to support the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is not correct. They won’t. In fact, they will do everything they can to stop it. But they have a problem. The Democrats have 58 (59, with Franken) members in their caucus and they only need 60 to pass the bill. The last time there was a vote on the EFCA, in 2007, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) voted for it. Fifty-nine plus one equals sixty.
It’s obvious that Republicans will put tons of pressure on Specter to flip his vote. They could take away his seniority or encourage a primary challenger. Who knows? But they’ll come up with something. And Specter is well known for caving in to the right-wing after saying all the right things. So, we could wind up stalemated with 59 votes in favor of the EFCA. Fortunately, the Obama administration knows there is more than one way to skin a cat.
First, they’ll play nicey-nice with some of the moderate Republicans like George Voinovich, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe. The moderates will provide many votes on many issues (as they did today during SCHIP amendment votes) and there is no point in not asking.
But they might just appoint Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to be Commerce Secretary. If they do, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire will replace him by appointing a Democrat to the U.S. Senate. And voila! All of a sudden the Democrats have 60 senators in their caucus and, hopefully, 60 senators willing to vote for the EFCA regardless of what Arlen Specter decides to do.
While I agree with Sirota when he argues that the Republicans will never support any legislation that makes it easier for unions to organize, I don’t agree that it doesn’t pay to play a little patty-cake with moderate Republicans. Invite ’em to dinner. Give ’em a cocktail. Make them a cabinet member. Whatever. At the end of the day you wind up with an administration that is inclusive of 80% of the electorate and a Senate that is nearly impervious to obstruction.
What Mithras said.
Going after moderate Republican Senators is one thing. It makes good sense for a number of reasons as you’ve pointed out.
Giving into Boner and the House Republicans however is a totally worthless exercise. There’s no point there. None. They know they are in a situation where they are pretty much powerless.
If you’re right, then several of them will jump ship and work with Obama to gain power now. It’s a safe, logical, and pragmatic thing to do.
But you’re assuming “safe, logical, and pragmatic” are positive virtues to the most partisan group of lawmakers ever to darken Washington’s doorways.
I say 177 Republicans will vote no on the reconciled bill next month. They want Obama to own this economy because they know how bad the economy is going to get. House Republicans are praying for the End Times, BooMan. They want a Second Great Depression. They want to rise from the ashes of America’s wrecked economy, with Obama and the Democrats permanently shamed, and finish what they started this century.
I see them literally going for broke because the stimulus at best will cushion the collapse of our economy. They know it. Obama knows it, which is why he’s pushing bipartisanship so hard.
The GOP is now married to the idea that the stimulus and the American economy will fail spectacularly. That’s their plan.
I hope to God that you’re right, Boo. I hope the GOP is sane enough to try to make this stimulus work. Because I’m seeing them dig a bomb shelter instead.
It’s one thing for me to talk about the coming economic disaster. It’s another thing to see the GOP actively betting on it happening.
Boner? This isn’t about the size of the package again, is it? 😉
The Republicans don’t have the numbers to get anything done in Congress. So they figure that the only way for themselves to appear relevant is to kick, scream, whine, and oppose everything. The idea of working productively with the majority for the good of the nation has yet to cross their mind, and it never will. They are little piss ants.
Hey, Boo,
The main question I have here — I know it doesn’t address your main point — is, Why would Gregg accept Commerce Secretary? Is it an improvement over Senator in the first place? Why? I ask that because, in the second place, his accepting would both have the adverse consequences for his party that you mention and (consequently) generate considerable wrath toward him from said party.
I haven’t forgotten Jim Jeffords. I’m just wondering whether, and if so, why, the position of Secretary of Commerce would entice a securely sitting senator to give up his seat — particularly when doing so would both weaken his party’s power and expose him to considerable animosity as a result.
Let’s remember, many regarded Gov. Richardson’s nomination to the post as a disappointing “consolation prize.”
I’m asking for information, not trying to be challenging.
I don’t know if he will accept or even if it will be offered. But he is not very secure in his seat and might very well lose (just like Sununu lost) when he faces the voters next year. He might prefer to go out on his own terms.
Thanks. That answers my question exactly.
I know there’s a lot of serious legislation that has to be enacted as quickly as possible, but a big sticking point with me since ’06 is all this “60 votes is the magic number” talk that seems to have come out of nowhere and dominated everything since the reepubs became the minority party.
I understand the math, I don’t need that explained to me. But does anybody suppose once we get some big priorities voted on that we might gain something by playing a little hardball? For instance, instead of just assuming a filibuster took place, why not start forcing the reepubs to follow through on the threat. How many consecutive filibusters do you think they could actually deliver on?
What about the “nuclear option” that the ‘pubs always threatened us with if we carried out a single filibuster against them? I know it goes against our principles to some extent and sets a dangerous precedent for the next time the power balance shifts, but then again, don’t you think they’d just go back to the same playbook and either cow us into submission with the same threat, or actually follow through this time? What do we have to lose in that scenario?
Mostly though I’d love to see the media forced to cover the GOP being the obstructionists on issues that Americans overwhelmingly support. Right now if we just take the filibusters as given and move onto the next agenda item, it gets zero coverage, and the Dems come out bearing the appearance of ineffectiveness. That can’t help either, especially when we recall that the trend for the next two election cycles in Congress is against our making further gains, and actually losing some seats as the pendulum swings back the other way.
And one last tooth the GOP has that needs to be pulled: “secret holds.” WTF? I understand some tradition of deference among senators (do they have the same thing in the House?) but this is clearly some vestigial bit of procedure from back in a day when either nobody knew about it or weren’t brazen enough to abuse it to the extent they do now. When a single senator from Oklahoma can singlehandedly block what, more than 80 items in a year or two, this is a ridiculous function that I think we could win the perception game on pretty easily…with some discipline.
I understand Obama plays a deeper and smarter game than I can comprehend at times; my political eq/iq must have jumped up about 15 points apiece from just a year’s worth of observing his campaign in action. But the legislative branch isn’t his territory. He can quietly try to infuse some hardened spines in the Senate and House while continuing playing the Executive game along the lines that he’s already developed.
Like I said, I know we have to get a lot of shit done asap, so we have to pick our battles at present with the utmost intelligence and view toward the end game. But if the ‘pubs find a way to keep holding up the most important legislation as they have been (yeah, we got the stimulus bill, and we’ll probably win on SCHIP, but what about mortgage and bankruptcy restructuring, mass transit, and hey, Nola and the Gulf Coast, to name a few), it just seems to me we’re going to have to get tougher on the Hill.
Has Obama’s FCC pick been confirmed yet? It would help tremendously if McConnel and Boner had permanent laugh tracks playing whenever they made TV and cable appearances…
If I don’t understand the secret holds and 60-vote thingy, I’m up for some education.
Trying to answer some of my own questions. Reading the wiki article on it now…
And I see now that the “nuclear option” was only in reference to filibusters against SCOTUS appointments.
But I find also that there are numerous examples of filibusters being broken, as in the Civil Rights Act of 1957 when the Senate Majority Leader refused to refer any other business to the senate until the bill was voted on. That one went through after a 24-hour plus ‘buster by Strom Thurmond. Apparently the majority party still retains that option.
Somehow I think we could win a lot more votes if we’d just start forcing the pugs to put up or shut up. Preferably after we put some fires out, but if we can’t get it done that way, this seems to me like the logical next step.
I totally agree with this.
I have to admit, i am having a WONDERFUL time watching all of this as the republicans and the conservatives start to grasp the enormity of what has happened. my brother’s troll is trying to bother me at brendancalling, and it’s like watchign rumplestiltskin flip out in impotent powerless rage.
The Force is strong with this one:
It would be nice to have 60 senators for the Dems, but and a big but here are the southern Dems, Pryor, Nelson, Lincoln, Byrd, etc. Also, some of the new guys like Tester and Gillibrand are going to be problematic. Its a nice thing to say after Franken shows up but then party discipline will be very hard. With Harry Reid up for reelection it will also be hard for him to lead anywhere.
So, in short the Dems will still need to pick off Rs up for reelection and in states BO won. Because we have met the enemy and it is us ( or blue dogs or some other species )