The FEC is completely broken. The Judicial Branch is completely broken. We can’t have a vote on a bill to curb gun violence. We may not be able to have a vote on immigration reform. We can’t turn off the sequester, so the budget process is broken.
These problems are all created by the radicalism of the Republicans and enabled by the 60-vote rule in the Senate. Anyone who blames the president or the Democrats for any of this should have their mouth slapped. Anyone who assigns blame to anyone or anything other that the Republicans and the Senate rules is just enabling bad behavior that is beginning to have a cumulative effect that is dangerous and irresponsible.
I’m looking at you, Maureen Dowd.
see, i like this post because it comes hard on the heels of blaming Obama for the senate’s unanimous, veto-proof de-sequestering of air traffic controllers.
yeah, and I blamed the administration for not having a plan for Congress to execute. That doesn’t absolve Congress or the Democratic leadership of Congress. I laughed at the push back I got on that.
“These problems are all created by the radicalism of the Republicans and enabled by the Democrat-supported 60-vote rule in the Senate. Anyone who blames the president or the Democrats for any of this should have their mouth slapped.”
One of the things I find most interesting about this blog, in addition to enjoying your analysis and learning stuff, is that I think to a large degree you and the Obama administration completely agree as to the limits of the power of the executive branch. The president has veto power. The president executes the instructions of Congress. The president is the commander in chief. The president can issue pardons.
That’s what the president can appropriately do. The president cannot say in every speech, as reflexively as ‘I want to thank our men and women in uniform,’ that ‘We have become a nation of torturers, and until we punish the evildoers, this is a stain on our nation’s soul.’ Because he simply did not have the votes to move horrifically-detained people from Guantanamo to the US, and continue to detain them here, he cannot say, ‘The Republicans and certain Democratic bedwetters are doing a grave injustice to our country, one that that violates our core principles’ over and over until at least the question–if not any answer–seeps into the national conversation. He can’t do the same with austerity, instead embracing austerity’s language. He can’t do the same with the Fed, which–if I understand correctly–is tasked with preventing high unemployment. He can’t do the same with the War on Drugs.
I’m not saying he can change any of these things. I’m not saying he has the votes. But this is how change happens. I mean, is it a coincidence that support for gay marriage skyrocketed after Obama finished evolving? He’s got tremendous power to change attitudes, to change the entire political landscape … at least a few degrees at a time. And I just don’t see him scratching the surface of that power.
Sure, this is an Aaron Sorkin liberal fantasy. I understand that. But what he–and I think you–don’t seem to really understand is that there’s a tremendous hunger for that sort of fantasy. And another word for the attempt to tap into a tremendous cultural hunger is ‘propaganda.’ Which works.
Democrat-supported 60-vote rule in the Senate
Except that’s not true. Something like 90-95% of the Democrats in the Senate oppose that rule.
This isn’t even a situation where the party is split, or even where there is a significant minority. Support for the filibuster rule among Senate Democrats is at roughly the same level as Joe Biden’s approval rating among Republicans.
I mean, is it a coincidence that support for gay marriage skyrocketed after Obama finished evolving?
It didn’t. Support for gay marriage continued to rise along the same gradual slope after Obama answered that question in the interview that it had been following for years. Did this chart:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/how-opinion-on-same-sex-marriage-is-changing-and
-what-it-means/
I’m not sure that chart tells the whole story: “In March, 56 percent of black respondents said they would vote against a gay marriage referendum … but by late May, 55 percent of black voters said they planned to support it, while only 36 percent opposed it. That added up to a 36-point swing in two months.”
Give Obama some credit, here. He deserves it. (http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-obama-gay-marriage-brief-prop-8-supreme-court-2013-2) And even more to my point, there’s a widespread acceptance, I think (maybe you disagree) that support for gay marriage did skyrocket after Obama’s endorsement, even if it’s not particularly true, and that’s completely my point.
Conventional Wisdom often doesn’t reflect poll numbers. We all know that a majority NRA members are against background checks or whatever, even if it’s wrong. But because our media is broken, that CW doesn’t change to reflect reality until someone actively alters the narrative. That’s what I’m saying.
And you may be right that only 10% of Democratic senators support the 60-vote rule (though I seriously doubt it), but when one of those senators is the majority leader, I don’t think we Democrats can really absolve ourselves of blame.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/filibuster-reform-tick-tock.php
The jump in public support among African-Americans is very real, but given their overall numbers, it doesn’t add up to a noteworthy swing overall.
The public, and media, do seem to like the great man theory of history, and love to find one event in which one person did something, and attribute broad events to that one person. It makes for a better narrative.
I tend to read everything Harry Reid says in terms of a vote-counter who considers it his job to endorse the consensus position of the caucus, sort of like Bernanke with the Fed board, as opposed to someone whose public statements reflect his individual opinion. This is a guy whose job involves voting against things he supports if they aren’t going to pass, so that he can bring them up again later.
Well, I guess I think there’s more to narrative than polls. Like the football player (baskeball?) who came out today. That moves us forward, culturally–and I’m convinced, for whatever it’s worth (not much) that Obama helped that happen.
Have you seen the following? It isn’t exactly what I’m talking about, but it’s sort of related: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_04/permission_structure044449.php
Whole country’s broken, dude. Whole damn country.
Not sure it can be repaired, either.
By “the Judicial Branch if broken”
I see you mean the senate, tied in knots by repeated use of the filibuster whose existence you have approved, is broken.
Indeed, it is.
It has been broken since a furious Madison and the frustrated nationalists with him lost out to the federalists at the convention in Philadelphia, when it got decided that each state would have 2 senators.
While the constitutional convention created the anti-democratic senate, it did not create the filibuster, which has no basis in the constitution.
And the current level of Repub abuse of the filibuster is historically unprecedented.
She doesn’t care, Booman. She’s working for the PermaGov paper of record and youpre posting on an infinitesimally small blog.
She doesn’t care, man. She has her orders…or perhaps more accurately, she has been chosen to do that job because she really believes most of the crap that she writes and is easily swayed by “suggested” talking points backed up by an implicit threat of losing her position and power.
She doesn’t care. Hell, man…when Wendy’s was casting for a new spokesperson the word went out.
And they did.
Yup.
Bet on it.
She just doesn’t care.
Bet on it.
Why should you care about her?
Just another clomp. clomp clomping PermaGov functionary is all.
Every time you mention her name she makes more money.
Bet on that as well.
Politics is just show business, Booman.
Ignore ’em and they eventually go away.
AG
We can’t assign blame correctly because the corporate media is also completely broken, indeed, it is corrupt.
One party is clearly willing to engage in reforms, however feeble and inadequate, while the other has decided that the time is right to paralyze the federal gub’mint and destroy its programs and agencies. To say No! to every prez appointment. No one is defending the federal government.
The Repubs’ position is that the federal gub’mint cannot be involved in reforming or addressing any national problem. The media acts as though it cannot determine where the “problem” lies, so neither can the bulk of the rational persuadables, who are some portion of those who refuse to identify as Repubs.
So what is the proper strategy in such a situation? Is it acting as though some “compromise” with nihilist rightwing radicals is possible (which Obama openly admits is what he is trying), or is it starting a two year national campaign denouncing “conservatism” and its national paralysis and calling out the Do Nothing Repub Congress? Or does one partake of the former strategy for some additional time before beginning the later? When is the Rubicon crossed?
Caving on things like the FAA sequester (and obtaining nothing in return) does not aid the anti-Repub narrative, to say nothing of the needy. Nor is it any sort of “compromise”, so it hardly aids the Obama “workin’ with Repubs” story.
Things are falling apart. Dysfunction has been the Repubs’ goal since 2008. They have practically openly stated it. The corporate media will not independently report the story in any objective fashion. Hence it is up to the Dems to decide what their story will be as Repubs grind the federal gub’mint to a halt, completely paralyzed. To date, they appear to have not the slightest idea of what to do or say. This will hardly turn out the base in 2014. If a political party is oblivious as the ship is going down, it is pretty useless.
Crisis time, Dems. What are you gonna do?
But BooMan, Broderism is only done by Washington insiders.
Saying exactly the same things while wearing a Rage Against the Machine concert shirt isn’t Broderism; it’s passionate, principled radicalism.
And that’s why everything has to be geared to destroying the Republicans. Nothing can be done until that happens.
Umm…the Dems had their chance to change or eliminate the filibuster and did nothing. If the rules are half the problem, then the Dems are half the problem.
it’s not all the Dems just a minority of them that blocked it
Missing that point – that 5-10% of Democrats should not be called “the Democrats” – is particularly egregious when coming from someone complaining about how filibuster rules allow 40% of the Senate to determine what the Senate does.
I’m not in favor of kicking out Democrats because they don’t always agree with me. That’s how Republicans got to be where they are, we’re a bigger tent than that.
No, it was Harry Reid that blocked it. He may have taken the hit for other Dems, but he broke his promises and kept the filibuster intact. All he needed was 50 votes, and he couldn’t/wouldn’t push the button.
I don’t think that’s true; I think Reid came out at the end and sold the policy he could get passed.
I think there were at least 50 votes for strong, unilateral filibuster reform if the Republicans wouldn’t deal, but that some of those Senators preferred a bipartisan deal if it was available. That’s the only way to explain Wyden’s “We have 51 votes” statement, unless you think he was lying, and I don’t.
Remember, Reid’s a guy whose job involves voting No on things he supports, so he can bring them up later, as well as counting votes and only coming out in favor of what his caucus agrees on.
To believe that Reid was against reform, you’d also have to believe that he’s not unhappy with how the Senate has worked over the past four and a half years. He seems pretty pissed to me.
Is MoDo playing DC Village High School again?
When does she not?