Despite a certain watered-down quality to much the legislation passed so far during the 111th Congress, it stands as the most successful and progressive Congress since the 89th Congress, a full forty-five years ago. If you doubt me, check any of the congresses in between. But, as I have said, I believe the administration has reached the end point. Significant progress cannot be made on energy, on climate, on immigration reform, or on stimulus. Unless you consider letting the Bush tax cuts on the top 3% of earners sunset to be significant progress, we won’t be seeing much we can celebrate from here on out. Enjoy the confirmation of Elena Kagan because that is about as good as it is going to get.
Currently, the Senate is engaged in two kabuki shows (over war funding and campaign finance reform) where they will fail to pass bills for the sole purpose of demonstrating to the House that they can’t get progressive legislation through the upper chamber.
A lot has been accomplished, but it will be all nibbling around the edges from here on out unless we somehow do one of two things.
1. Avoid significant losses in the House while netting one additional Senate seat.
2. Modify the filibuster rule so that a majority can pass legislation in the Senate.
If neither of those things are accomplished, the best days of the administration’s first term are over and we’ll be hunkering down for two (and perhaps six) years of brutal gridlock.
And preferably to do both things, right?
Also, just to add to your list of accomplishments, we will hopefully get the START treaty signed this year too.
So what would you want the party of hell-no to be blocking in October?
A clarification…..legislatively maybe, but the president has other powers at his disposal and we haven’t seen the end of progress yet. But you are correct that the congress is useless for the rest of this session.
Even with big losses in 2010, dems might recoup them in 2012. Depends on many things like the economy, state of republican ticket, etc.
We can match some of their crazy and outright traitorous behavior with election season mischief of our own. There is enough to work with to get all of us hopping mad, and one goal is to preserve as much power as possible in order to make a filibuster fix a viable option.
Nationally, the party has a lot of material, much of it on video, to work with to paint the Republicans as wanting to go back to the Bush years.
Reid and Pelosi can schedule a series of votes that put Republicans in embarrassing no-win situations. And why not set them up to filibuster something that will do them grievous political harm?
The White House can settle on aggressive, targeted political appearances in which Obama takes some of his administration’s perceived weaknesses, especially jobless rates, and turns them around on the obstructionists. Geithner, of all people, coming out unapologetically for the expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy is a good sign in this regard.
Democrats are not Republicans. You’ll need more than one additional Senator.
Hell, not even all Democratic senators are Democrats.
Not to disagree with anything above, but if the first act of the next session of the Senate is to change Rule 22 to eliminate or weaken the filibuster, then it’s conceivable (not likely, but conceivable) that Republicans would have less power in the next session of Congress (assuming Dems hold the House too).
I agree. I have been saying this for awhile. Consider that the seats we are most likely to lose in the House are in reddish/swing states anyway. If we change the filibuster, we’ll essential add 10 new Democratic senators, minus or in addition to any changes in the GOP/Dem Senate balance. And if we have reduced majorities, Nancy Pelosi may have to whip her caucus harder… but if there’s one thing Nancy Pelosi is good at, it’s whipping her caucus.