CT Blue

What planet do Democrats live on?

Apparently, Harry Reid is considering growing some balls, and Obama is thinking of following suit, by giving recess appointments to the nominees that have been held up by the limitless holds to which Obama’s nominees have been subjected. But the Democrats are fearful that they will be perceived as-well-as not playing fair, by the American people:

“When a senator highlights obstructive procedures — as Southerners did in the 1950s and 1960s with the filibuster, committee obstruction and more — it gives Democrats some political space to fight back, either by reform or finding ways around the normal process,” said Julian Zelizer, a historian at Princeton University.

But Republicans say the public is already alarmed by Democratic overreach and will view recess appointments as more of the same. They dismiss the idea that Shelby’s holds give Democrats any additional political cover.

“If anyone thinks this has political significance, they need to put down the federal pages and take a trip outside the 202 as soon as the weather permits,” one senior GOP aide said. “Turns out people are more concerned with their own jobs than the appointments of a bunch of federal bureaucrats.”

In addition to [NLRB nominee] Becker, there are a number of controversial appointments whose recess appointments could inflame Republican passions — including Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Democrats said Obama could be on safer political ground if he uses early recess appointments to install national security nominees, including four to senior positions in the Pentagon.

The article goes on to discuss the fear and trepidation that the Democrats exhibit when talking about the possibility of doing the same things that Republicans did on a routine basis.

It truly boggles the mind that Democrats would still be concerned about inflaming Republicans, who cannot behave any more badly than they already are, or about the reaction of voters, who don’t give a [insert your favorite profanity here] about the arcana of Senate procedure. The Republicans lost big over the last two years, but it wasn’t because they made recess appointments, or because they ran roughshod over the Democrats alleged right to filibuster. It was because they [guess the profanity]ed everything up. Voters are going to take out their resentments on the Democrats this year because the Democrats have done nothing, which is the equivalent of [same profanity]ing things up. They will no doubt resent the fact that they have no alternative to the Democrats but the Republicans, and that may well put them in a more forgiving mood, but they will not be voting against Democrats because they made recess appointments, or curtailed absurd Senatorial courtesies, or because they passed bills through reconciliation, just like the Republicans used to do. It’s far more likely that they’ll be driving down their own base’s turnout be failing to take any steps to limit the Republican abuses, than that they’ll lose votes by fighting back.

When I read stuff like the above I begin to think that Democrats just might not be interested in actually accomplishing anything; that they are so enthralled to their corporate masters that they’d just as soon lose a few of their colleagues (who will end up as highly paid lobbyists anyway) than actually accomplish any of the things they keep promising. It is beginning to look more and more that the Party of No is providing coverage for the Party That Would Really Rather Not. Maybe Tom Tomorrow is right.

No discussion of this issue would be complete without a link to Paul Krugman’s excellent column in this morning’s Times.

Democrats consider, maybe, possibly, fighting back, just a little, provided Republicans don’t mind

One Comment