Skip to content

This time I mean it

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

A hapless fund raiser from the DSCC just called me, and I lit into her about this (via Americablog):

“It won’t happen,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said she would “probably not” support an effort to lower the number of votes needed to cut off filibusters from 60 to 55 or lower.

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) echoed Feinstein: “I think we should retain the same policies that we have instead of lowering it.

“I think it has been working,” he said.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said he recognizes his colleagues are frustrated over the failure to pass measures such as the Disclose Act, campaign legislation that fell three votes short of overcoming a Republican filibuster Tuesday.

“I think as torturous as this place can be, the cloture rule and the filibuster is important to protect the rights of the minority,” he said. “My inclination is no.”

Sen. Jon Tester, a freshman Democrat from Montana, disagrees with some of his classmates from more liberal states.

“I think the bigger problem is getting people to work together,” he said. “It’s been 60 for a long, long time. I think we need to look to ourselves more than changing the rules.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who is up for reelection in 2012, also said he would like the votes needed for cloture to remain the same.

“I’m not one who think it needs to be changed,” he said.

I’ve said it before that the only vote that will matter next year, if it ever takes place, is the vote to change the filibuster rules. Apparently the Democrats in the Senate put Senatorial privilege in our House of Lords above the public good. We will be condemned to live in a country that slides ever farther to the right (while we slowly get basted as the world warms) because a few Democrats can’t see their way clear to letting the majority rule, the way our sainted Founders intended. What’s truly galling is that the majority does rule when the Republicans are in charge; it’s only the Democrats that let the filibuster stand in their way.

The DSCC gets no money from me so long as a dime of it goes to any of the above, or their ilk. And if, or I should say when, they fail to reform the filibuster, then I will give up on them totally. There are probably only 40 Democrats in the country that think the filibuster is a good thing, and every one of them is in the Senate.

UPDATE: A commenter asks where Blumenthal is on this issue. I was at a meet and greet at which he was asked this question by someone who beat me to it. He said he wanted to see the issue addressed, though he didn’t say exactly what he favored. I might point out that it would be just like the Democrats, with a reduced majority, for settling on reducing the 60 vote requirement to some other number that everyone knows they can never reach.


Filed in Democrats | | Comments (1)

Jarjura slime machine

Monday, July 26, 2010

We received the deeply offensive anti-Lembo mailing, courtesy of the Jarjura campaign today. It is frightening to think that in a race in which neither candidate is well known, and to which few voters pay much attention, this vile garbage could have a significant impact.

What’s deeply ironic is the fact that Jarjura (you have to look hard to see that he is responsible for the thing) attacks Lembo for having worked for someone who was anti-abortion, when he himself is exactly that.

A truly disgusting piece of trash which makes me wonder how this man and I can be a member of the same party.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Echoes of the Pentagon Papers

Monday, July 26, 2010

Atrios suggests, in this tweet, that the ultimate reaction to the documents released by Wikileaks, about which Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the New York Times reported today, may be primarily about the propriety of the leak rather than the contents of the papers and what they say about our involvement in Afghanistan.

That may, in fact, seem to be the case in the short term, but long term these documents can only have a corrosive effect on this already justifiably unpopular war. The Obama administration will make a mistake, win or lose, if it attempts to either stop publication of the papers or prosecute the leakers, if it can find them. That’s the tack that Nixon took with the Pentagon Papers, which might have worked during WW II, but didn’t during the unpopular Vietnam War. They certainly tried to make it a fight about the leak and the publication. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which back then was a court of substance. It’s quite possible that today’s court would back even an effort to quash publication, though the fact that it would be Obama that was asking them to do it might be enough to stay their hand. They would certainly have no problems with criminal sanctions against the leakers, but convictions would be a Pyrrhic victory. The war is asymmetric in the extreme. We are spending ourselves into bankruptcy in pursuit of a victory we can’t even define. The American people can sense that. Obama will find himself on the wrong side of history if he continues to pursue this war. Truly time to declare victory and get out.

I might add that the only thing that might diminish the inevitable repercussions against Obama, for what is now truly his war, is the fact that for many Americans the war is an afterthought, with an acceptable level of casualties, particularly considering that the dying are not the sons and daughters of the middle class, but increasingly the cast-offs of our society, who “volunteer” for service because they have no hope of finding work anywhere else. This is not universally so, but it is increasingly the case.

But even the fact that the war is no direct threat to the average American young person, like it so directly was during Vietnam, will be enough to save it and its defenders from its eventual fate. Besides costing those expendable lives it is costing a lot of money; it is dragging on and it is becoming increasingly clear that it will drag forever unless we manage to disengage ourselves. Americans are rightfully tired of being mired down in un-winnable wars. I am 60 years old, and this country has been bogged down in unwinnable wars for half my life and counting. Obama has promised to disengage, but he’s promised a lot of things. He’ll be doing himself a favor if he keeps this promise, but those are the type of promises he seems to have the hardest time fulfilling.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

A prediction for the fall

Sunday, July 25, 2010

From Political Wire:

President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress “are setting the stage for a high-stakes battle over taxes in the final weeks before the November congressional elections, betting that their plan to eliminate tax breaks for the wealthy will resonate with voters who have lost houses and jobs to what many see as an era of Wall Street greed,” the Washington Post reports.

“Raising taxes is usually a perilous move. But Democrats, facing the potential loss of their majorities on Capitol Hill, believe that the strategy will both force Republicans to defend tax breaks for a tiny, wealthy minority and expose GOP hypocrisy on budget deficits.”

Here is what will happen. The Blue Dog Democrats, among whom are many recruited by Rahm Emanuel, will undermine the narrative in the House, and join a unanimous Republican caucus to extend the tax breaks, assuming Nancy Pelosi doesn’t pull an embarrassing about face and pull it from the floor. But she won’t do that, because the Republicans, without a hint of embarrassment, aided and abetted by the media that has never had a problem with Republican obstruction, will demand an up or down vote, because that’s the democratic way.

After the tax cut passes the House, it must pass the Senate, where, surely, one would think, even if it gets to the floor, there would at least be 41 Democrats with spine enough to filibuster it. But no, the Republicans, without a hint of embarrassment, aided and abetted by the media that has never had a problem with Republican obstruction, will demand an up or down vote, because that’s the democratic way.

The Democrats will cave, and the Republicans will get their tax break for the rich. Perhaps Obama will veto it, but don’t bet on it. Remember, this is the Bush tax cut for the rich, which will expire if Congress does nothing, which is precisely what Congress will not do. The Democrats will allow themselves to be manipulated into making this massive transfer from the middle class to the rich permanent.

All this, of course, will further dampen Democratic turnout (see, 2002, spineless Democrats voting to give Bush his war and consequent low Democratic turnout) turning the election into a blowout, and ushering in perhaps the most radical and irresponsible Congress in the history of the Republic.

The Democrats will learn the lesson that they are always learning: that they are not far enough to the right.

I hope and pray that I’m wrong. Only the Democratic Party could pull this off, but there’s no reason to think that they won’t.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (1)

A mystery explained

Saturday, July 24, 2010

I love the Washington Monthly’s blog (Political Animal). I consider it required reading, and I think Steven Benen does some great reporting. Still, I marvel that a guy who has been following politics so long seems constantly mystified at the fact that neither the press nor politicians behave rationally; that politicians so often say things that are demonstrably untrue and the press so often covers stories with a mixture of ignorance and bias. Here’s the latest example:

I continue to marvel at this scandal. Here we have John Ensign, a “family values” conservative Republican, who had an extra-marital sexual relationship with his friend’s wife, while condemning others’ moral failings. Ensign’s parents offered to pay hush-money. He ignored ethics laws and tried to use his office to arrange lobbying jobs for his mistress’ husband. The likelihood of Ensign being indicted seems fairly high.

And yet, there’s no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign’s home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace. Instead, the media’s fascinated with Charlie Rangel.

Rangel is facing a probe from the House ethics committee, while Ensign is under scrutiny from the FBI.

Why would Rangel “tarnish his whole party” in an election year, while Ensign’s sex-ethics-corruption scandal be deemed irrelevant to the Republican Party?

The answer to Benen’s question is really quite simple. Rangel is black. Rangel is a Democrat. Or, we might express it as follows: there is an unwritten, but rigidly observed rule: It’s (especially hypocrisy) okay if you’re a Republican.


Filed in Republicans | | Comments (1)

Ned Lamont comes to Groton

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Ned Lamont and Mary Glassman visited Groton today, holding a forum at the Groton Municipal Building.

I must say that I think Ned’s stump speech has improved, and I am more and more sure that he’s the better of the two candidates. I’m particularly disappointed that Malloy appears to have decided to go negative. How refreshing it would have been had both candidates been willing to recognize that it’s more important to get a Democrat in the governor’s office than that it be either one of them in particular.

Here are Ned’s remarks to the assembled multitude. The turnout was good, by the way. The council chambers, where the meeting was held, was full, albeit with the usual SE Connecticut suspects.

It would be refreshing to have a Democratic governor, particularly one who wasn’t afraid to take some chances. I’m not sure that any of our politicians, including Ned, are willing to think as much out of the box as the situation demands. Ned mentioned that electricity is outrageously expensive in this state. Municipal electric companies, and by extension, larger, publicly owned and operated electric companies, typically have lower rates than investor owned electric companies. At the risk of sounding like a (shudder) socialist, it seems to me that the state has a role in providing any service that is both a natural monopoly (or functionally equivalent) or is an absolute necessity. There’s not much distinction between water and electricity in my book, and if the state can provide either or both more efficiently and cheaper, which it can, then it should do so. End of digression.

Getting back to Ned, it was a good meeting. I have to include Ned in that small subset of politicians who are also reasonably nice people. I hope he’s able to stay nice and that the campaign doesn’t turn nasty, at least until after the primary.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, July 23, 2010

Have I already done Linda Ronstadt? I should keep a list. Well, she deserves an encore if I have, since she’s one of the few rock stars who could also actually, really, sing. Here’s a couple of songs from 1977 performances, Desperado and Blue Bayou:

And one more for good measure, since I’m a big Gershwin fan, and by way of proving that she really can sing: Someone to Watch Over Me.

I really do plan, by the way, to get back to serious political blogging at some point. I mentioned last week that I had been laid up with babesiosis, a particularly nasty tick borne disease. Even after the medications got rid of the worse symptoms, I found myself constantly tired. Turns out that the babesiosis rested on a base layer of Lyme Disease, so I am just starting treatment for that. I am somewhat reliably informed that I should feel fairly normal in another couple of days. Meanwhile, for every cloud, as they say. I have lost about 9 pounds since this all started, and I am allowing myself to fantasize that I can keep that weight off once I’m back to normal. Doubt is creeping in, however, since even now, with only slight improvement, I can feel the ice cream cravings coming back. In any event, I am hoping to regain my energy, and with it my outrage, in the next few days so I can start ranting again.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Its own worst enemy

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

It is endlessly amazing that the Obama folks always seem to manufacture a distraction to keep the public eye off their accomplishments. You won’t be hearing much about Obama signing the Financial System Overhaul Act, because the media is all atwitter about the lightning fast firing of Shirley Sherrod at the command of Andrew Breitbart.

Just as with ACORN, the Administration just couldn’t wait to do this racist’s bidding. Why presume innocence, when you have the word of the master video editor? Unfortunately for the Administration, however, this time Breitbart’s story was disproven too quickly. The good guy was actually vindicated, much to the Administration’s chagrin.

This bodes very poorly for the Administration and the Nation should the Republicans take back Congress. The subpoenas will start flying the first day Congress is in session, and woe to the hapless civil servant to whom they are directed. This Administration will not have their back, nor will it have the guts to stonewall like Bush did.


Filed in Obama | | Comments (0)

The Globe swallows Republican lies whole

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

From Today’s Globe:

Senate Democrats yesterday revived an extension of unemployment benefits for 2.5 million Americans, managing to break through a GOP deadlock rooted in deep disagreements over the economy.

There is not a shred of reliable evidence that the deadlock was “rooted in deep disagreements over the economy”. The deadlock resulted from a purely political decision, made by the Republicans, that it would be to their long term political advantage to block these benefits. While the Republicans may say that they have some sort of philosophical problem with extending unemployment benefits, that position is undercut by the fact that they voted for these extensions as a matter of routine in the past. It is wrong to report as fact what is, at best, highly debatable, and is, in actuality, beyond doubt untrue.


Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Run against Bush, now and forever

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Why do we on the left insist on being rational, and believing, despite all the evidence, that our fellow creatures are rational. Given that those fellow creatures appear poised to give huge gains to the Republicans as a reward for preventing the enactment of an effective recovery plan, the idea that we will fail if our arguments are not logically precise seems rather absurd.

The immediate cause for this rant is this observation by Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly:

The notion that Democrats would gain traction this year by tying Republican candidates to George W. Bush’s failed presidency has always seemed implausible to me. The GOP’s lack of popularity still stems from the previous administration’s catastrophes, but it seems challenging, at best, to keep connecting the party to Bush two years later.

As I observed at a recent Blumenthal event (I think it was a Blumenthal event), the Democrats, who were not constantly on their heels back then, were still running against Herbert Hoover well into the 50s, for I can remember his name being invoked by Democratic politicians when I was back there in Catholic school. Republicans were running against Jimmy Carter well into the nineties and they are still, in places, running against George McGovern. And we are to believe that we can’t run against the worst president in history a mere two years after he departed the stage? If we can’t, it’s because our above the fray president threw the opportunity away, opting instead for the fantasy of “bi-partisanship”, something only a deeply deluded person could believe in. I read today that many people confuse the Obama stimulus package with the Tarp plan. Only Democrats could have let that happen, what with the handily alliterative “Bush Bailout” ready at hand, a term we should have heard daily since November of 2008. The only way to remind people that we were brought to this pass by George Bush is to constantly rub their noses in it. It appears to have escaped the attention of the present day Democrats that the average American has the attention span of a gnat, but if you keep saying something, as the Republicans constantly prove, it will eventually sink in.

So it’s not implausible that the Democrats could successfully use George Bush against the Republicans. What’s implausible, yet apparently true, is that it does not have occurred to them to do so.


Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)