Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa's most persuasive answer to term-limit opponents such as myself, once again groped his way to the metaphysical fringe when he droned that the Democrats' $900-billion use of reconciliation for health-care reform is a shameful, fiscal abomination, while George W. Bush's nearly $2-trillion use of the parliamentary procedure was A-OK.
Integrity. Always integrity. The GOP motto.
Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of reconciliation. The filibuster holds a legitimate conceptual seat at the table of minority rights, and Democrats will rue their additional precedent whenever Republicans retake the majority, which, given this nation's incurable schizophrenia, they likely will someday.
Then, Democrats will sound precisely as Republicans do today, bemoaning parliamentary brutishness and brooding over lost tradition.
In the meantime, however, Republicans, true to form, have over-abused a good and tactical thing, turning this occasional minority-rights procedure into blanket anti-democratic rule, election nullification, and strategic gridlock. By now, it's nigh impossible to see a path to any fulfillment of Constitutionally greased "change" or progress, which any authentic conservative would cautiously embrace, but modern conservatives rudely abhor.
Besides, as the New Republic's Jonathan Chait so eloquently put it, Republicans' fastidious objections to that which they once so lovingly caressed is merely "the sort of logic that you come up with when you're justifying partisan hypocrisy.... If you want to explain why it's wrong for the other party to employ a tactic your party used, if you look hard enough, you can always find some difference in circumstance and hold that up as the key distinction" ...
... and in that I again give you Chuck Grassley, QED, who added that previous deployments of reconciliation were "peanuts compared with this total restructuring of one-sixth of the economy."
Yet not only were Bush's (unrecoverable) tax cuts roughly twice the fiscal size of Obama's (cost-saving) health-care reform, they in fact poisonously washed over the entire economy in the form of intensified wealth inequality and perpetual national debt.
Integrity. Always integrity.
Still, we might be getting ahead of ourselves here.
Given monolithic Republicans' determined, decades-long degradation of the American political tradition, Democrats indeed may be immensely justified in the use of reconciliation to secure health-care reform. But saying they are justified and resting assured that they will be justified are two immensely different things.
Remember, this is the multi-partied Democratic Party we're pondering here; an exasperating farrago of liberals, moderates, conservatives, fiscal hawks, social-justice doves, unrealistic dreamers, practical pols, and hardcore ideologues.
Perhaps Joe Stalin, through threat of extermination or extended archipelago visits, could have whipped this sorry admixture into uniform agreement on some stated issue. But President Obama -- unfortunately? -- rather lacks the Constitutional weapons to achieve a Democratic status of one big happy family.
In brief, for all the talk of reconciliation's justifiability and even inevitability, no one has of yet ascertained if 50 Senate Democrats can agree on the time of day, let alone a complex albeit watered-down health-care-reform package.
We know for an indirect fact -- that is, through Speaker Pelosi -- that self-proclaimed fiscal hawks among the Senate's hybrid majority won't permit the resurrection of a potentially cost-saving public option, so why should we expect any pragmatic agreement on any other pragmatic measure, such as indispensable mandates, adequate subsidies, the paring back of Medicare Advantage's wasteful largesse, or the humane expansion of Medicaid?
Integrity. Always integrity.
Like myself, Senator Chris Dodd has confessed he's no "great fan" of using reconciliation for health-care reform, but on the other hand, he added, also similarly, that in this case "the issue trumps the process." Well, there's one. And it's true that The Hill has reported on serial outbreaks of rare senatorial Reason, from Evan Bayh to Mary Landrieu to even -- yikes! -- Ben Nelson; each, however uneasily, has moved from outright opposition to the use of reconciliation to tentative acceptance.
Nevertheless, defections there will be and I won't believe it until I see Vice President Joe Biden (likely) cast the 51st vote. And, of course, we won't realize that potential until Speaker Pelosi gets her own House in order, which is fast becoming as tragically incorrigible as the Senate.
Good grief. All we asked for was a little sanity in response to a monumental American problem. Instead, we got American democracy.
Still Missing The Point
The empty seat in your construct is the one that the Occupant of the Oval Office was supposed to fill.
You mention Joe Stalin taking action to get the Democrats in line, when all it would have taken is Barack Obama being more active in the process. As the de facto leader of the Democrats, his job is to do something that resembles decisive decision-making. Instead, he stands on the sidelines cheering on the team he opposes while telling his own people to sit down and shut up. Obama's role is to lead, to convince the various members of the Congress to put down some of their parochial issues in favor of the greater good. He is to supply the focus to the debate. Only now -one year after he first entered office- is he beginning to do what he's needed to do all along. The only problem is that now it's too late to reverse the heavy damage he's allowed the Democrats to do to themselves through his inaction.
At some point soon, the Republicans will again gain the Congress in spite of all their outrageous and destructive obstructionism. This is because the people have unmet needs and the Democrats are not doing anything about them. Any progress would have gone a long way toward preventing this reversal, but only Wall Street saw any benefit.
So now the Democrats are about to reap the whirlwind they sowed, and all you want to do is pile on after the whistle has blown.
Two Observations
This column was sort of all over the place so I'm going to concentrate on two aspects; the filibuster and the public option.
There is absolutely no doubt that democrats should eliminate the filibuster--unless--they are prepared to abuse it and use it to obstruct in the same way as the republicans when they are in the minority. And because they are not, leaving the rule as is gives the republicans an important procedural advantage.
The filibuster is a needed rule only if both sides agree to use it fairly. At the point in which one side busts the rule up with abuse and the other side isn't willing to reciprocate at the appropriate time, there is no longer any usefulness to the rule because it advantages one side over the other. That's where the democrats are right now.
Is it scary to lose minority rights during a time of republican rule, yes, but there was never any shortage of Bluedog Nelsons out there to join "Gangs of 14" and help republicans break filibusters when they were trying to "ram through" things.
So get rid of it. Post haste.
As for the public option, until Carp tells the truth about this and acknowledges that it is OBAMA who killed it and not the US senate, I guess I will be forced to set the record straight.
Obama reportedly cut a deal with insurance companies to exclude the PO early in his presidency. This is almost certainly a fact, unless you believe Obama is a complete embicile and can't read polls (it is still usually politically smart to do the popular thing isn't it?).
Nevertheless, he troped around the country all summer proclaiming his support for the PO in front of democratic crowds, knowing full well he had dealt it away. That makes Obama the absolute worst kind of lying corporatist, giving fake hope to desperate people. His true nature was there in technocolor for all who have eyes and want to see.
As for the senate, they were simply doing Obama's bidding. The Baucus bill was the one Obama wanted and was ultimately the template for the bill he will submit--AS WAS REPORTED MONTHS AGO--but apparently Carp is a little slow on the draw. It's almost as if you are TRYING not to see this.
Now the senate dems are invlolved in another kabuki dance with progressives (with Obama's blessing no doubt) circulating a letter asking Harry to pass the PO thru reconciliation. This is designed to get progressive street cred and cash and nothing more. The rotating cast of democratic villians will make sure of it.
Where is Harkin on this? Rockefeller? Boxer? I'm sure this letter will help excite progressives in Michael Bennet's desperate primary fight, though. Funny how he came up with it after meeting with a Obama at a Colorado fundraiser. Coincidence, that. Nothing like circlulating a pro-PO letter that has no chance of achieving fruition, juuuuust after talking to Obama.
We should now circulate a letter calling for an up or down vote on the PO in order to expose this charade for what it is. Let's get these f**king 10 senators who supposedly won't vote for the PO on record. As long as the Democratic Party continues to play Lucy and pull the football out from under liberals' feet, they'll never get another dime from me.
The only question is--how long will Carp and other rank-and-file dems continue to fall for this democratic flim-flammery?
Dems don't care about our dimes anymore
Over the past few decades, as organized labor and its power and funds declined, the Dems have become increasingly corporatist and dependent on corporate money for their campaigns and their livelihood. Now, in the wake of Citizens United, it will only get worse (to the extent that is possible). So the Dems are playing these games realizing that progressives who pay attention will never give them another dime, but also recognizing that their corporate masters will keep the cash coming if and only if they "play ball" and sell out the little people.
What is left (not much) of US "democracy" is circling down the drain.
http://kivals.blogspot.com
I Can't Argue
Obama and the dems are playing a game of math. You mentioned that Obama is willing to sacrifice the money of liberals who are paying attention, and I agree. But I would also say that liberals who are paying attention are precisely the ones most likely to canvas neighborhoods, knock on doors, man phone banks, and donate cash. This is the dems' GOTV operation. Can Obama and the democratic leadership really believe that corporate cash is more important than getting out the vote? I don't think we have to answer that.
What Obama really believes is that there are enough liberal suckers out there who will fall in line when the time comes and that he can have his corporate cash AND a good GOTV operation. I believe he is playing with fire. But we shall see.
"Where else are they going to go?"
This is the quote from Rahm Emanuel that ought to be causing liberals and progressives to think about what it means not to make this boast a reality again in the next election. It means that we have to be willing to abandon the Democrats and support a minor party or independent candidate AND RISK LOSING. If we aren't willng to do that (and I have more often than not since Jimmy Carter pissed me off), then we are going to get nowhere in the face of mountains of corporate cash.
Primaries
I just gave money to Lt Gov Bill Halter, and since I live in Arkansas I can actually vote for him and against that miserable corporatist Blanche Lincoln. But if Lincoln wins the primary I plan to follow your advice and go green or sit it out. The last thing we need is another corporate democrat in DC, and I've got to tell you, nothing infuriates me more than Obama and the DNC sticking their nose in it and supporting the Bluedog in every primary.