In a previous rant after the Massachusetts special election, I ranted about Scott Brown and how any vote for a Republican at this point is a vote for partisanship and evil etc. etc. To be vein and quote myself:

He is a senator, and is going to disappear to Washington and represent his constituents by voting with his party on every issue.

I have been anxiously awaiting his term so that I could flaunt how right I was. Well, I am here to say that, at least so far in this one instance, Scott Brown has acted in a respectable way by voting with what he feels is right and not just with his party. Nate Silver covers this well in his post, where he defends Brown as an “authentically moderate Republican.”

I still will likely not support Brown on several issues of policy. I am very happy, however, to see someone vote not with their party but with what they feel is right for their state and, hopefully, the country. With the majority of Republicans clearly “Not Embarrassed”, as the Rachel Maddow title says, it is refreshing to see a senator do their job, even if they are not in my party.

My Dad forwarded me two articles from Boston.com which I disagreed with. I wanted to share the email I wrote back to him and maybe clean it up a little bit for Juice, and really only reflect on one of those articles. Here are those thoughts edited for JTB. They are probably the uninformed rants of a foolish, young online-leftist, but since everyone is shouting I may as well take part.

The article, Coakley Downs In Safe Harbor, reflects the talking point surrounding this whole election, which I think is really insulting and embarrassing. The talking point is that Coakley did not do enough campaigning to win the election and that the people were taken for granted.

At a neighborhood New Year’s Eve party, everyone was talking about Republican Scott Brown’s new television ad … The neighborhood consensus: clever and attention-grabbing. Martha Coakley laughed it off. It was a serious mistake; many others followed. They included a barrage of terrible ads and Coakley’s incredible question about what people expected her to do: stand outside in the cold, shake hands and ask for their vote?

Now Democrats have learned their lesson and will not “take anything for granted.” This is not only acknowledging but embracing stupidity. As the article and the polls clearly point out, Brown started airing commercials on New Years Eve and the polls turned around. Brown was outside of Fenway shaking hands in the cold, and Coakley was not. I guess someone forgot to inform me that the job of a senator was to be a master hand shaker. He is a senator, and is going to disappear to Washington and represent his constituents by voting with his party on every issue.

(more…)

Scott Brown, former Cosmo centerfold, is the next Senator of Massachusetts.

There’s a lot of things you can potentially say about this race.  Martha Coakley was clearly a pretty terrible candidate.  On the right, you’re going to hear a lot about this being a referendum on heralth care and Obama in general.  This, I think, is clearly off-base.  This race was never about the issues.  This race was entirely about personality.

(more…)

Classy.

While I’m not exactly a huge fan of hyper-partisanship, the once place where I expect a heaping dose of partisanship is from the Majority Leader of the Senate.  Unfortunately, in the past twenty years, the Democrats in the Senate have chosen two of the least partisan figures available, and both from politically vulnerable states (North Dakota and Nevada).

There’s something to be said about having a centrist face of the party, but at the end of the day, a Majority Leader must do what’s right for the party, and not be worrying about his own electoral prospects.  This type of dynamic only weakens the party as a whole.

This is why I’m almost glad that Harry Reid is getting all kinds of heat for his idiotic comments.  I want a new Majority Leader, preferably one from a bluer-than-blue blue state.  Now I’m not talking about Bernie Sanders or anything, because that brings all sorts of other problems, but a solid Democrat with a safe seat.

I nominate John Kerry.  The guy’s won re-election four times (by 14 points the last time).  Massachusetts is a solid blue state with a lot of mainline Democrats.  He has leadership potential, has been around the block, and is a friend of President Obama.

What’s not to like?

I’ve been very critical of my friends over at DKos lately, and I can’t seem to stop.  I wandered over again today to see the reaction to health care reform passing the Senate, and the reaction was fairly positive.  There was a nice post by DemFromCT.

But then I looked further down and ran across this post quoting Drew Westen, who I am told “isn’t just any guy with a computer. He’s an expert on political communication, the guy who wrote The Political Brain, and as digby says, the “it boy” of the Democratic party.”  So obviously, he’s the bees knees, and we should all hail his opinion:

What’s costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting….

Consider the president’s leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there’s a conflict, because if there’s a conflict, he doesn’t want to be anywhere near it. [...]

Leadership means heading into the eye of the storm and bringing the vessel of state home safely, not going as far inland as you can because it’s uncomfortable on the high seas. This president has a particular aversion to battling back gusting winds from his starboard side (the right, for the nautically challenged) and tends to give in to them. He just can’t tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead….

The time for exhortation is over. FDR didn’t exhort robber barons to stem the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the upper 1 percent, and neither did his fifth cousin Teddy. Both men told the most powerful men in the United States that they weren’t going to rip off the American people any more, and they backed up their words with actions. Teddy Roosevelt was clear that capital gains taxes should be high relative to income taxes because we should reward work, not “gambling in stocks.” This President just doesn’t have the stomach to make anyone do anything they don’t want to do (except women to have unwanted babies because they can’t afford an abortion or live in a red state and don’t have an employer who offers insurance), and his advisors are enabling his most troubling character flaw, his conflict-avoidance.

This is complete garbage.

May I remind Mr. Bad Ass Democrat Drew Westen that it was under Obama’s watch, his first year as President to boot, that comprehensive health care reform is about to be passed.  This is something that FDR and LBJ, heroes of progressive lore that they are, could not pass.

It was clear from the outset that the Senate never wanted to pass a bill, but we soldiered on.  Somehow Mr. Westin thinks that Barack Obama had nothing to do with it, which I find completely at odds with reality.

Furthermore, this is exactly the kind of attitude that frustrates me beyond belief from the netroots on this issue.  It’s this idea that if only Barack Obama got into a staring contest (or perhaps an arm wrestling match) with Joe Lieberman, then the public option would have passed.

Ridiculous.

With 60 votes, as promised.

Even though there’s still one more hurdle (getting the House and Senate to agree), this really is a huge achievement.

Matt Yglesias:

As you know, my view is this: For all its flaws, if signed into law this bill would be the greatest progressive social policy achievement in over forty years. It’s fine not to be satisfied with this legislation, but it’s perverse not to be happy about it. The important thing is to try to make sure that we don’t need to wait another forty years before additional major improvements become possible.

Ezra Klein:

H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed with 60 votes, and though that sounds a razor-thin margin given the odd rules of the Senate, it is a landslide in the more normal context for major choices in American politics. The last time a president won with 60 percent of the vote, for instance, was when Lyndon Johnson trounced Barry Goldwater in 1964. Health-care reform passed the House with only 50.5 percent of the body voting for it. And the senators making up this morning’s 60 votes actually represent closer to 65 percent of the population. Harry Reid has much to be proud of today. [...]

Passing legislation, it turns out, is a long and ugly process. God, is it ugly. The compromises, both with powerful special interests and decisive senators. The trimming of ambitions and the budget gimmicks and the worship of Congressional Budget Office scores. By the end, you’re passing a compromise of a deal of a negotiation of a concession.

But bad a system as it might be, it’s the only one we’ve got. At least for now, this is what victory looks like. The slow, grinding, ineluctable advance of legislation that is quite similar, albeit not identical, to what you began with. It’s not pretty, and it doesn’t necessarily feel like winning is supposed to feel. But this bill will do most of the things supporters hoped it would do: cover about 95 percent of all legal residents, regulate insurers, set up competitive exchanges, pretty much end risk selection, institute a universal structure that we can improve and enhance as the years go on, and vastly reduce both medical and financial risk for families.

It’s been a long time since the legislative system did anything this big, and people have forgotten how awful the victories are. But these are the victories, and if they feel bad to many, they will do good for more. As that comes clearer and clearer, this bill will come to feel more and more like the historic advance it actually is.

Today is a good day for America.

With a health care reform bill poised to pass, I thought I would mosy on over to DKos to see what the climate was like.  And that’s when I came across this:

People are so quick to rush to embrace a bill that’s not set in stone, which has been consistently eroded over the past year, at an exponentially accelerated pace, with each major concessions not just making the bill worse, but emboldening critics to make further demands. As crappy as the bill is now, it’s inevitably getting worse, and then, it’ll get even worse after that.And every time progressives shrug their shoulders and say, “all right, we’ll take whatever we can get”, you empower those critics. Rather than draw a line in the sand and bolster the efforts of true reformists, you are leaving them high and dry. And the weaker progressives get, the more Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln and the rest of that bunch can do to make this not just a bad bill politically, but a bad bill policy wise. [...]

We’re at the point, I think, where you strip this thing of anything remotely controversial and pass whatever is left — maybe tougher rules against rescissions, some regulatory reform, etc. But as far as substantive reform, we live in a legislative world were a majority can’t accomplish shit because idiotic rules prevent government from governing. And we can’t resort to reconciliation because we live in a world in which procedural tactics that were okay for Republicans, are somehow off limits for Democrats.

Nate Silver has a very well detailed take down of this kind of attitude, which I basically agree with unconditionally.

The bottom line is that the bill currently under consideration in the Senate (with the Executive Amendments and Nelson’s support) is still a good bill.  Is it a great bill?  No.  Is it my favorite bill?  No.  Would I like to see a robust public option?  Yes.  Am I pissed off that procedural rules give the keys to the palace over to the likes of Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson?  Absolutely.  But the take-away is that this bill is significantly better than the status quo.

To sit in your corner and stamp your feet because the bad men threw your bill in the dirt is beyond childish.  This bill will improve the lives of millions of Americans.  Ron Wyden’s bill will not.  The House bill will not.  Why?  Because they won’t pass the Senate.  Period.  Not even with reconciliation.

It’s time to grow up and pass a bill.

While, I’m hardly qualified to properly eulogize Senator Edward Kennedy, I thought I would throw this video up. First, a little context:

[July 9, 2008] WASHINGTON (CNN) — Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy on Wednesday made his first appearance in Congress since being diagnosed with brain cancer nearly two months ago, casting a single vote to help break a Republican filibuster of an important Medicare bill.

Colleagues greeted Kennedy with a lengthy standing ovation on the Senate floor just after 4:15 p.m.

The bill would reverse a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors. The cuts in Medicare payments — part of a scheduled cost-saving formula — went into effect July 1, although the Bush administration said it will hold off processing claims until mid-July to give Congress time to reach a compromise.

In a written statement, Kennedy said, “I return to the Senate today to keep a promise to our senior citizens — and that’s to protect Medicare. Win, lose or draw, I wanted to be here. I wasn’t going to take the chance that my vote could make the difference.”

That’s the United States Senate. Not a campaign rally. Not a bunch of Democratic strategists or staffers. The US Senate, giving a standing ovation.

America lost a great man today.

Some of these regulations are really harsh.  The “Further restrict advertising…” bullet means, among other things, that tobacco companies can only advertize in black and white text (but not within 1000 feet of a school).  Imagine trying to make that look sexy…

Graphic warning lables are also intense.  They used them in Portugal, where there was basically a black and white skull and crossbones above the word MORTAL (deadly), or FUMAR MATA (smoking kills) on a full 1/3 of the front of the pack.

Maybe this will lead the push to legalize some replacement smokeable, non-cancerous cash-crop?

Read the full article here. Image and article from the NY Times.

Arlen Specter (D-PA):

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

This is really good move for just about everybody.  The Democrats are happy to see their ranks bolstered to 59 (and soon to be 60) in the Senate, Arlen Specter no longer has to worry about losing his primary bid, and the people of Pennsylvania will most likely get to keep their Senator.

I said almost everybody because this is definitely not good for the Republican Party.  They can whine and pretend that they don’t care, acting like they’re glad to see him go (see Malkin), but ultimately what this blares out in the grandest fashion is: There’s no room in the Republican Party for moderates.

Nate Silver is calling this the Republican Death Spiral:

Thus the Republicans [...] are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative [...] their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base — but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.

But what does this actually mean for the sausage in Congress?  Probably not much.  Specter will eventually slide a little to the left because he no longer has to pretend he’s more conservative than he is, but he’s no Bernie Sanders (or Barack Obama, for that matter).

I’m thinking he’ll end up somewhere between a Ben Nelson and an Evan Bayh, which, on the whole, is a net gain.

So I was driving home yesterday, listening to NPR, and I heard Mara Liasson say something that really bothered me:

…just because of the structure of the Senate.  It takes 60 votes to pass anything.

This bothers me because it doesn’t take 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate, but for some reason we’ve all come to accept that it does take 60 votes to pass anything.

There are a lot of people that hate the filibuster.  Matt Yglesias is one of them.  And recent events have given them good reason to think that it’s an anachronistic tradition that reeks of 19th century elitism.  But, I happen to like the filibuster.

The unique thing about the way the two houses of Congress are set up is that they balance each other, which makes sense.  Why have two houses if they’re both carbon copies of one another?  The House is above all else a majority instituion.  The majority absolutely dominates.  They set the calendar, they make the rules, and they pass whatever bills they want.

The Senate, on the other hand, is a minority institution.  There are less members, and each Senator has much more discretion.  There are unanimous consent for rules, there’s anonymous 24-hour holds, and, of course, there’s the filibuster.

Now, the filibuster, in it’s true form, serves an essential purpose.  The basic premise is, basically, “I disagree with this legislation so strongly that I’m willing to place everything else on hold to stop it.”  There’s a cost.  You become famous for standing against the bill, but you also can’t do anything else.  You can’t pass that joint resolution congratulating the Pittsburgh Steelers for winning the Super Bowl.  You can’t rename any post offices, and you can’t confirm any judges.  You just wait.

But that was in the past.  Soon, all kinds of softening measures were put into place, until a filibuster became just another thing you did when you didn’t really like a bill.  Hell, you don’t even need to do anything now except say you’re filibustering.

And the Republicans have said that a lot lately.  Below is a graph of the number of cloture votes in modern Congressional sessions.  The Republicans crushed the former record of 61 filibusters, finally clocking in at 139 for the last session of Congress.  This is ludicrous.

The filibuster needs to return to a high-profile event.  Everyone needs to know when a filibuster is happening, and it should be a big deal.  The only way that happens is if you shut down the Senate every time it occurs.  Get the aides to roll-in the cots, because the filibuster needs to return to its proper stature, but most of all, it needs to return to its proper frequency.

Because it shouldn’t take 60 votes to pass anything.