Dear Harry, and everybody who works for you:
Republicans never had 59 Senate seats, and that did not stop them from
passing the legislation they wanted. Trying to explain to the American
people how, despite controlling everything, Democrats cannot do
anything, because a mean minority of 41 Republican senators won’t let
them, is a message that will go over like a lead balloon. If you try to
use that excuse, people will think elected Democrats are liars, wimps,
idiots, or an ineffectual combination of all three.
And I KNOW, okay, about how hard it all is, and how the rules work, but out here in the world where yesterday my family had a chance to not be screwed out of health care and today they apparently don’t, I don’t CARE, and neither does anybody else. If you are seriously buying the bullshit that people vote against politicians who are OMG MEEEN, if you are seriously taking Chris Matthews and his ilk at their word that it matters who is perceived as bipartisan, I would like you to go outside and hit yourself in the head very hard with something heavy.
People vote for those they think are going to make their lives better, first. Second, they vote for people they think aren’t pussies. And if you think it’s any more complicated than that, you need to go back to People School. We ain’t learned this by now, we ain’t learning it, so goddamn STUDY.
By all accounts Coakley was shitty candidate who ran a shitty campaign, but let’s be honest here. There is no reason for this to be the end of the world or for us to act like it is. There is no reason for this to be the cause of shitting on progressive activists, or netroots activists, or older voters, or younger voters, or people who only sent e-mails, or people who knocked on doors and don’t know what the Internet is, or ANYBODY. That was not “Ted Kennedy’s seat” and we did not have the French Revolution last night. That was a Massachusetts Senate seat and they have the right to elect whatever stupid fucking hairdo they want, and we can fix it next time around if we want that too. We’re not a goddamn hereditary monarchy and there’s no reason to act like the earth is caving in and we all have to go home now and complain loudly. (It is, just not because of this.) Health care can still get done. And if we think it can’t, just because of one loss, we’re letting people off the hook who deserve to dangle up there a while longer.
There are still plenty of votes to get things done. And there are still plenty of opportunities to fuck over Republicans if that’s what gets you hot. The loss of one seat shouldn’t scuttle a whole agenda. Quit buying into Republican and media/punditry bullshit. And GET BACK UP.
No love, at the moment,
A.
OMG – I love it!
My husband was just talking about how Johnson would handle this whole mess last night.
My friend in PDX says that he heard that people in MA were getting ballots in the mailpartially filled out (do I even have to mention the “for the Republican” part at this point)? He said there’d been over 1000 actual reports of vote-tampering and other fraud. At this point, I’m beginning to think thatany time a Republican wins a generally blue area, redo the election.
What kind of world is it where George Will has a column – and you don’t?
Gorgeous post.
Johnson would not have let this drag on to this point. And Kennedy should have resigned as soon as he knew he was really sick so he could have helped elect the next person to hold “his seat”. Bah.
the only winner with the bill is the insurance industry which will have a captive market and can continue to charge anything they want…or if the bill fails we get the same thing.
Dems lied, our hopes died. FU barack and the rest of the wimps who sold us out.
Johnson had an advantage Obama doesn’t: years of building relationships on the hill as a legislator. Not excusing O, just pointing out why Johnson was effective at getting his legislation passed – he was an excellent legislator before becoming an executive.
All that said, I see it this way: Dems allowed R’s to pass all that bad legislation 2002-2006. We could have fillibustered and we didn’t. For better or worse, we said, “Hey, elections matter, and we aren’t going to torpedo the process.” I don’t know if that was intellectually honest or a pragmatic view that the tables would be turned.
Well, now roles have reversed, and the R’s have become the party of automatic fillibuster. To the point where 8th graders everywhere are confused because in Civics the teacher says 50%+1 votes to pass a law in the Senate, while CNN says, “60 votes.”
Fine, if the R’s want to fillibuster, then make them do it the old fashioned way and force that ass hat Cornyn to stand for 8 hours reading names from phone books. This procedural hold crap must go. If they want to leverage unlimited debate – make them debate. Make them explain over and over and over again why it is a bad idea to provide health care to those that can’t afford it. Make them stand there and waste all of their time prolonging debate instead of fundraising or listening to their constituents.
Seriously, the fillibuster was never intended to be as easy as one Senator putting a “hold” on a bill without consequence. Make tha bastard stand there and deliver.
Democrats had better get their asses in gear or it will be the end of the world as we know it and no one will feel fine. It may just be one senate seat to you but, to the tea-baggers, it’s an important symbolic victory.
Also, somebody good better step up and primary Deval Patrick because there’s no way his incompetent ass is winning another term.
Johnson had an advantage Obama doesn’t: years of building relationships on the hill as a legislator.
It’s not as is Obama doesn’t know the people in the Senate who do have their years in, though.
What’s most bizarre to me is that for the past several years we’ve time after time had national Democratic politicians and organizations sticking their noses into Senate races — even at the primary level as they did here in Oregon in 2008 in the Merkley/Novick race, when the DSCC intervened on Merkley’s behalf to help propel him to a win by 3% — but here’s the potential loss of the (albeit mostly useless) “filibuster-proof” supermajority and everyone seems to have been asleep at the wheel.
There are more Senators calling themselves Democrats (or at least caucusing with the Dems)today than there were on January 21st 2009. And there will *still* be more in two weeks or whenever it is that Brown is sworn in than there were on January 21st, 2009.
Pick yourselves up, dust yourselves off, and get back to work.
LBJ was also a texass asshole willing to fight. reid left his fight in the ring. he needs to go.
Now might also be a good time toreview this.
MarcD, the senate rules are different from what they were when a filibuster required people to actually do something. Unless the rules are changed again, no one is required to stand up and talk to stop a vote on a bill. Reid can’t change that.
But, if we are talking about changing the Senate rules, as we should be, let’s not talk about making filibusters more difficult, but about making bills require only a majority vote to pass. The best plan I have heard about is a revision to the cloture voting to require 60 votes initially, but have the requirement drop by 2 votes after a couple of days, then another 2 votes after 2 more days, etc. until only a majority vote is needed. That accomplishes the stated intent of the filibuster rules, by delaying a vote until the issue can be fully debated, but it doesn’t destroy democracy in the process.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done until next January, when a new Congress takes office. At that time they vote by majority vote to set their rules. Of course as things are going now, it will be a Republican majority that sets the rules. And, at last Obama will have his bipartisanship.
Actually, Hoppy, that might not be entirely accurate. The following is from the Senate Rules Cmte site (sorry, I don’t know the quoting tags):
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APL%3B%3E%22P%20%20
So it is out of tradition and deference they do not require formal fillibuster, not by rule (as I understand the document).
Begin Excerpt———————–
The practice by which a Senator can put a “hold” on a bill is an extension of the right to make a
formal objection on the floor to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to consider that
bill. In effect, a hold is a notice that the Senator will object to any unanimous consent request that
the majority leader or anyone else makes for considering the measure. It also is a request that no
one even propose such a unanimous consent agreement so that the Senator does not have to be on
the floor to object to it in person. And by implication, a hold carries with it a threat to filibuster
any motion to proceed to consideration of the bill in question. Whenever possible, the leadership
of both parties will respect holds that are placed on measures by Senators of their party, and
encourage negotiations in each case that will lead to the hold being removed. However, holds are
an informal device; if necessary, the majority leader may announce that he will seek consideration
of a measure, notwithstanding one or more holds, in order to expedite the flow of important
Senate business.
End Excerpt——————————————-
kill the holds. petty petty petty holds.