senate

Mitch McConnell Filibusters Himself

Posted 12/7/12 at 8:50am by jamie

If you think that Republican leadership listened to voters in November, then you would be mistaken. Yesterday Mitch McConnell proved that by engaging in one of his own silly games:

A move to embarrass Democrats backfired on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell Thursday as the Kentucky Republican proposed a vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling -- then filibustered it when the Democrats tried to take him up on the offer.

On Thursday morning McConnell had made a motion for the vote on legislation that would let the president extend the country's borrowing limit on his own. Congress would then have the option to disapprove such hikes, in a fashion similar to one that McConnell first suggested during last year's standoff over the debt ceiling.

The minority leader apparently did not think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would take him up on his offer, which would have allowed McConnell to portray President Barack Obama's desire for such authority as something even Democrats opposed.

Reid objected at first, but told McConnell he thought it might be a good idea. After Senate staff reviewed the proposal, Reid came back to the floor and proposed a straight up-or-down vote on the idea.

McConnell was forced to say no.

"What we're talking about here is a perpetual debt ceiling grant, in effect, to the president, " McConnell said. "Matters of this level of controversy always require 60 votes."

So instead of using the time in the Senate to work towards a solution, the minority leader decided to just play a silly little game and it backfired big time.

This was also really poor timing given talk of filibuster reform:

Filibuster Reform Or Quieting The Opposition?

Posted 11/7/12 at 5:17pm by jamie

Harry Reid is vowing to take on something that many of us have asked for - filibuster reform:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pledged on Wednesday to change the rules of the Senate so that the minority party has fewer tools to obstruct legislative business.

In his first post-election press conference, the Nevada Democrat said he wouldn't go so far as to eliminate the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for the chamber to enter and exit the amendment and debate process. But in remarks meant to preview a more combative approach during the next session, he warned Republicans that obstructionism as a tactic won't be tolerated -- or as technically feasible.

Now let's look at why this really needs to be done. Here's a handy graph showing how much the GOP has decided to abuse the filibuster in the past several years:

Of course the way the filibuster happens has also changed. It's not like the old days, where the cots are rolled out and the TV screen is full of senators reading from Shakespeare. Instead they basically say "filibuster" and the legislation is done. It has been twisted into a tool where the minority controls Senate, not the majority.

So how is the right responding to this? Well here's Drudge's headline on it:

Scott Brown's Macaca Moment

Posted 9/25/12 at 5:13pm by jamie

Sen. Scott Brown's staff has been caught on tape ridiculing Elizabeth Warren's Indian heritage:

Staffers for Sen. Scott Brown chanted Indian "war whoops" and made "tomahawk chops" during a rally for the Republican senator this week in Boston.

n a video posted on YouTube, Brown's staffers are seen holding campaign signs near the Erie Pub, chanting and making tomahawk chops, presumably in reference to Elizabeth Warren's claims of Cherokee heritage.

Brown's Deputy Chief of Staff Greg Casey and Constituent Service Counsel Jack Richard, State Director Jerry McDermott, special assistant Jennifer Franks and GOP operative Brad Garnett are pictured in the video, NewsCenter 5's Janet Wu confirmed.

"It is certainly something that I don't condone," said Brown when asked about the video. "The real offense is that (Warren) said she was white and then checked the box saying she is Native American, and then she changed her profile in the law directory once she made her tenure."

No Scott. The real offense is the questioning of anyone's heritage. I have an American Indian grandfather and that does make me American Indian.

But is also goes beyond that. Warren hasn't been using her heritage to try and influence her campaign. Instead Brown made an issue of it because of what her form said. It's the Republicans who want to make skin color, heritage and even religion a litmus test for candidates.

Could The Democrats Take It All?

Posted 9/20/12 at 3:11pm by jamie

Following the Democratic convention and Romney's countless failures of late, things are starting to look really good for President Obama's reelection chances. But there maybe even more to celebrate.

Polling out this past week has shown a big shift in the Senate. Currently Nate Silver has the Democrats not only holding the Senate, but also picking up a seat. This is extremely good news and something we want to keep going.

But the good news doesn't stop there. With the big shift towards the left, some are even saying that the House has a good chance of flipping. Here's what Sam Wang of Princeton Election Consortium has to say:

As seen in recent articles in Politico and U.S. News, few pundits think the Democrats will re-take the House. However, analysis of a leading indicator suggests to me that transfer of control is a distinct possibility. With that, I plunge ahead.

And sure enough House polling is showing that this could end up happening.

We're still over a month from Election Day and in political terms that is a lifetime, but if Democrats can keep this momentum going and exposing Romney for the person he really is, then November could turn out really, really good for Democrats.

Argument Fail Of The Day

Posted 1/11/12 at 4:20pm by jamie

Republicans are still pissed over President Obama's recessed appointment, so now they want to take action. Of course that action won't occur until they return from their recess, which is what they are arguing they aren't in.

Sound confusing? Well let me add to that. OK - let's let Republican Congresswoman Diane Black add to it in this statement:

“These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.”...

“No executive agency should be immune from the checks and balances our founders intended. What’s more, the NLRB appointments were jammed through by the president before the Senate even had the chance to consider the appointees. Their names were only put forward on Dec. 15, a mere two days before the Senate recessed for the holiday. The president is clearly out of bounds here and should not be allowed to skirt the Constitution as he pleases.”

The Constitution gives the President the power to make appointments when Congress is in recess. Black is apparently saying they aren't in recess, yet she says that the names were put forward only two days before the Senate did go into recess. Got it now?

If your head isn't ready to explode by such idiocracy in two little paragraphs then you are a stronger person than I!

Cost Of Reading Constitution On House Floor, $1.1 Million. Reneging On Financial Responsibility, Priceless!

Posted 1/6/11 at 11:01am by jamie

So the party of “financial responsibility” is going to spend about $1.1 million just on reading the Constitution on the House floor:

The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact.

When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on. Even Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) combined don’t blow enough hot air to heat the Capitol in January.

To get this estimate, I took the total FY 2011 costs for House salaries and expenses and House office buildings, then added half the costs of joint House-Senate expenses, the CBO, the Capitol Police and the Capitol power plant. Then I divided that sum by 205, the number of days the House was in session last year, then divided again by 24 (the number of hours in a day) and multiplied by 3 (the estimated length in hours of members reading the Constitution). It might not take three hours to read the document, but on the other hand, Congress is usually in session for considerably less than 205 days a year. Also, I didn’t include staff costs, since most aides will probably be working through the reading. But not all will be, so overall I think this is a conservative estimate.

Of course the wingnuts are already in full defense of this, just the same way they defended Bush and the GOP’s runaway spending during the last decade.

BREAKING: START Passes The Senate

Posted 12/22/10 at 3:20pm by jamie

The Senate has just ratified the START treaty by a 71-26 vote. All Democrats voted for the bill and 13 Republicans, 1/4 of the Republican caucus, broke with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ratify the new treaty.

(On a side note, sorry for the lack of posting. With the holidays, a bad cold and massive work load, I haven’t been able to keep up with anything!)

Let’s Play The “Name A Budget Cut” Game

Posted 11/8/10 at 10:29am by jamie

I just love hearing Republicans talk about “cutting the budget”, yet when asked for specifics they never can. That’s what happened with teabagger darlings Rand Paul and Jim DeMint yesterday:

DeMint came the closest to naming specifics, but I would expect more from someone who has been in the Senate since 2005 and proclaims to be some ultra fiscal conservative.

What it all boils down to is that people voted for talking points last Tuesday and not action. Take Rand Paul. He said that he wants a “5% cut across the board”. Does that include defense? What Republicans are going to vote for defense cuts?

Really people, just wake up. Come 2012 we will see that our nation’s budget is in the same boat as it is now, if not worse. I say worse because the one thing Republicans agree on cutting is the one thing that is projected to reduce the deficit – health care reform.

A Silver Lining?

Posted 11/3/10 at 8:40am by jamie

3748152908_10c7bd620fIf there is any silver lining to the Democrats losing the House last night, it is this:

In a fell swoop, the once-powerful Blue Dog caucus of conservative House Democrats was reduced from 54 members to 26 in Tuesday’s midterm election.

The caucus lost two members to retirement and two others who ran for higher office, and out of the remaining 50 members, 24 Blue Dogs lost.

There were still a few Blue Dogs in tight races that had yet to be called early on Wednesday morning. There is the potential for more losses, though most of them look likely to hold on.

Add to that the fact that we are now rid of Evan Byah and Blanche Lincoln in the Senate, we are left with something we can better work with. It’s time for us to start focusing on more progressive candidates for these lost Blue Dog seats and work towards 2012.

Geithner Opposes Warren Heading The Consumer Protection Agencies

Posted 7/16/10 at 8:44am by jamie

Elizabeth Warren has been one of the most sound voices during this financial crisis. Republicans and Democrats have both looked up to her analysis of the problems plaguing our economy and have touted her as one of the brightest minds when it comes to economics.

Tim Geithner – not so much.

So this story should come as no big shock to those that follow the soap opera filled world of economics:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views.

The financial reform bill passed by the Senate on Thursday mandates the creation of a new federal entity charged with protecting consumers from predatory lenders.

But if Geithner has his way, the most prominent advocate for creating the agency may not be picked to lead it.

The last thing we need is someone heading another economic unit of the federal government, who will fall into the “good ole’ boys club”. We need differing views and opinions, because that is the basis for the best ideas. To me that is an awesome reason to give Warren the job. Let the powers disagree and argue it out. Then we might start getting sound policy to turn this train wreck around.

RIP Robert Byrd

Posted 6/28/10 at 7:22am by jamie

The Senate's longest serving member, Robert Byrd, died this morning at the age of 92. This really isn't a big shocker. Byrd's health has been deteriorating for years and given his age, it was pretty much expected that this was coming after the news of his serious condition yesterday.

As far as a replacement for Byrd, well Nate Silver points out the timing on this. It looks like there will be a special election. If Byrd would have held on one more week, then the governor would have been able to appoint a replacement.

And then there's the big question - the fate of financial reform. That's pretty much uncertain now that the Democrats have one less vote. My guess is that it will be gutted even further to bring on Snowe or Collins.

Well That Was Disappointing

Posted 6/15/10 at 8:48pm by jamie

The President's speech from the Oval Office was a major failure in my view. He missed a golden opportunity to really hit one out of the park. A good example is talking about the clean energy bill, yet he did not use the power of his office and speech to urge Senate to pass it.

That's a big miss Mr. President.

When Bush wanted something done he went in front of the cameras and started chastising the Senate into doing it. It was actually a rather effective approach, and not one all that uncommon. I know Obama used to be in the Senate, but he has to stop acting like it. He needs to push the changes he campaigned on through, and right now energy alternatives is a big one that needs pushed through.

 

And what ever happened to the "yes we can" attitude? If we ever needed that, it's right now. We needed a forceful President Obama tonight pushing for a new energy future and following it up with a healthy dose of "yes we can". As many have said, we needed a Kennedy "put a man on the moon" speech and we didn't get it. Taegan Goddard sums it up very nicely:


Though Obama called for a "national mission" to transition to clean energy, he was vague on what he actually wants to see in a comprehensive energy bill. In doing so, Obama is just another president that has refused to ask Americans for the necessary sacrifice to finally achieve this greater national goal. He missed a golden opportunity.

That's exactly what we need and we didn't get it. Is he afraid that the Republicans won't agree with him? Well they still won't, so fuck them and move on.

Can we get the Barack Obama from 2008 back? We really need him right now. Back then candidate Obama never missed out on a golden opportunity like he did tonight.

Mystery Solved (UPDATED)

Posted 5/28/10 at 11:30am by jamie

There has been non-stop talk this week about Joe Sestak's job offer by the Obama administration if he wouldn't run against Arlen Specter. Now we have some answers:

Senior White House advisers asked former President Bill Clinton to talk to Joe Sestak about whether he was serious about running for Senate, and to feel out whether he'd be open to other alternatives, according to sources familiar with the situation.

But the White House maintains that the Clinton-Sestak discussions were informal, according to the sources. The White House, under pressure to divulge the specifics of its interactions with Sestak, will release a formal statement later today outlining their version of events, including Clinton's involvement.

As Gregg points out, the fact that Clinton was actually involved in this shows how much the White House didn't want Specter to have to face Sestak in the primary. Regardless, I still don't see anything illegal, or even unethical in this. These are the type of games that happen in Washington all the time. Sure the people are tired of it, but Democratic and Republican administrations have both engaged in the same practices for decades. The Republicans calling for a special prosecutor is nothing more than a grand stand, but given that Clinton is involved now, I'm sure they will push it even more.

UPDATE:

Per a breaking news alert from AP, Clinton suggested an "unpaid, advisory role" to Sestak. So it wasn't even an actual "job", but rather letting Sestak stay in the House and also act as an advisor. Nothing wrong with that.

Pages

Comments



blog advertising is good for you

Tip Jar

Follow Me On Twitter


Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter:
Follow IntoxiNation on Twitter