Republicans Say If Only Kennedy Were Well…

Max Baucus is doing more to hold up health care reform than Ted Kennedy not being alive to vote.

Max Baucus is doing more to hold up health care reform than Ted Kennedy not being alive to vote.

One thing I think to watch out for in the wake of Ted Kennedy’s unfortunate death is Republican legislators using his absence as an excuse not to compromise on health care reform. This is from today’s New York Times.

Republicans also noted that Mr. Kennedy, though an ideological liberal, was a legislative pragmatist who worked with Republicans to strike compromises on difficult subjects like health care, education and immigration. They said they saw little such reaching across the aisle in his absence.

Several Republicans also said they believed Congress would be closer to a health deal than it is now if Mr. Kennedy had regularly been on hand in the Senate, working face-to-face with his colleagues and using his prestige and credibility to advance the issue.

Look, both of these points are transparently false. On the first, I think it’s pretty difficult to look at the circus going on in the Senate Finance Committee and say that there hasn’t been any reach-arounds reaching across the aisle. Max Baucus has continually — and in my view, to a fault — reiterated his support for a bipartisan compromise, all the while giving up on important aspects of his vision like the public option, setting Medicare eligibility at 55, opening a powerful insurance exchange, offering high subsidies for the poor. Not to mention new things like Kent Conrad literally inventing the co-op idea or the “Gang of Six” folding to moronic pressure on end-of-life counseling. And it’s gotten them absolutely nothing. Grassley and Enzi are as uncooperative as ever.

As for the second point — that somehow, Ted Kennedy’s presence would have produce a deal — is absurd. The HELP Committee, which Kennedy chaired, passed a health care bill in July that was largely the product of Kennedy’s staff. Kennedy was not on the Finance Committee, nor was he involved in the “Gang of Six” negotiations which have done nothing but reduce the limits of the possible while making Max Baucus look like a fool.

Self-Compromise and the Torture Investigation

As I am wont to do, I think Stephen Walt makes a compelling argument that those who decry the release of Abdel Basset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi because it represents an abrogation of the rule of law should by the same token be supportive of Eric Holder’s investigation of Bush era torture policy. Laws are laws, irrespective of politics, and the legitimacy of laws stems from the evenness of their enforcement. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I’d like to make a completely unrelated point based on something Walt says.

I have no doubt that the president would prefer to “look forward,” because an investigation and/or prosecution will drive both the CIA and the right-wing media types crazy and because he’s got enough alligators to wrestle with already.

I think by now we can mostly agree there’s simply no appeasing Republicans. When they see an opening to exploit something for political gain, they’re going to do it. John McCain, after all, came up with a health care plan. Now it’s not the right time for health care reform. Not long ago, Republicans supported death panels. Now they don’t. Legislators in the Finance committee even dropped the provision, and there’s still no sign of compromise on health care. Shall I go on? Republicans were apoplectic over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, who by any reasonable standard was a relatively moderate selection for a Democratic nominee. But the point is that she wasn’t John Roberts or Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. The lessons is that Republicans are going to oppose any measure that is Democratic so it just doesn’t make any sense to base policy on what is going to be the most palatable for Republicans; they’ll find things that can be exploited and then they exploit them. You can’t win, so don’t even bother.

Sure — Republican hypocrisy is absolutely galling — but that’s the name of the game. They’ve been doing it for years, and nobody seems to care. What led to defeat for the Republicans in 2008 were the results of a bad policy in power and a little bit of bad luck. It wasn’t because Republicans claim to steadfastly oppose wasteful spending but still voted for a bloated Medicare drug benefit.

Anyway, as it relates to an investigation of torture, it’s the right thing to do because the law should not be subject to the caprice of political expediency. But even on a crassly political basis, there’s almost nothing you can do that’s remotely liberal that won’t ignite febrile rage among Republicans. If you try to appease them, the only thing you’ll do is wind up compromising with yourself until you realise you’re getting your pants pulled down. The thing for Democrats to do when they possess legislative majorities is to pass the best policy they can muster and hope the results speak for themselves.

Wishful Thinking Of The Day

Ezra Klein, riffing on the sadly bizarre notion that under the assumption that a bill will pass, legislators will actually start working to craft good policy instead of just good politics.

Republicans, for instance, have made unwinding the employer-based market core to many of their proposals. It was in John McCain’s proposal and Tom Coburn’s proposal and every other GOP draft I’ve seen. It’s also central to the Wyden-Bennett plan that has attracted a number of Republican cosponsors. But it’s likely to drop from the final Democratic plan because, well, it’s a hard sell. Republicans have one of two options here: They could ensure that this priority is present in the final proposal by supporting it and promising either some votes for the bill or, at the least, for cloture, or they can ensure that this priority is absent by attacking the bill and forcing Democrats to retrench around its most popular aspects and drop any pieces that aren’t broadly popular. Their choice.

Expect to see the latter. Guaranteed. Republicans have very little political incentive to pass a bill at all, and even less incentive to pass a good one. Assuming a bill will pass, their best hope is that it’s a gigantic failure on which they can ride to future electoral success. Because almost every single Republican legislator is a wealthy, white male, they are generally far removed from the effects or needs of government social programs, and to the extent that they are involved, it’s usually in the form of paying higher taxes. To put it in the language of behavioral economics — which is all the rage these days (e.g., “Don’t blame the amoral megalomaniacs on Wall Street, they had misaligned incentives!”) — Republicans have very little personal incentive to support succesful, broad, social reforms that are associated with the opposing party.

Steele: Obama Not “Vetted” Because He’s Black

The irony of Michael Steele claiming that, “[Obama] was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office,” is of course, quite rich. But leaving that aside for a moment, I’m not even sure what exactly Steele hoped the press would uncover. If we are to interpret Steele’s meaning as that upon taking office, Americans have seen the “real” Obama and soured on him, leaving for the conservative promised land like the Jews out of Egypt, how can you explain you know, the fact that that hasn’t happened (without saying minorities don’t count)? On the other hand, we could interpret Steele’s meaning to be that Obama misrepresented himself during the campaign as unduly conservative? Many liberals have been frustrated with excessive moderation on Obama’s behalf. If Steele, or anyone else for that matter, wasn’t clear that Obama was a Democrat, suffice it to say they have bigger problems than media bias.

Arlen Specter to Be A Democrat, Probably Not a Progressive Though

So word has it Arlen Specter is set to switch parties for his 2010 run. This was a wise move on his part, and shows why it was stupid for hard right wingers to support Pat Toomey, who has no realistic shot of winning in moderate Pennsylvania.

There seems to be much rejoicing among the liberals in my office, but I’ll take this time to point out that Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh are also, at least in the titular sense, Democrats, but that hasn’t exactly made them steadfast supporters of President Obama’s agenda. I would expect much of the same from Specter. Indeed, there was a lot of talk after Specter came out against card check that he was gearing up to tack hard to the right. We’ll see how this plays out, but my guess is that even if Al Franken is seated anywhere in the near future, there will still be a healthy amount of poopy-pantsing within the Democratic caucus as to significantly weaken legislation on climate change, health care, and indeed, any proposal where conservative democrats can flaunt their “fiscal conservative” bona fides (which of course doesn’t include military spending or tax cuts for the wealthy).

UPDATE: I suppose the wild card is if Specter had been significantly reigning in more Democratic instincts in an effort to maintain favor with the farily popular Republican party of 2004. I think it’s possible — especially given his heavy support from unions — but the preemptive “no” on card check doesn’t exactly portend well. Ezra Klein seems to think this is a distinct possibility, and one with historical precedent.

At Least There Will Be Plenty of Sand to Continue The Burrying of Heads

Via Kevin Drum, conservative demagoguery in action!

What’s really remarkable about this the steady increase in the face of events like Katrina and the uptick in disastrous fires and drought problems, but I guess you can’t really underestimate the power of willful irrationality.

UPDATE: If you click through the actual Gallup data, you’ll see this trend is actually seemingly responsive to calamitous climate related events. Still, the trend is totally unmistakable.

The Heights of Chutzpah

So today the Republicans elucidated a bit more fully their budgetless-budget of last week during which they embarrassingly offered to cut taxes, maintain entitlements, and address the deficit, all without the use of the One Ring, the Force, or any other ethereal or mystical powers. Anyway, if you thought that was ballsy and transparently ludicrous, clearly you hadn’t considered this possibility.

But the real way that Republicans offer the tax cut without factoring it into the budget’s revenue is to suggest that Americans won’t actually take advantage of the lower rates. Instead, the GOP budget permanently extends President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure that resulted from those cuts.

In other words, Republicans are assuming that given the choice between a higher rate and a lower rate, Americans will choose the higher rate.

A lot of people have been referring to this as the “April Fool’s Budget” ironically, but I’m not so sure. Seriously, I really can’t believe how a party that carps endlessly about being ignored would offer this sort of gimmick on April 1st and not be joking. I look forward to truth emerging.

Republican Plan For Good Times And Awesomeness

So as some of you might know, the Republicans today announced their alternative “budget.” You may have even read about it in a PR flacks wet dream this risible article by Mike Allen that was such an insult to the term “reporting” that it actually caused me to swear off Politico once and for all.* But in case you didn’t, the “budget” is essentially a recycled form of John McCain’s campaign platform, only with even less detail and more platitudes. For example, behold the Republican energy plan!

energyNice plan, jackasses. Of course, there’s more, like how to the stated goal of reducing the deficit while cutting taxes and leaving entitlements intact. Most reasonable people would observe that this is an actuarial impossibility, and indeed, this might be what’s provoking these sorts of testy exchanges with House Minority Leader John Boehner:

When pressed further by reporters, Boehner promised that Republicans would release their actual budget within the next few days and pointed a finger back at the president.

After Obama delivered a prime-time speech previewing his budget, Boehner said, “he didn’t offer his details until days later.”

A co-worker of mine suggested the Republican plan was a wise political move. Needless to say, I disagree largely for the same reason John Boehner’s point about the delay between Obama’s NSOTU speech and the Presidential budget unveiling is stupid. Unlike President Obama, the House Republicans were under no deadline to either address a joint session of Congress or submit their alternative “budget.” Therefore, the drubbing they are now receiving for the vacuity of their “plan” was completely and entirely avoidable and indeed, should have been avoided. In the meantime, the result has reinforced the notion that the Republicans are not a party to be taken seriously.

*on morning commutes.

Michael Steele FAIL

Michael Steele, 36 hours ago:

“Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh’s whole thing is entertainment,” Steele said. “Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly.”

Michael Steele, hours ago:

“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh,” Steele said in a telephone interview. “I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. … There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”[...]

[...]“I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking,” Steele said. “It was one of those things where I thinking I was saying one thing, and it came out differently. What I was trying to say was a lot of people … want to make Rush the scapegoat, the bogeyman, and he’s not.”

This is comically pathetic. Also, I’m really not sure whether this reflects more poorly on Sarah Palin Michael Steele or the Republican Party. On one hand, the RNC Chairman should have better political sense than to criticize Rush, who is riding high after his incendiary CPAC speech un-ironically claiming Republicans should stop trying to come up with good policy and who, maybe more to the point, has a track record of extracting embarrassing apologies from those who cross him. On the other hand, a legitimate political movement shouldn’t bend over backwards kowtowing to a drug-addict talk show radio host who thinks policy is largely irrelevant.

Ladies and gentleman…your Republican party!

Filibuster Fun Facts

Saw this Op-Ed in the New York Times suggesting Harry Reid call Republicans on their filibuster bluff. The author, David RePass, argues correctly that the founding fathers never intended a Senate supermajority be requisite for passing standard legislation. Quite right, but there’s a slight procedural problem with the “call the bluff” tactic.

Reid’s office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator “can be forced to sit on the [Senate] floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can’t be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time.”[...]

[...]As both Reid’s memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, “I suggest the absence of a quorum.”[...]

[...]“You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster,” says Dove. “Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture.”

Simply put, forcing Republicans to actually filibuster would not result (necessarily, anyhow) in Republicans to “show voters that they oppose Mr. Obama’s initiatives,” as DePass argues.  Rather, it would just force them to show voters on C-SPAN that quorum was unmet. Instead, we should just abolish the filibuster.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.