MyDD :: The Democratic Response

The Democratic Response

by Chris Bowers, Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:33:41 PM EST

I mentioned in my earlier post today about Senator Reid and the Nuclear Option that the Democratic response to the end of judicial filibusters would be to end deference to the majority party's agenda. This menas that instead of going through committee, Democrats would push these nine bills directly onto the Senate floor:

1. Women's Health Care (S. 844). "The Prevention First Act of 2005" will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women.

2. Veterans' Benefits (S. 845). "The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005" will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation.

3. Fiscal Responsibility (S. 851). Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.

4. Relief at the Pump (S. 847). Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump.

5. Education (S. 848). Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students.

6. Jobs (S. 846). Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage.

7. Energy Markets (S. 870). Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity.

8. Corporate Taxation (S. 872). Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.

9. Standing with our troops (S. 11). Democrats believe that putting America's security first means standing up for our troops and their families

I love it. This is a brilliant response.

During the call, Senator Reid said that in the Senate "no one sneaks up on you aronnd here." I suppose that is part of the cordial, even patrician, tradition of the Seante. Well, Republicans have been warned. They know the Democratic response.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 24 Comments :: Post a Comment

They should have done this 4 1/2 years ago (2.75 / 4)

Bush's agenda has never been supported my the majority of Americans.

The Democrats should have agressively pushed their own agenda without allowing the past 4 1/2 years of total disaster from going foward with their complicity.

Brilliant?

Now that they have finally started (just barely) to act like an opposition party.

I'd say 4 1/2 years, thousands of US troop casualties and millions of jobs too late.

by leschwartz on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:41:28 PM EST

Re: They should have done this 4 1/2 years ago (none / 0)

True, but better late than never. i think it took the demise of Tom Daschle to bring this about. Good move on the Dems' part. The negative, reactive opposition is necessary, but it is also important to impress on voters how the Dems would be different and what they would do. This is a necassary part of the message, and a good strategy as well.

by Mimikatz on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:30:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They should have done this 4 1/2 years ago (none / 0)

No--they WOULD have done this 4 1/2 years ago if Harry Reid had been the majority leader. I don't see the advantage in being cynical about this, unless you want to change the past. We have a chance to change the future, and we need to use the past as a tool against the Republicans--not ourselves.

by Covin on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 01:06:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They should have done this 4 1/2 years ago (none / 0)

Exactly.

by Phoenix Woman on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 08:24:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope they do it anyway (none / 0)

I hope they do this anyway... just wait until Jan of 2006 or so...

by yitbos96bb on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:43:07 PM EST

This is a good start (none / 0)

Now if Reid can get Biden and Lieberman to put a sock in it and keep pushing forward instead of retreating . . .

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 05:58:51 PM EST

Re: This is a good start (none / 0)

Im am so glad that Daschle is gone...

by global yokel on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a good start (none / 0)

Farenheit 911: "We support the presidents war in Iraq.."

Gone baby gone.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These Should Be Blogger Issues (none / 0)

This is playing offense, not the defensive whining about all the bad things Bush is doing. These are middle class, bread and butter wedge issues that the Ds should be focusing on, day after day. After 1000 days of repeating these themes the brain-dead electorate will suddeningly realize what the Ds stand for. These should be the themes the blogging community should be focusing on and pointing out the Rs are opposed to them

by KBowe on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 06:44:43 PM EST

Concur (3.00 / 2)

They should do this stuff anyway. Who are they trying to befriend, 60 old farts, or the Middle Class?

by Paul Goodman on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:29:08 PM EST

Re: Concur (none / 0)

I'm with the first guy who responded (Paul Goodman, right?). Why don't the Dems do this anyway? It's what the Republicans would do. They (the Dems) could just say that they figured out that the Republican agenda isn't the American public's agenda, and that they were elected by the people to represent them, so that's what they're doing - blah blah blah. Make the Republicans vote down their ideas, and take those "no" votes all the way to the ballot box in 2006.

There's no use in playing nice with the Republican party.

by cedemaagd on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:10:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The nuclear option (none / 0)

One thing you folks have forgotten: The motion to proceed can be filibustered too. As long as you hold 51 votes, everything is fine, but this is no long term solution. The pressure that wayward R's will be under would be INTENSE! The best long term solution is a DEMOCRATIC senate!

by tall4562 on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 07:29:38 PM EST

Re: The nuclear option (none / 0)

Lets remember that they don't want to turn
the Senate into the House. They want
this place to be kind of mellow, where
they can get real work done.

Frist is betting heavily on Delay by doing
this. And Dobson and the crew don't have
the pull to get it all in front of them
now, many reaaally conservative churches
here are saying that they just don't want
to be a pawn of the GOP.

Maybe thats why Frist distanced himself
from scripture in his last talk..?

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nuclear option (none / 0)

Not sure what you are getting at... This strategy is for the time when they get rid of the filibuster. So that wont be a problem.

But i dont know about the process of legislation in the senate, so maybe the majority can stop it. I read somewhere that they can just send it back to committee...

Is that true??

by phemfrog on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:48:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A good start, but (none / 0)

These are all good bills that deserve to be promoted even if they continue to defer to the majority on the agenda. Let people know what isn't happening because the GOP controls the Senate.

However, it would be better if these could be grouped into simpler themes, to better fit into the paltry sound bite culture of television. It's pathetic, but it is how the game is played. A list of seven won't get the coverage it deserves.

by willpax on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:16:23 PM EST

Re: A good start, but (none / 0)

HOw long was Newt's dreaded "Contract With America"?

Matt Flynn

by Flynnieous on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 10:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A good start, but (none / 0)

A paperback book.

by craverguy on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Can something like this (none / 0)

be tried at the committee level? I just love the idea of putting bills like this forward, forcing Reeps to vote on them, then running ads saying "Senator B. L. Zebub voted against raising the minimum wage" or "voted against better education" or "voted against veterans" come election season. There's a relative few Reep Senators up next year -- making it easier to figure out which committees and issues to target.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 08:50:32 PM EST

Hell I say , pay as you go - (none / 0)

Just put that bill up on the floor
right now.

People should be talking over how
we spend in this federal government.

Why keep the good stuff off
the table? Democrats speaking up for
fiscal responsibility is the essence
of the Dean message.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 09:01:01 PM EST

Re: Hell I say , pay as you go - (none / 0)

I couldn't agree more!!!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 09:14:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why (none / 0)

Can anyone tell me why the Dems didn't do this earlier? I am flabbergasted that they are only doing it now as a threat??? Why aren't they doing it because it's the right thing to do - because it is the just and principled thing to do? Why shouldn't these bills be introduced every session so that every election cycle there is an easy contrast to campaign on? I feel like I must be missing something totally obvious but ... why not?

by vrtlczyk on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:01:06 AM EST

Wha?????? (none / 0)

We can do that? [does that squeaky-squeaky eye rubbing thing Jon Stewart does]

Can someone with a greater understanding of Senate rules fill in some of the blanks here? How does this work? I had no idea you could circumvent the committees to get a bill on the floor. I can't imagine you can just read the bill during open floor time and demand an up-or-down vote. That's the whole point of committees, to streamline the process and prevent bills from coming up willy-nilly, right?

So if this is true, why haven't we been doing this all the time? I.e. why not do it in the run-up before every election so we have great grist for the attack ad mill? Do you mean to say that the only reason we haven't been doing this every year we've been in the minority is out of senatorial courtesy, and just now we're realizing that Republicans aren't very courteous?!?!?!?

[sounds of head exploding]

by Crazy Vaclav on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 11:01:22 AM EST

I read this differently (none / 0)

The Dems have said that their response to the nuclear option will be to stall the Senate. As such, my take on this is that Reid wants the Dems to have positive agenda, not simply the negative one of stalling the Senate. That is, take the Republican language about wanting an up and down vote and use it on policy questions where the GOP doesn't really want an up and down vote.

I hadn't assumed these bills were new. I had assumed instead that they were ones the Dems have had in the ir pocket for awhile and that the GOP was denying them a hearing.

If this is indeed what Reid has planned, I think it is a good idea. The Democrats can't just play a negative game without badly losing a PR war. Demanding votes on a popular social agenda is quite brilliant. It points out Republican hypocrisy on the insistence of up-and-down votes, draws attention to popular parts of the Dem agenda, and sets a clear positive goal for which Democrats will allow other bills to proceed. And it is safe. No way will the GOP allow votes on most of those things.

by Raskolnikov on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:25:05 PM EST

more (none / 0)

As for why don't the Dems do it anyway, the current situation illustrates how dependent Senate functionality is on rules, precedent, and tradition. It is one thing to threaten escalation in response to an attack on those traditions. It is another to do it when one is a minority party, and just lost a major election with incredibly high turnout.

Point is that the Dems should still use this agenda, but not halt the Senate for it, if the GOP declines to go nuclear.

by Raskolnikov on Tue Apr 26, 2005 at 12:28:53 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.