Dr. Action and Mr. Pessimism

The nuclear option will go down tomorrow. First, from Dr. Action, here is what you can do:
  • 1. Sign up for text message alerts on your cell phone with People for the American Way. This way, you'll know instantly when we need to take action and what you need to do.

  • 2. Regionalization is becoming increasingly important - elected officials always respond more eagerly to their constituents, and good local media coverage is key. BlogPAC is helping to organize state-by-state efforts, so if you haven't yet signed up there, do so by clicking here. If you have a blog of your own, be sure to input that in the appropriate field. (Non-bloggers should sign up as well.)

  • 3. MoveOn PAC is organizing citizen filibusters - along the lines of the tremendously successful Princeton filibuster - tomorrow at noon. Click on over to their site to find a location near you. If you go, be sure to take a digital camera or a camcorder and post pics or videos online when you get home. Thanks to inflation, pictures are worth even more than 1,000 words these days.

  • 4. When things really, finally go down, everyone needs to be able to contact as many people as fast as possible. We need people to hear our unfiltered message from friends and family and co-workers and neighbors before they hear the sterile and misleading he-said/she-said version on the news. So people need to pull together email addresses for everyone they know before it happens so that our message can immediately spread virally.
Also, Reid has 49 votes. We need two more. If, and only if, you live in one of the states with a wavering Senator, give them a call. Here are the numbers:

Arlen Specter: (Pennsylvania)
DC Office: 202-224-4254
Philadelphia Office: 215-597-7200
Pittsburgh Office: 412-644-3400

John Warner: (Virginia)
DC Office: (202) 224-2023
Richmond Office: (804) 739-0247
Norfolk Office: (757) 441-3079

Mike Dewine: (Ohio)
DC Office: (202) 224-2315
Cleveland office: (216) 522-7272
Columbus office: (614) 469-5186

Chuck Hagel: (Nebraska)
DC Office:(202) 224-4224
Omaha Office: (402) 758-8981

If we get two of these, we win. If they get three, they win. Call late into the night into the night and leave messages if you have to. There are no business hours today or tomorrow.

And now for Mr. Pessimism...

We are going to lose. This does not mean, in any way, that we should stop fighting and not take the actions listed above. In fact, that we are going to lose makes taking them all the more important. If nothing else, this at least needs to turn into a good story for Democrats, even if it will result in bad policy.

But we are going to lose. Walter Shapiro notes:

The Republicans will probably win 51-49 or 50-50 with Dick Cheney breaking the tie when the Senate votes Tuesday on a rule change eliminating judicial filibusters. What leaves me baffled is why the Democrats don't take any deal that they can get from the handful of Republicans who remain rightly fearful about detonating this nuclear option. Blocking two or three right-wing appeals court judges and preserving the glimmer of a chance to filibuster if Bush nominates, say, Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court may, alas, be the best outcome liberals can hope for in difficult times
We are going to lose this one in terms of policy. Hopefully we can win it in terms of politics.

Last month, I wrote about Reid's plan to win this when it comes to winning the politics of the nuclear option:

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

This is a greaqt response. It will immediately force Republicans to vote down all of these popular issues. It will bust a huge hole throught the "party of no" spin that is beign hurled our way. It will immeidately show that Democrats have real values. It will show the huge gap betweent he two parties. I cannot in any way say that I will be sad that tehse bills will be pushed to the Senate floor because Republicans have invoked the nuclear option.

Also from last month, Matthew Yglesias offering an intriguing dissents from the current Democratic position on the filibuster:

This is why the remarkable thing about the filibuster debate is how little hypocrisy you're seeing from liberals on this front. Today's LA Times editorial page joins Noah, myself, Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic, Bruce Ackerman, Rick Hertzberg at The New Yorker, and many, many, many other liberals outside government in expressing dismay only that the GOP won't eliminate the filibuster on all issues. But however opportunistic the judges-only anti-filibuster stance is, the reality is that the nuclear option will pave the way for Democrats to eliminate legislative filibusters as well whenever they find themselves in the majority. When that happens, the GOP will find that while their only big legislative idea -- tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts -- is already immune to the filibuster, they can no longer block Democratic ideas.

It's become a clichéd trope of the right to say that liberals have nothing positive to offer, but it's simply not true. We've got at least two big ideas -- labor-law reform and universal health care -- that, historically, have only been beaten thanks to the filibuster and that, if passed, will generate self-sustaining political coalitions that the right will find it essentially impossible to ever defeat. There's a reason that right-wing parties in Canada and Europe never propose eliminating those countries' national health care systems, just as America's GOP doesn't try to abolish Medicare. And, of course, anti-union policies will become immeasurably harder to implement if it's made easier to unionize new groups of workers. Anti-filibuster conservatives aren't so much being hypocritical as they are shooting themselves in the foot, if not the head.

I do not think the filibuster should be eliminated, but this is at least something to look forward to. The elimination of the filibuster for judges will eventually lead to the elimination of the filibuster altogether, unless by some miracle Democrats regain control of the Senate in 2006. Once the filibuster is gone, there will come a time when Democrats regain the trifecta. At that point, there will be nothing to stop us from enacting a progressive agenda nationwide. As Jerome wrote:
I have found it hard to get riled up about the ending of the judicial filibuster in the Senate. If anything, I see more upside in the longrun. Here's why.

Republicans already get 95% of their conservative ideologues passed. I just don't believe that the net of a dozen more wingnuts on the bench will tip the scales. Meanwhile, Clinton had over 60 judges held up by Republicans, and many more vacancies.

This is a slippery slope. Getting rid of the judicial filibuster is the first step to getting rid of the filibuster entirely. Republicans will not be able to resist changing the rules for other enactments as well.

It's just about impossible for the Democrats to ever gain 60 seats in the Senate without the Republicans becoming totally regionalized. Given that Republicans are dominant, federally speaking, from the mountain states, into the southwest, and across the south, as well as being even with Democrats across the midwest, it's just not feasible that the GOP will become regionalized anytime soon.

Democrats will regain the Presidency and the Congress at some point. And it will likely be at a time when the country is fed up with conservative dogma, and ready for progressive enactment. The House is majority rule, so the only roadblock would be Conservatives in the Senate. The filibuster will be history, and the historical swing away from conservative dogma will be fast and furious.

We are going to lose this one. Our only hope in the short run will be to win the political fallout, which makes taking the actions I listed above of such importance. In the long rum, we can only hope this move will cause the downfall of conservatism itself.

Display:


Do what they do (none / 0)

get a few Dem millionaires to buy em off
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.
by Parker on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:07:17 PM EST

Not so sure (none / 0)

I am not so sure we will lose. I believe that if the GOP cannot get to 50, the fillibuster issue will lose by a lot more than one vote. If Warner and Hagel (I don't have much hope for my man, Arlen, unless he can find something in Scottish law) vote "nay", then I can see a stampede of the moderates
going with them. I agree if eliminating the fillibuster wins, it will be 50-50 with Cheney deciding, but if it loses it could be 55-45 or better.
by phillydem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:19:59 PM EST

50-50 with Cheney as tie breaker (3.00 / 1)

would be terrible for the rethugs politically...kos has some good stuff on Frist/strategy...it doesn't look good for them no matter hapens.
by aiko on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is one of the best posts ever! (none / 0)

I havn't been this excited since Nov.1st.
by aiko on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:20:23 PM EST

What if? (3.00 / 0)

Harry Reid has promised to bring regular Senate business to a snail's pace if the Republicans vote to end judicial fillibusters. If he is good for his word, how many of the judges will even get a chance to come up for a vote if the Dems never let Frist have unanimous consent on anything? Once this happens, Reid is going to bring Democratic bills to the floor and not defer to the majority party. So who cares if Frist wants to vote on Brown or Pryor or whoever? Reid is going to bring up bills on health care, veterans, labor laws and so forth and there'll be nothing Frist can do to stop that.

So for all the drama, might not the end result be that only Owens ever gets on the bench (and she will not make the 5th circuit appreciably worse)? The others will be sidelined by Democratic legislative priorities.

My sense is that Rove, through Bush, is the one pushing for Pricilla Owen. She's their buddy from Texas. I don't think they really give a rat's tail about the other nominees.

Just my two cents...

by phillydem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:40:20 PM EST

owen (none / 0)

They went with Owen hoping that the Dems primary objective would be over abortion rights. Rove's theory is that the Democrats can be represented as the "abortion party" first and foremost; we absolutely need to make clear that our opposition is to a judge who consistently engages in judicial activism on behalf of big corporations, especially insurance companies, and which hurts families not only by denying them their privacy and personal freedom of conscience on difficult decision but by denying them what they have by right worked and paid for, their health insurance.
by desmoulins on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Do People (none / 0)

Believe the Republicans won't just go on stealing elections?
by MNPundit on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:39:10 PM EST

Re: Why Do People (none / 0)

The Senate doesn't vote with chad ballots, does it?
by Drummond on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:43:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

our objectives (none / 0)

For right now, are three-fold.

1. To delay republican legislative action and confirmation as much as possible everywhere possible. We are in the minority and they have an ambitious agenda; time is our side.

This debate is good for us because since last week, there have been no legislative committee meetings and no substantive progress for them.
This will only serve to increase the internal pressure in their coalition between those who want big tax cuts and privatization of everything and those who want to abolish the Constitution and make America into a Christian nation. In this respect, having a lengthy debate and vote on a process issue is to our advantage.
(This is precisely why the Republican interest groups wanted this debate and vote now, not later when a SCOTUS seat came open.)

  1. To make clear how hard-line conservative and irresponsibly arrogant the Republican majority leadership is. In this respect, a losing vote might help us more than winning; after detonating the nuke bomb, everything FRist presents, on nominees or elswhere, is framed by the phrase, "under the new rules, the Republican leadership believes it can pass..." The entire agenda appears for what it is -- something that does not have majority support in the country or even the SEnate and could never pass except in "extraordinary circumstnaces'

  2. To force them to spend their political capital holding the coalition together this summer when they want to confirm a replacement for the already consistently conservative voting Rehnquist. So that they can't go for a similiarly hard-line extremist when they get a chance to replace a moderate Justice down the line.

IN other words, even if we lose the vote, which I believe we will (anyone whose plan involves relying on moderate republicans needs another plan ...), this issue works much better for us than we could have hoped it would play out.

For the rest of the session, we are clearly facing a majority that "will do literally anything, including change the rules" to get its hard-line agenda passed.

by desmoulins on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:40:02 PM EST

Dr. Action (none / 0)

Dr. Action shall vanquish Mr. Pessimism!
by DavidNYC on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:25:00 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.