EFCA: Sirota gets panties in a bunch
by skeptic06, Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 03:04:21 PM EDT
I have no aversion to criticizing or ridiculing Dem leaders in Congress when it's deserved. (No party man, me!)
But, in general, I think that Pelosi, Reid and their helpers have played the mediocre hands they've been dealt with a modicum of skill.
Sirota complains about Harry not have secreted the card check bill EFCA (HR 800) in a must-pass bill, and thus allowed its defeat.
He really gets quite worked up. He moves from suggesting mere incompetence to something rather darker:
Does it have something to do with Democrats wanting to set up a situation that allows them to claim they care about workers and labor rights, while making sure that those labor rights continue to get trampled? [...] And if we are, does it have something to do with the spate of stories about Big Business showering top Democratic leaders in cash and throwing Democratic Hill staffers offers of six-figure corporate lobbying jobs?
Walter Winchell lives!
You'll recall that when the the minimum wage bill HR 2 was brought to the Senate floor, cloture was first voted on the House-passed text; once (as expected) cloture was rejected on said text, tax sweeteners were added, and cloture rerun: spectactual success!
There never was as conference held on HR 2, and eventually the minimum wage (including sweeteners) was tacked onto the Iraq supplemental HR 1591 and got enacted.
Pretty much party line affairs, with none of the vulnerable GOP senators using the 8 available slots for gaining cover on the card check issue.
Point is: plenty more must-pass bills coming along to which HR 800 could be tacked.
Voting a stand-alone bill is not - pace Sirota - a lack of strategery, but a way of getting the balance of forces on record.
The other thing, of course, is that card check is one of those items on Bush's ever-lengthening list of veto-triggers.
Card check would be a natural rider for a must-pass bill in the right circumstances - factoring in the filibuster and veto risks and the politics that went with them.
I'd assume that, if it got that far, a game or two of veto-tennis would see it taken out of the bill it was taking a ride on.
But that's not to say that mileage couldn't be got out of the bill in the meantime.
For instance - what proportion of voters know what card check is? If Bush vetoes a bill because of it, perhaps that proportion will go up a bit.