Monday, December 20, 2010

Holiday Break

Thanks for checking in at Center-Left Progressive.  We have had a great start to the blog with surprisingly good traffic but now we are taking a break for the holidays.  Check back after Christmas for more interesting (and more frequent) posts on the major political issues of the day including our first U.S. Senate election forecast for 2012.

Happy Holidays!

Thursday, December 16, 2010

FILIBUSTER ABUSE: How Republicans are Killing Democracy

The Republicans in the Senate, led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have abused the Senate rules to such a degree that our legislative democracy is in jeopardy.  Never before in the history of the Senate has the minority party been so steadfast in their desire to delay, obstruct and prevent majority rule.  The secret holds of nominations, the objecting to unanimous consent to bring bills to the floor for debate, the requirement that bills be read in their entirety aloud for the record, and the insistence that every bill be subject to a cloture vote (a vote to end debate) has ground the Senate down to a near standstill.  There have been over 115 cloture votes in the current session of Congress with over 400 bills that have passed the House waiting action by the Senate.  This is not how the Senate was designed to work by our founders.

The Senate was created during the Constitutional Convention as a body in which each state would be represented equally thereby giving less populated states a voice in the legislative process.  With membership in the House of Representatives based on a state’s population, giving large states an edge in legislating, a compromise had to be crafted and the Senate was formed.  The rules under which the Senate conducts business are not in the Constitution.  They have been created by each new Senate every two years.  Many of the procedures the Senate follows are based on tradition but can be changed.  Never before has there been such a dramatic need for change in the Senate.

Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC recently broadly discussing the changes that he and other Senators are developing.  Senator Tom Harkin indicated the same thing during an appearance on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC.  Both senators are on the record as saying they favor changing the filibuster rules but neither Senator went into the specifics of a plan.  They both did say the only time to make such changes is on the first day of the new Senate in January 2011.  Any change in rules will only require the approval of 51 Senators.  This will be objected to by the minority but Vice-President Biden, the President of the Senate, has the final word on this procedural maneuver.  And with, hopefully, 53 Democratic Senators on board with the changes, they will pass.

I would like to see the rules be changed to make a filibuster an extraordinary occurrence, not the regular order of business.  If Senators want to keep the 60 vote threshold to end debate, so be it, but what happens after a failed cloture vote must change.  Currently, it is too easy to filibuster.  Senators voting against ending debate can filibuster without debating anything.  They vote against cloture and then return to their offices or go home until the Senate majority leader schedules another cloture vote.  No debate on the bill in question is required.  To me, the original purpose of voting against cloture is the desire to have more debate on the bill.  It was not supposed to be an attempt to obstruct the will of the majority.

I would suggest that once a cloture vote fails, all Senators voting against cloture and wanting to filibuster a bill must remain on the floor of the Senate at their desks for further debate.  This debate would last for a period of 24 continuous hours.  During this time, no Senator may leave the chamber for more than 10 minutes in a given hour.  If a Senator is away from the chamber for longer than 10 minutes, debate ends immediately and a final vote on the bill is scheduled.  After 24 hours of continuous debate, another cloture vote is mandatory.  If the vote fails, the process is repeated.  Eventually, cloture will be invoked and a final vote will take place.

Furthermore, no motion to bring a bill to the floor for debate can be filibustered.  Every bill should be allowed to come to the floor of the Senate without objection for a full debate of the topic.  Isn’t that the job of a Senator, to debate and decide on legislation?

Additionally, no judicial appointment below the U.S. Supreme Court or administration appointee should be subject to delaying tactics of any kind, including the filibuster.  If a Senator places a hold on a nomination it should be done transparently by the Senator with a stated objection.  The hold should last for a maximum of 72 hours to clear up the matter in question.  Only two holds should be allowed on any one nomination.

A Supreme Court nomination should be subject to the filibuster rules due to the importance of that position.  Decisions by lower level judges can always be appealed but a Supreme Court decision is final.  A nominee to the highest court must be subject to minority party review to help ensure that the most qualified people are seated on the Court.

Hopefully, these are the types of changes that the Senators are contemplating.  If the Senate is allowed to carry on as it does currently, the next two years will see more gridlock as the Republicans will continue to make it difficult for President Obama and the Democrats to succeed in improving the country.    




         

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Wikileaks: Much Ado About Nothing

The current controversy over Wikileaks is getting out of control.  Some people are comparing the leaks to the Pentagon Papers and news shows like Countdown on MSNBC have had Daniel Ellsberg on to further this connection.  It is doubtful that Wikileaks rises to the historic significance of the Pentagon Papers.  Exposing the lies and misinformation surrounding the Vietnam War is much more important to the nation than finding out what some third world dictator said about another third world dictator. 

Wikileaks is an embarrassment to the US government.  Fareed Zakaria of CNN and Time magazine wrote a good article about this topic. In the article, he makes a strong case that the real problem of Wikileaks is the inability of our government to secure these documents and it may reduce the willingness of our diplomatic corps to commit anything to paper going forward.  But rising to the level of treason or espionage is quite a stretch of the imagination.  In fact, much of the Wikileaks information that has been released confirms public statements that our government has been making all along.

For instance, US diplomats have been saying that leaders in the Middle East have been warning them that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and needs to be stopped.  The Wikileaks cables on this subject prove such claims.  So, in that regard, there isn’t much breaking news. 

When all is said and done, Wikileaks will be much ado about nothing.  Freedom of information will still be alive and well.  There will be no espionage case against Julian Assange but he will feel the full weight of the US influence around the world.  Was he so naïve as to believe that nothing would happen if he embarrassed the United States?  Perhaps he should have considered his legal troubles in Sweden before embarking on this mission.  And another crisis of the month will replace Wikileaks in the news cycle.  

        

Monday, December 13, 2010

New Way Forward on DADT

President Obama was right in the way he handled the attempt to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.  While, once again, the progressive left may have wanted more decisive action by the president, deferring to Congress was prudent since this policy was legislative in nature.  But now that the Senate has refused to invoke cloture and not allow DADT to come to a final vote, a new way forward on this issue is clear.

The Pentagon study of this issue was unprecedented and conclusive.  The military overwhelmingly supports the repeal of DADT.  Polls repeatedly show that the American people believe in allowing gay people to serve openly in the military.  With all of this evidence in favor of repeal, President Obama should take a page from the Harry Truman playbook and issue an executive order stopping the enforcement of DADT and effectively ending this reprehensible policy.

In the 1940’s, Truman issued an order integrating the military despite overwhelming opposition to integration at that time.  Close to ninety percent of the military, as well as the public, were opposed to the order.  And yet, Truman did it anyway because it was the right thing to do.  The military followed orders, integrated their ranks, and the rest is history.

President Obama does not face those types of obstacles.  He only faces a minority of Senators who are either homophobic or are playing politics with the issue, not wanting to give a victory to the president on anything.  Issuing an executive order ending DADT would not be circumventing the legislative process considering majorities in both Houses of Congress favor repeal.  Only the arcane rules of the Senate stand in the way of allowing majority rule.  Politically, this action would help improve his standing among the progressive base since they repeatedly call for action on this issue as promised during the campaign.  More importantly, President Obama would be doing the right thing for the military and for the nation.
    

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Democratic Division Could Lead to a President Palin

The progressive community is upset over President Obama’s eager willingness to negotiate with Republicans.  In many respects it does seem like the president wants to avoid confrontation.  But for the progressive community to suggest a primary challenge to Obama is reckless.  Imagine how bad off this country could be with a President Palin.

Some may scoff at the notion of a President Palin because of her high negative poll numbers and the high percentage of people who believe that she is unqualified to be president.  The old adage about only getting one chance to make a first impression has merit.  Goodness knows that she made a horrible first impression with many voters during the 2008 presidential campaign.  It would be unwise, however, to ignore her chances of becoming the nominee of the Republican Party in 2012.  Palin has over 75% of Republicans having a favorable impression of her and that should not be underestimated in the primaries.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the half-governor does get the nomination of the Republicans.  Let us also assume that the economy is slightly better off than it is now.  A Republican majority in the House will not allow President Obama to have many successes so it is a real possibility that the economy will still be sluggish as we approach the 2012 election.  Add to that a divided Democratic Party and/or a dispirited progressive base.  What would be the chances of Palin getting 270 electoral votes and becoming president?  We need to look back at the results of the 2008 election and make some calculated guesses as to what states Sarah Palin could win in 2012.

In 2008, the McCain-Palin ticket won the following states with the percentage of voters choosing the Republican ticket in parentheses.

Oklahoma (66)                        Kentucky (58)                          Arizona (54)
Wyoming (65)                         Nebraska (57)*                        South Dakota (53)
Utah (63)                                 Kansas (57)                             North Dakota (53)
Idaho (61)                               Tennessee (57)                         Georgia (52)
Alabama (61)                          Mississippi (56)                        Montana (50)
Alaska (60)                             West Virginia (56)                    Missouri (50)      
Louisiana (59)                        Texas (55)
Arkansas (59)                         South Carolina (54)                  

(* - Nebraska awards electoral votes by congressional district and Obama won one district out of five.)

Given the attitudes of voters in these states toward the president, it would be doubtful that any of these red states would switch and vote for President Obama over Sarah Palin.  These states are where some of her most loyal supporters reside.  This combination of states yielded 173 electoral votes for McCain-Palin in 2008.  Based on the projected changes in the congressional districts due to the new census data, these states would give a Palin ticket 179 electoral votes in 2012.  That puts her 91 electoral votes from the presidency.

The following states voted for the Obama-Biden ticket in 2008 with their vote percentage in parentheses.

Hawaii (72)                            Maine (58)                           Minnesota (54)
Vermont (68)                         Washington (58)                  Iowa (54)
Rhode Island (63)                  Oregon (57)                         Colorado (54)
New York (63)                      New Jersey (57)                   Virginia (53)
Delaware (62)                       New Mexico (57)                 Ohio (52)
Maryland (62)                       Michigan (57)                       Florida (51)
Massachusetts (62)               Wisconsin (56)                     Indiana (50)
Illinois (62)                            Pennsylvania (55)                North Carolina (50)
Connecticut (61)                   Nevada (55)                         *Nebraska 2nd (50)
California (61)                      New Hampshire (54)

(* Nebraska awards electoral votes by congressional district.  Obama won the Omaha district with 50 percent of the vote and received one electoral vote.)

Based on the new census projections, this combination of states would give president Obama 359 electoral votes and he would win a second term.  Using the assumptions mentioned above about a dispirited base of a divided Democratic Party could translate into a 2 to 3 percent reduction in turnout for Obama.  Plus, how many of the first time voters and young voters are going to vote in 2012 after the historic chance to vote for the first African American president is no longer a factor?  Will these voters be as enthusiastic about voting again?  For the sake of argument, let us take another 2 or 3 percent away from Obama.  These reductions totaling 4 to 6 percent put 11 states in play with a total of 140 electoral votes.  They would be: Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Not to mention, given the results of the 2010 midterms, can Wisconsin or Michigan be considered safe for Democrats?  It is a very real possibility that, using these assumptions, Sarah Palin could swing a combination of these states to her column and pick up the additional 91 electoral votes to reach 270 and become president. 

Progressives have every right and obligation to voice their displeasure with the president.  That is part of being a Democrat.  After all, we don’t want to be parrots like those on the right who can never stray from their Republicans-can-do-no-wrong talking points.  But taking dissatisfaction with the president to a level which could cause a President Palin is reckless.  If Palin were to ever win the presidency, then God help us all.     

Friday, December 10, 2010

AGREE TO COMPROMISE: Why Progressives Should Support Obama


The current uproar in the progressive community over the proposed compromise on the Bush tax cuts is understandable but misguided.  I share the frustration of the president’s liberal base over his seeming unwillingness to stand up and be a tough negotiator.  No one would have ever anticipated that President Obama and his administration would be so poor at communication and messaging.  But, to be so outraged as to be willing to scuttle this compromise is misguided and fails to take into account the current political environment and recent history.

Back in September, I recall several people at Daily Kos writing about the need for Congress to separate the tax cut issue into two bills, one for the middle class and one for the wealthy.  The writers pointed out that after the midterm election there would be a real possibility of getting nothing done to further progressive causes if we suffered the size of loss that was being predicted.  Inexplicably, Nancy Pelosi did not act on this issue in the House.  And in the Senate, where filibuster abuse is rampant, Harry Reid was never going to persuade 60 senators to agree on decoupling the Bush Tax Cut package.  So there was no action.

The political environment has not changed since October.  The Republicans in the Senate are not going to stop their obstructionist tactics and suddenly go along with Harry Reid on the issue of taxes.  Progressives must face the reality that the Republicans do not care what happens to the American people and are willing to let millions suffer to gain political power.  The American people are on our side in this issue and have been all along.  And yet, they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans in the midterms.  With no electoral consequences, why would Republicans change their approach?

Adam Green of the PCCC has appeared on MSNBC over the last several days saying that the president should use the power of the bully pulpit and go out to the people and convince them to support the progressive position on taxes.  In Mr. Green’s mind, an appearance by the president will somehow magically convince a senator to vote with him on any issue.  He has cited what the president did with Dennis Kucinich during the health care debate as proof of how this would work.  I would like to have Adam explain how an appearance by President Obama in West Virginia is going to change the vote of Senator Manchin.  Or, an appearance in Nebraska is going to win over Ben Nelson.  The same could be said in Missouri with Claire McCaskill, Indiana with Evan Bayh, Arkansas with Mark Pryor, Virginia with Jim Webb, and in Connecticut with Joe Lieberman. 

The situation gets even worse for progressives in January 2011 when the Republicans take over the House and our majority in the Senate shrinks to 53, including ConservaDems.  How will we get anything we want like an extension of unemployment insurance passed under those circumstances?  We won’t.  Republicans have no interest in helping Americans in need if it means taxes will be raised on the rich.  They would be perfectly happy to let taxes increase for the middle class and blame President Obama and the Democrats for it.  That is why I strongly urge progressives to support this compromise.  A divided Democratic Party could give our country a President Palin.  We should never forget that.