An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The GOP’s No-Exit Strategy (Guest Voice)

WASHINGTON — Normal human beings — let’s call them real Americans — cannot understand why, 10 months after President Obama’s inauguration, Congress is still tied down in a procedural torture chamber trying to pass the health care bill Obama promised in his campaign.

Last year, the voters gave him the largest popular vote margin won by a presidential candidate in 20 years. They gave Democrats their largest Senate majority since 1976 and their largest House majority since 1992.

Obama didn’t just offer bromides about hope and change. He made quite specific pledges. You’d think that the newly empowered Democrats would want to deliver quickly.

But what do real Americans see? On health care, they read about this or that Democratic senator prepared to bring action to a screeching halt out of displeasure with some aspect of the proposal. They first hear that a bill will pass by Thanksgiving, and then learn it might not get a final vote until after the New Year.

Is it any wonder that Congress has miserable approval ratings? Is it surprising that independents, who want their government to solve a few problems, are becoming impatient with the current majority?

Democrats in the Senate — the House is not the problem — need to have a long chat with themselves and decide whether they want to engage in an act of collective suicide.

But it’s also time to start paying attention to how Republicans, with Machiavellian brilliance, have hit upon what might be called the Beltway-at-Rush-Hour Strategy, aimed at snarling legislative traffic to a standstill so Democrats have no hope of reaching the next exit.

We know what happens when drivers just sit there when they’re supposed to be moving. They get grumpy, irascible and start turning on each other, which is exactly what Democrats are doing now.

Republicans know one other thing: Practically nobody is noticing their delay-to-kill strategy. Who wants to discuss legislative procedure when there’s so much fun and profit in psychoanalyzing Sarah Palin?

Yet there was a small break in the Curtain of Obstruction this week when Republican senators unashamedly ate every word they had spoken when George W. Bush was in power about the horrors of filibustering nominees for federal judgeships.

On Tuesday, a majority of Republicans tried to block a vote on the appointment of David F. Hamilton, a rather moderate jurist, to a federal appeals court.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama explained the GOP’s about-face by saying: “I think the rules have changed.”

That was actually a helpful comment, because the Republicans have changed the rules on Senate action up and down the line. Hamilton’s case is just the one instance that finally got a little play.

Thankfully, this filibuster failed because some Republicans were embarrassed by it. But Republican delaying tactics have made Obama far too wary about judicial nominations for fear of controversy. He is well behind his predecessor in filling vacancies, a shameful capitulation to obstruction. There’s also the fact that the nomination of Christopher Schroeder as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, which helps to vet judges, is snarled — guess where? — in the Senate.

Republicans are using the filibuster to stall action even on bills that most of them support. Remember: The rule is to keep Democrats from ever reaching the exit.

As of last Monday, the Senate majority had filed 58 cloture motions requiring 32 recorded votes. One of the more outrageous cases involved an extension in unemployment benefits, a no-brainer in light of the dismal economy. The bill ultimately cleared the Senate earlier this month by 98-0 — yes, that is a zero.

The vote came only after the Republicans launched three filibusters against the bill and also tried to lard it with unrelated amendments, delaying passage by nearly a month. And you wonder why it’s so hard to pass health care?

Defenders of the Senate always say the Founders envisioned it as a deliberative body that would cool the passions of the House. But Sessions unintentionally blew the whistle on how what’s happening now has nothing to do with the Founders’ design.

The rules have changed. The extra-constitutional filibuster is being used by the minority, with extraordinary success, to make the majority look foolish, ineffectual and incompetent. By using Republican obstructionism as a vehicle for forcing through their own narrow agendas, supposedly moderate Democratic senators will only make themselves complicit in this humiliation.


This column is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV in full. (c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group

  • vey9
    "The rules have changed. The extra-constitutional filibuster is being used by the minority, with extraordinary success, to make the majority look foolish, ineffectual and incompetent."

    I was trying to remember when the filibuster rule was changed from a delaying tactic to a requirement of a super majority to get anything passed and the answer seems to be in the eighties or nineties with little fanfare.

    This is a good article that explains quite a bit and why I don't remember, before the eighties filibusters being such a big deal and that's because they weren't.

    http://scriptamus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/solu...

    "But today, a Senator has to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a day for his or her campaign. The Senator has public and private speeches to give, constituents to see, funds to raise. The modern Senator with air travel takes a 3 or 4 day weekend to go back to his home state. An old fashioned filibuster would really inconvenience ALL the majority senators and the filibustering minority as well. They just didn’t want to suffer that inconvenient. "

    The real answer is to change the rule back.
  • superdestroyer
    The Senate bill is supposedly over 2000 pages. Why would any competent Senator want to vote on such a bill in the next couple of days. How could any Senators staff have the time to go over the bill. How could any competent Senator be able to debate the issues if their staff does not have the time to read and study the massive bill.

    Shouldn't every committee in the SEnator start up with hearings on the specifics of the bill instead of blindly voting on something that has not been read or reviewed.
  • JSpencer
    As has been mentioned many times, and forgotten by the reform detractors, healthcare in America has steadily been getting more expensive and exclusive. Those who put their energies into reinforcing that worsening status quo without showing any desire to bring forth solutions are showing how little they really care about the issue. They may succeed in sinking even the highly imperfect legislation that's been proposed so far, but what do they offer in it's place? All I see is more demonizing, more misrepresentation and no solutions. Is partisanship the only thing that matters anymore? Sure looks like it..
  • DLS
    Dionne blows it again -- no surprise, given him and his circle, as well as the quality of the choir to whom he is preaching, to agreement if not admiration. [rolling eyes]

    The Dems have overreached progressively this year and their excesses led to their own disruption.

    Now they're trying to recover. It's especially noteworthy that the Senate, in addition to the House, pulled itself out of its splayed-on-the-ground position and actually resumed making "progress." They may now be back on schedule to produce bad legislation on this issue, too, by the end of the year. That has been the record so far, and it stands to reason (among reasonable people, if not the dregs who support the "reform" effort with little to no intellectual or moral substance, or proper direction) that the Senate bill is bad, and the only question now is how bad, or worse, the Senate-House conference "product" will be.
  • JSpencer
    Speaking of "intellectual or moral substance", it shouldn't be necessary to point out that vilification is no substitute for problem solving. . . but sadly, it does seem to be necessary.
  • DLS
    "vilification is no substitute for problem solving. . . but sadly, it does seem to be necessary"

    Given the depth of the Demmie base, it's no surprise. Hence even Obama himself bashed the insurers.
  • DLS
    "Shouldn't every committee in the SEnator start up with hearings on the specifics of the bill instead of blindly voting on something that has not been read or reviewed."

    That would leave the faithful unhappy or upset at such failure or questioning of "progress" or "solutions."

    Besides, it's not as if the faithful are willing to read the legislation (as long as it has "health care" on it and they're told it's a solution, great), or even able to read and understand it.

    At this point, "progress" will likely be paramount and we'll see little or no delays in getting to conference.
  • Leonidas
    Normal human beings — let’s call them real Americans — cannot understand why, 10 months after President Obama’s inauguration, Congress is still tied down in a procedural torture chamber trying to pass the health care bill Obama promised in his campaign.


    Easy, rather than pass the reform items that Both parties and most Americans could support and already have passed the democrats are trying to push through their wish list from decades past and holding up meaningful reform in those areas where everyone agrees. They want a partisan agenda more than bipartisan reforms that could immediately go into effect, trying to substitute a pipe dream for reality.

    Last year, the voters gave him the largest popular vote margin won by a presidential candidate in 20 years. They gave Democrats their largest Senate majority since 1976 and their largest House majority since 1992.


    They won an election against a candidate who didn't run...George Bush, not much if anything more.

    Obama didn’t just offer bromides about hope and change. He made quite specific pledges. You’d think that the newly empowered Democrats would want to deliver quickly.


    *chortle*

    He offered mostly general non specific statements, and many of the specifics he did offer regarding healthcare didn't come to pass so far. Lets see, there was that C-Span coverage he promised for negoations, and instead we got him cutting backroom deals with Big Pharma

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promise...

    There was that campaign attacking of Hilary clinton during the primary about folks going to jail and paying fines for not having mandatory healthcare

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnDxqboVxMY

    and what are the democrats trying to pass now? the same thing candidate Obama spoke against.

    LOL, to say the Democrats have a mandate due to the election to break their election comments and promises is utterly ridiculous.

    The Democratic party needs to get back to the things the American people approve of, and not this agenda that the people didn't give them a mandate for or there will be hell to pay in 2010 and 2012 at the ballot box, just like in Virginia and New Jersey .
  • JSpencer
    Is it any wonder that Congress has miserable approval ratings?

    Nope. Look at their list of "accomlishments". Even if there is a bill passed it will likely (thanks to the party of "no" and the party of "no spine") be a joke.

    Is it surprising that independents, who want their government to solve a few problems, are becoming impatient with the current majority?

    So what? The so-called independents are as ineffectual as anyone else.


blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC