• Over 1,000,000 Served
• Cutting Off Debate
• To Christian Ears
• Naomi Chazan
• The Enemy Within
• Letters to the Editor
In Their Own Words
• Dennis Kucinich
• Students Against AIDS
Raising A Mensch
• Survive Christmas
• A Joyful Noise
The Kosher Table
• Quick Hanukkah Feast
Special Dossier: Presidential Primaries
Cutting Off Debate
Our dysfunctional Congress
Public approval ratings for the 110th Congress have plummeted to a historic low of 18% [Gallup
Poll] --- even lower than the approval rating for Bush. Many have blamed the Democratic Congress for their failure to live up to many of their campaign promises such as getting us out of the quagmire in Iraq or holding the Bush administration accountable.
On the other hand, the House of Representatives under the direction of Nancy Pelosi has passed many promised pieces of legislation including her famous "100
What went wrong?
Sometimes the problem lies with the White House.
Since the Democrats took control of Congress, Bush has vetoed:
Democrats hope that by taking control of the White House next year they will not have to contend with presidential vetoes. However, in most cases, that will not make a difference because the legislation never got to the White House.
The vast majority of the House’s accomplishments simply died in the Senate.
Why? Don’t the Democrats control the Senate?
Why can’t they pass their own legislation?
Actually, only 49 Senators belong to the Democratic party, so the Democratic razor-thin "majority" depends entirely on the support of independents Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT). However, while Lieberman does caucus with the Democrats, as often as not, he votes with the Republicans, leaving the Democrats in the minority.
Even when the Democrats get the support of a handful of Republicans, they often can not turn their majority into legislative successes because Senate rules allow a determined minority to filibuster bills and prevent them from coming up for vote.
The Senate operates by consensus. A bill cannot be voted into law without ending
debate, and according to the rules of the Senate this requires a vote for "cloture"
by a 60-vote supermajority.
To break a Republican filibuster, Democrats would need the support of three-fifths
of the Senate, a nearly impossible feat.
Last July, McClatchy reported "This year Senate Republicans are threatening filibusters
to block more legislation than ever before." McClatchy continued: "Nearly one in six roll-call votes
in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues,
this 110th Congress will be
on track to
the previous record number of cloture votes"
Republican whip Trent Lott told Roll Call,
"The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...
and so far, it is working for us."
This is ironic, since in the rare instances where the Democrats tried to filibuster, the press declared their action "extremist" and they were threatened with the "nuclear option" --- the suspension of their ability to extend debate. In contrast, the media describes the deliberately obstructionist Republican tactic simply as a "procedure hurdle which requires 60 votes to pass legislation." In fact, usually the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill. The Democrats only once forced the Republican minority to carry out their threat making the Republicans literally stay up all night to block the return of our troops from Iraq.
As part of this deliberate obstruction, they prevented a simple up or down vote on a variety of
popular measures including:
By shutting down the Senate, the Republicans hope the voters will punish the Democrats for coming up empty handed,
yet if the country truly wants to move ahead with the Democratic agenda,
Americans should not take out their wrath on the Democratic incumbents.
Making Congress live up to its promise.
Americans need to send reinforcements by electing more democrats, conceivably giving them a filibuster-proof super-majority .
A filibuster-proof super-majority? It sounds like an unrealistic pipe dream.
The Senate is renewed in thirds every two years. 35 seats are up for election in 2008,
and the Democrats would have to pick up nine to do this.
If the Democrats can pick up six or seven seats, Republicans will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the discipline necessary to maintain a lengthy filibuster.
Normally, gaining this many seats would be nearly impossible, but coming on the heels of the 2004 election, anything seems possible. In fact, the big political contributors are putting their money on the Democrats, thus reversing the historic pattern of Republicans receiving the lion's share of campaign contributions.
Moreover, the electoral map is in the Democrats favor.
Keep in mind when this group of Senators was originally elected in 2002
and how popular George W. Bush was at
the time. He was still basking in the glory of 9/11 and was in the process of
convincing the country that Iraq was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The Democrats failed miserably at the polls. As a result,
the Republicans must defend 23 of the seats up for election while the
Democrats need only defend 12 seats.
The only Democratic seats in serious trouble are Mary Landrieu's seat in Louisiana
and Tim Johnson's seat in South Dakota.
In 2002, Mary Landrieu won in a run-off election with fifty-two percent of the vote. Since
then many Democrats have left the state as a result of Hurricane Katrina. However, Bush’s handling of Katrina and the history of Senator David Vitter (R-LA)
frequenting prostitutes will put a damper on the GOP chances there.
Prof. Andrew S. Tanenbaum,
"Tim Johnson is one of the two most endangered Democratic senators.
He got just 50% of the vote in 2002 against John Thune, who ran again in 2004
and beat Tom Daschle. Furthermore, South Dakota is a heavily Republican state.
Despite his narrow win in 2002, Johnson has a +46% net approval rating,
so the people of South Dakota like the way he is doing his job.
Unfortunately, Johnson suffered a cerebral hemorrhage Dec. 13, 2006.
He was operated on immediately and is now recovering.
All signs show that he intends to run for reelection in 2008.
While he is in no condition to campaign now,
a group of his (Democratic) friends in the Senate have begun holding fundraisers for him,
so when he is ready to hit the campaign trail, he will have plenty of money.
All this puts potential Republican candidates in a bind.
Actively campaigning against a very popular senator who had a stroke makes them look mean.
If Gov. Mike Rounds runs, it will be a real horse race; if Rounds declines,
Johnson will be reelected as the GOP bench is thin here."
Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia
Meanwhile, the latest
SurveyUSA poll shows that Democrats are leading or tied with the Republicans
in the races to capture Republican seats in Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Virginia.
Republican Senator Susan Collins' seat in Maine will be competitive as she reneges on her promise to serve only two terms. The bookies in London set almost three to
two odds in favor of Congressman Tom Allen (D-ME) defeating her as he already represents half of the state.
If New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson
does poorly in his presidential campaign on Super Tuesday, he may switch to "plan B", running for the Senate race where he would be a heavy favorite. However, he would have to move quickly since the deadline is February 12. Due to term limits,
he will out of a job if he does not!
Oregon’s Republican Senator Gordon Smith is part of an endangered species: Moderate Republicans.
However, Oregon is a consistently blue state, and supporting State House Speaker Jeff Merkley will be a priority for the DSCC.
The remaining Republican states are better defended, but even there Democrats have opportunities.
Senator Ted Stevens is running for reelection despite having his home raided by the FBI as part of a corruption probe. He will be 91 years old by the end of his next term, and he has made Alaska look ridiculous with his description of the internet as a "bunch of tubes", and with his "bridge to nowhere"
(a $320,000,000 project designed to save the 8,900 residents of tiny
Ketchikan the $6 ferry ride to their town’s airstrip.)
Republican Whip and former Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
recently announced his plans
to resign from the Senate. By resigning before the end of the year, the new law requiring
Senators to wait two years before lobbying will not applying to him, and Senator Lott will
only have to wait one year. Meanwhile, Trent Lott's position puts another Red seat into
play at the worse time for the Republicans. According to
Prof. Andrew S. Tanenbaum,
"Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS) will soon name Lott's replacement,
and that person will have to stand for relection to the remainder of Lott's term in 2008.
Speculation is that Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS) is a likely choice.
While Mississippi is heavily Republican, it is not a lost cause for the Democrats.
The Congressional delegation is split 50-50 and the Democrats control both houses of the
state legislature. If former
governor Ronnie Musgrove (D-MS) runs, he might be able to put up a good fight."
Even Idaho might be in play if Senator Larry Craig tries to maintain his seat despite having been arrested in June for "disorderly behavior" for encroaching on a neighboring
stall in the men’s room at the Minneapolis airport.
The irony of it all
How ironic would it be if the party of "family values" lost its power to obstruct the Senate because of Vitter frequenting a house of prostitution and Craig conducting
himself improperly in an airport bathroom?
In the end, the best chance for the Democrats to solidify their control of the House and the Senate would be to direct their financial support to promising candidates
in "red" states, and above all to nominate a Presidential contender who will win not through some Electoral College calculus in the so-called battleground states, but who will truly inspire widespread support. Such a candidate making inroads into "red states" would elect new Democratic Senators on his coattails, and bring an end to our dysfunctional Senate.
Did you enjoy this article?
Email this page to a friend
© 2007. Permission is hereby granted
to redistribute this issue of The Philadelphia Jewish Voice or (unless
specified otherwise) any of the articles therein in their full original
form provided these same rights are conveyed to the reader and subscription
information to The Philadelphia Jewish Voice is provided. Subscribers
should be directed to http://www.pjvoice.com/Subscribe.htm.