Yet another reason to love Robert Byrd:

he is old enough that he can unreservedly lay the smackdown.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY): "Regular order!"

Byrd: "Who said that?"

Bunning: "I did."

Byrd: "Who are you?"

Bunning: "I'm a senator."

Byrd: "You're a great baseball man."

Bunning: "I'm a senator; I have the same rights as you."

Byrd: "Yeah, man, you're a senator." [Ends by laughing hysterically at Bunning.]

Jim Bunning, BTW, is not only an actual baseball player but also also a crazy old man who has been ranked among the five worst senators, so Byrd (no stranger to "old" and "crazy" himself) is kind of justified here. But regardless, I get so much joy from imagining the withering tone in which Byrd would have said "Who are you?"

Where are the "New Jersey Values"?

As people who know me know well, I often defend my home state of New Jersey against the pernicious rumors that plague us. One thing that bothers is me, is a negative self-image that results.

You know all of those campaign commercials that talk about how so-and-so is standing up for "[enter state here] values"? If you are not familiar, a few examples are shown below from a quick YouTube search of certain states.

People in New Jersey, New York, California, Massachusetts, and other liberal states never do that. Why is that? Are we ashamed of our values? I'd prefer New Jersey values to Nebraska values any day. We are still honest, hardworking people, even if we don't have that farmer, rural-townfolk charm.

Adding to that is the liberal use of the buzzwords "New York values" and "San Francisco values" as stand-ins for "immorality." I've never seen a Democratic ad use "Oklahoma values" or "Alabama values" as a stand-in for "backwards" or "ignorant" or something like that. I wouldn't want to see that ad because it's wrong, but still, is this just a microcosm of the bigger differences between Democrats and Republicans in campaign commercials, and more importantly, are we losing big elections because the Republicans are better at hitting voters in the gut with black-white emotional connections. San Francisco is "the other" and "gays" are bad. Period.

But it's certainly not only Republicans doing this. In fact, I found just as many Democratic candidates use this rhetorical strategy in my quick YouTube search.

What do all of you think? Why aren't the commercials touting "New Jersey values"?

Examples:
Scott Kleeb (D) running for Hagel's open seat in Nebraska:

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) during his awesome campaign!:

Governor Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) in his unsuccessful! reelection campaign:

And my personal favorite, Congressional candidate David Landrum (R-MS):

Here are some others for your perusal:
Mike Ciresi
Mark Kennedy
Tom Cole
Chris Carney
Joe Lieberman

Here's my take on New Jersey values:

Reid fails to oppose telecom immunity; Dodd to filibuster

Here's a wonderful example of leadership from Senator Reid:

I have determined that in this situation, it would be wrong of me to simply choose one committee’s bill over the other. I personally favor many of the additional protections included in the Judiciary Committee bill, and I oppose the concept of retroactive immunity in the Intelligence bill. But I cannot ignore the fact that the Intelligence bill was reported favorably by a vote of 13-2, with most Democrats on the committee supporting that approach. I explored the possibility of putting before the Senate a bill that included elements of both two committee bills. Earlier this week, I used Senate Rule 14 to place two bills on the calendar.

The first – S. 2440 – consists of Titles I and III of the Intelligence bill, but did not include Title II on retroactive immunity. The second bill – S. 2441 – consists of Title I of the Intelligence bill and Titles II and III of the Judiciary bill. But after consulting further with Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Leahy, a consensus emerged among the three of us that the best way to proceed would be by regular order. Both Chairmen agreed with this approach.

Under regular order, and the rules of the Senate governing sequential referral, I will move to proceed to S. 2248 – the bill reported by each committee. When that motion to proceed is adopted, the work of both committees will be before the Senate. Because of the order in which they considered the bill, the Intelligence Committee version will be the base text, and the Judiciary Committee version will be automatically pending as a substitute amendment.

What this means, in effect, is that getting rid of the telecom immunity in the Intelligence Committee bill will require sixty votes, "rendering," as Glenn Greenwald explains, "such efforts virtually impossible. In doing so, Reid is brazenly ignoring the demands of 14 Senators -- including all of the Democratic presidential candidates -- to have the Judiciary Committee bill be the base bill."

That's bad enough, but the explanation Reid is giving makes me angry. "The Intelligence Committee submitted their bill first, so we will consider theirs first."--pretty transparent BS, I have to say. I'm sure there are very good reasons for Reid's failure to oppose telecom immunity, such as, say, keeping in the good graces of powerful people like the telecoms and his old chum Senator Rockefeller, but the Majority Leader has power that is meant to be exercised in just such instances as this, where it is obvious that some Senators are working against the interests of their constituency, and where those Senators are clearly wrong.

Apparently Senator Leahy has also decided not to exercise his full clout; Reid says that Leahy agreed to have his bill (the one without immunity, and with better safeguards on domestic spying) plowed under.

Not only has Reid taken this action, but he also, in defiance of Senate custom, refused to recognize the hold Senator Dodd (a member of his own party) placed on the bill. When Tom Coburn placed a hold on a civil rights bill, Reid honored it.

As a result of all this, Chris Dodd is going to have to stand up and filibuster in support of the Constitution and in defiance of his own supposed allies. What in the world is the matter with our party?

Here's Chris Dodd's page on the filibuster.

Update: I'm watching C-Span on my computer, and Ted Kennedy just gave a corker of a speech. I'll try and find a clip of it and put it up.

Update II: Kit Bond says that the President does have the "inherent authority" under Article II of the Constitution to "conduct warrantless surveillance." Let me just take a look at Article II.. okay, yeah, I don't see it anywhere. How can Bond make an argument like that with a straight face?

Update III: Here's part of the Kennedy speech. (Embed fixed. --markus)

Trent Lott to Resign Seat in Senate Before Year's End!

Trent Lott just announced that he will be resigning his seat before the year is over. This is another blow to Republican Senate Leadership that has had a flurry of high ranking resignations this year. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour will appoint another Republican to fill Lott's seat, but it will be up for grabs in 2008 where the winner of that contest will finish the remaining 4 years of Lott's term.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Lott-Senate.html?ref=washington

More Kansas Politics

Kos has a list of prospective party switches in the 2008 Senate race. and way down at number 21 is Kansas' Pat Roberts, about whom Kos says the following:

21. Kansas (Roberts - R)
You'd think with all the newly minted Democrats in the state that Gov. Sebelius can help us find a good challenger to Roberts. On the other hand, with Sen. Brownback already announcing his retirement, many of the best Democrats would likely wait for a chance at that open seat in 2010.

I think Kos may as well take Roberts off of his list; the chance of a prominent Democrat materializing to take on Roberts with the open seat twinkling in the distance is slim. And even if someone does mount a more than perfunctory campaign, Roberts will probably win. He just pretends to be Bob Dole, and people love him.

I should also note that Sebelius hits her term limit in 2010, just as Brownback's seat will be opening, and it seems to me that she would be pretty unstoppable.

Meet Our Oregon Senate Candidate

After a few high-profile candidates passed, we finally have a candidate to challenge the worthless Gordon Smith out there in Oregon. His name is Jeff Merkley, and he sounds like just the kind of guy we want in the Senate:

I began my life in the small town of Myrtle Creek, Oregon, where my dad was a millwright at a lumber mill. When the mill closed, we moved to Roseburg, a Southern Oregon town where wood products were king. Like people in so many towns throughout Oregon, folks in Roseburg knew the value of hard work, honesty and strong families.

While still in grade school, my dad got a job as a heavy equipment mechanic in Portland. He took me to the grade school and said "Those doors are the doors to opportunity. Study hard and you can pursue any dream." My father passed away earlier this year, and now my wife Mary and I are trying to teach our two kids to value hard work and education the way he always did.

That's what my career in public service has always been about -- opening doors to new opportunities for all Oregonians. The opportunity to learn and succeed. The opportunity to get decent medical care and live healthy lives. The opportunity to earn a decent wage that can support a family. [...]

Oregon needs a new U.S. Senator who will bring a real passion to the job. A passion for tax fairness, public education and for helping ordinary, everyday Oregonians achieve their aspirations and make their dreams come true. [...]

I will fight for ordinary working families, not multi-millionaires. I will run a grassroots campaign with the participation of thousands of Oregonians.

Merkley seems to be employing the "office-park populism" we had such great success with in '06 (see Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown), but with that distinctly chilled-out Pacific Northwest vibe. For instance, his "passion for tax fairness" is not exactly going to get the blood boiling; but hey, if it plays in Portland I'm all for it. We could use a calm, friendly, Mr. Rogers-type populist anyway.

And he's qualified. Before being Speaker of the Oregon House (which he ran with great success, pushing through a very progressive agenda), he ran Portland Habitat for Humanity and worked for an affordable-housing consortium; also he's a policy wonk with degrees from Stanford & Princeton, and experience at the Defense Secretary's office and the CBO. (Not to mention, he's the son of a millworker.) You can't ask for much better of a resume.

So keep an eye on Jeff Merkley. (And don't think too much about his creepy similarity, in name and appearance, to the ineffectual president Merkin Muffley from Dr. Strangelove.) If he runs smartly and articulates his message well, this could develop into one of the most satisfying campaigns of 2008.

(Facebook here; if so inclined donate money here.)

Obstruction in the Senate

Via Open Left, here's a partial list of acts of Congress that the Republicans have killed with 'intent to filibuster':

 

January 17, Reid Amendment to Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007: a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process.

January 24, Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007: a bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

February 5, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq.

February 17, A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq: disapproving of the troop escalation in Iraq (again).

April 17, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007: an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

April 18, Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007: a bill to amend part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for fair prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

June 11, No confidence vote on Alberto Gonzales: a joint resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people.

June 21, Baucus Amendment to CLEAN Energy Act of 2007: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for energy advancement and investment, and for other purposes.

June 26, Employee Free Choice Act of 2007: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to establish an efficient system to enable employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts, and for other purposes.

July 11, Webb Amendment to the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008: to specify minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.]

I knew that Republicans were obstructing things with filibuster threats, but seeing it all together like this really drives it home. And even though Republicans are doing this all the time, most people don't know about it. What they see is a Democratic majority that can't seem to pass anything. So I'll join with the growing chorus of lefty bloggers and say that the Dems need to make them actually filibuster. Have them start reading from phonebooks. Pull out the cots and diapers. Then it'll be obvious to the American public who is really holding up the people's business in the Senate.

Some of these are so popular with the public that it really boggles the mind: can you imagine the reaction if there were images of the Republicans on the floor of the Senate filibustering a bill to raise the minimum wage? Or to block the no-confidence vote on Gonzales? But instead fake 'collegiality' got everyone convinced that it simply takes 60 votes to pass something in the Senate. No, it takes 51. Anything else is obstructing the will of the majority.

Now it looks like the Democratic leadership has finally got the message. Harry Reid announced that unless Republicans allow a vote on the Reed-Levin Amendment before Tuesday night, they are going to be filibustering (for real):

Reid will be using the provision of Rule 22 that allows for up to 30 hours of continuous debate once it's made clear -- in this case, by Republicans trying to avoid an up-or-down vote on Reed-Levin -- that there is a desire to continue debating the issue.

In other words, the Majority Leader is saying "You want to debate? We'll stay all night and debate."

"I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down," said Reid this afternoon. "If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it."

Reid could hold the Senate in continuous session overnight Tuesday and into midday Wednesday unless Republicans agree to a simple-majority vote on Reed-Levin.

Senate Democrats will then be prepared to take to the floor and speak all night and, if their Republican colleagues do not remain in the chamber, invoke ongoing quorum calls and other procedural maneuvers to force GOP members back to the Senate floor.

With the whole specter of cots being dragged into Senate cloakrooms and the pure theatrics involved, I'm hopeful this will shine a white-hot spotlight on the Senate's Republican leadership and show Americans how the GOP doesn't truly support helping troops and their families at home or extricating them from pointless involvement in the Iraqi civil war.

It'll be interesting to see how the MSM spins this, but however they spin it, I think that most people will know what's really going on.

The Senate prepares for a massive flip-flop?

Hillary Clinton has proposed a "reverse authorization" of the Iraq war, a proposition I find a bit strange, a bit redundant, and frankly a waste of time. Senators spend enough time and energy as it is harping on and/or defending what they or their colleagues did or didn't do. This measure will simply detract from a real, timely plan for withdrawal.

The bill would repeal the Senate's October 2002 vote to give Bush the go-ahead on Iraq, but it's unclear what implications this has for the President's action. According to the NYT, "Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve."

We do not need to a constitutional debate. We need to bring our troops home.

Strange also, that Clinton would propose this, as her 2002 authorizing vote has been an albatross around the neck of her campaign thus far. She still won't repudiate her vote (as John Edwards has) yet she wants the entire Senate to do just that?

Filiblustering Baghdad

Pathetic maneuvering and stalling going on down in Washington today, in a remarkable effort by Senate Republicans to do absolutely nothing about the war. They're jumping off the crazy train that is administration foreign policy faster than you can say "surge", yet are refusing to debate any of the 4 proposed resolutions on Iraq currently on the table. I was genuinely moved by the outspoken criticism of the war by people such as John Warner (R-VA) but the current Senate stalemate has Warner effectively filibustering his own resolution.

Here's the traffic report-- it's way backed up down there: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020500675_2.html

Blogger? Check. Posting on Policy? Check. Registered? Uhhh....

What a gem of legislation:

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists." [1]

Now looking at the actual legislation (just browse to S.1, section 220), the language only pertains to bloggers who are paid by a specific firm based off of what I can tell, thereby a lot different from just making we bloggers here on DemApples register, but it is still very dangerous. The ACLU has written a letter to try to get it stricken from the bill:

"Advocacy organizations large and small would now find their communications to the general public about policy matters redefined as lobbying and therefore subject to registration and quarterly reporting. Failure to register and report could have severe civil and potentially criminal sanctions. Section 220 would apply to even small, state grassroots organizations with no lobbying presence in Washington....

The right to petition the government is 'one of the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.'[1] When viewed through this prism, the thrust of the grassroots lobbying regulation is at best misguided, and at worst would seriously undermine the basic freedom that is the cornerstone of our system of government."

Go get 'em ACLU. Frankly, I haven't been able to read everything else this bill says, but I hope its good, otherwise the sponsorship of Harry Reid, and co-sponsorship of fellow Democrats like Sherrod Brown, Maria Cantwell, Dick Durban, Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Bob Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Ken Salazar, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, and Jim Webb will be really disappointing.

Looking To 2008... The Senate, not the Presidency

With a razor-thin majority in the Senate (which means little due to the independent nature of Senators, other than chairmanships), 2008 is going to be a tough contest in the close Senate races. There are 21 Republicans and only 12 Democrats up for grabs, which is a much better situation for us than we were in during 2006.

From my view, we have, at the most, 5 seats that Republicans can think of shooting for:

Read more »

Let's Get To Work

Well, the Democratic Senate (fingers crossed) already has one major task laid out for it: figure this out.

Bush's nominee to replace Rumsfeld (good riddance) is Robert Gates, longtime of the CIA, and reportedly tangled up fairly heavily in the Iran-Contra affair. The ghosts of old scandals rise again! And the amount of baggage he carries is staggering -- here's what Tom Harkin had to say about him:

Mr. President, at the outset of the confirmation hearings, I had serious reservations about the nominee. The confirmation hearings only raised more questions and greater doubts. Questions and doubts about Mr. Gates' past activities, managerial style, judgment, lapses in memory and analytical abilities. Questions and doubts about his role in the Iran-Contra Affair and in providing military intelligence to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war; and questions and doubts about whether he will be able to remove the ideological blinders reflected in his writings and speeches or whether Mr. Gates is so rooted in the past, that he will not be able to lead the Agency into the post-cold war era. Because of these concerns, I have concluded that Mr. Gates is not the right person for the important job of overseeing our intelligence operations in this New World.

[...] Mr. President, I do not believe that Robert Gates is the right person to lead the CIA at this time. The cold war is over and it's time for some of the old warriors to rest. Now we must take a fresh new look at the world, think new thoughts and reassess the future role of the intelligence community. I urge my colleagues to vote against Robert Gates.

That was 1991. Read Harkin's whole statement; it's a doozy.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, to see a nervous and disheartened Bush regressing into his father's presidency; but must he always pick the really scarily incompetent ones? Was this maybe Dick Cheney's doing? Why didn't he choose someone with a connection to the MILITARY, for crying out loud, rather than a spook? There are a ton of WTF questions this nomination immediately raises.

So there need to be vigorous confirmation hearings, and a real effort to cut through the murk and the dust surrounding this guy. I'm envisioning a journey back in time, complete with Ollie North and shady guys in mirrored sunglasses. Maybe synthpop will come back. Who knows. But the Democratic Senate -- or the Democrats on the committee, it occurs to me, if Bush tries to push Gates through the lame-duck session -- had better step forward, because the potential for a real disaster here is serious.

The Harsh Bigotry of High Expectations

I've been following the news of the last month with a lot of skepticism. It seems that Democrats are genuinely excited that we might be making some gains pretty soon. But I've been a little more reluctant to get jollied up, and the reason is such: high expectations mean we ain't never gonna look good. No matter what happens tomorrow, the best we can do is having "ridden the wave". If we just barely make majorities, then the wave was small. Hell, even if we win every Democratic race, if Lieberman wins then the public opinion will be that the grassroots has come up short.

Don't get me wrong: I want very much to win. I just am scared that everybody thinks it's going to happen. I'd much rather everyone expect us to lose.

And, in the words of Mary, the awesome Cabot dining-hall checker: "Still, the Democrats are amazingly skilled at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."