Voting For Lesser of Two Evils Led Directly To Yesterday’s Gun Filibusters

For years I’ve heard fellow Democrats argue that we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, that it’s better to vote for the lesser of two evils, and other inane arguments to convince me to vote for people who have (D) behind their name but are not strong advocates of Democratic values.  “It’s always better to vote for a (D) than an (R),” they say.  Really?  I haven’t thought so for a long time and have voted accordingly come election time.  That means I haven’t voted for “Democrats” than I don’t think will stand up for the issues I think are most important: climate change, privacy, jobs, universal health care, gun safety, etc.

Many pundits are saying today that President Obama was very angry yesterday following the US Senate’s ridiculous failure to pass watered down, gun industry influenced amendments.  Oh, a majority of Senators (50+ out of 100) voted for the legislation, which in sane circumstances would mean the amendments pass.  Not in the US Senate yesterday, where a very small number of fringe Senators stopped honest consideration of any amendments.  That is because of the Senate’s cloture rule, which once invoked requires 60 votes (a supermajority) to break.  Democrats could have changed or removed that rule at the beginning of the current session with only 51 votes.  Unfortunately, Sen. Reid (D-NV) didn’t agree that the majority needed to change or remove the rule.  Instead, he made a deal with Minority Leader Sen. McConnell (R-KY) that cloture would be invoked on legislation and nominees only in “extreme circumstances”.  Since January, Republicans have invoked cloture again and again and again and again.  Apparently, there is a permanent state of “extreme circumstances” in the Senate according to today’s Republicans.  Sen. Reid publicly complains that the rules could be revisited mid-session, but his complaints are ever-moving carrots for the Democratic base, who must enjoy being lied to.  Sen. Reid will not change the cloture rule because he doesn’t want to; it has nothing to do with courage or will.  The sooner the base accepts that, the sooner they’ll vote for Democratic Senators who care more for their constituents than the access to power a Senate position entails.

Observe then that these same Republicans are the people with whom the President wants more desperately than anything to craft a Grand Bargain – be it health insurance in 2009-2010 (note: not health care) or the national debt and social welfare programs (which this “Democratic” President proposed be slashed!) and gun safety legislation now in 2013.  The very same Republicans that so angered the President on his surprising signature issue (gun safety – when did he campaign on that?) have worked since 2009 to stop anything the President wants done.  Yesterday’s public display of anger, which I’m not sure was honest, will not cause the President to evaluate his most desired goal: that Grand Bargain.  The Republicans will not work with the President and the President and his most ardent supporters refuse to acknowledge that basic political reality.

Moreover, the President has only his zealous desire to reach his Grand Bargain to blame for yesterday’s cloture votes.  In the absurd push to enact health insurance legislation in 2009 and 2010, which took months too long precisely because the President wanted that Grand Bargain so badly, health care reform was explicitly removed from consideration a priori to negotiation.  That health care reform was a central plank of the Democratic Party’s most loyal activists, who worked tirelessly in 2008 to get the President and other Democrats elected at all levels across the nation.  There was no mention of a Grand Bargain in the 2008 campaign.  Democrats justifiably felt misled and were extremely disappointed.  Hence, they didn’t vote with similar intensity in 2010 as they did in 2008, which had enormous ramifications.

Governorships and state legislatures flipped from Democratic to Republican.  As a result, the required realignment of political boundaries for the US House and state legislatures following the 2010 census were redrawn in ways that led to more Republicans, many of whom were Teabaggers whose core philosophy is government cannot and should not work, elected in newly safe seats.  That is, people in 2010 made sure that the mix of voters in districts leaned heavily enough Republican that any other candidate would have a very hard time being elected.  Hence today’s Republican-led chamber despite the fact that Democratic candidates nationally received 1,000,000 more votes than Republican candidates.  There simply aren’t enough Democrats and left-leaning unaffiliateds in these districts to challenge what will be Republican dominance.  Remember that when Democrats tell you there are “only 17 seats” they need to flip in 2014 to take back control of the House.  Absent some significant change in the political landscape, Democrats will not take the House back in 2014.  Teabaggers will remain in control of the chamber and a Democratic Senate Majority Leader will not change chamber rules (again) in January 2015, regardless of how many bills Republicans filibuster; regardless of how many judicial and agency nominees Republicans filibuster who are proving that government cannot and will not accomplish anything.

Senators didn’t lack courage yesterday.  They simply do not see any downside to voting  against their constituents’ wishes.  When most Democratic voters “vote for the lesser of two evils” no matter what, they are not holding their elected officials accountable for their actions.  Thus, Republicans will continue to abuse the filibuster.  The President will seek more Grand Bargains.  And we will make very little progress in a time when much progress is needed.  But come November 2014, I will hear once again that I have to vote for the same people who voted against my values, who only want to stay in power, because the alternative is just unthinkable.

Senators who abuse a parliamentary tactic do so for one reason: to remain in power.  Senators are not there to represent anyone or anything except their access to power.  People on the “news” networks are saying Republicans thwarted the will of 90% of the American public yesterday.  The President and the Senate Majority Leader both could have done very different things had they wanted to avoid yesterday’s political result.  They didn’t want to, so they didn’t do things differently.  They did exactly what they wanted to do and stuck the rest of us with the devastating results.  Remember that the next time someone tells you it’s better to vote for the lesser of two evils.  Evil still happens: someone slaughtered 20 innocent children with a tool designed exclusively to kill other humans.  If a plastic toy killed 20 children, we would ban the toy.  The right to own a gun ends at the life of others, especially children.  More than 30,000 people die because of gun violence in the US every year.  Their blood is as much on the hands of “Democrats” who advocate for political cowardice as it is on the shooters; for voting for the lesser of two evils because what other choice have we?  We have choices, but are purposefully misled by people who only want to remain in power, then show public displays of anger.  Finally, minorities can be vocal, but they shouldn’t be able to thwart democratic processes single-handed.

Actually, one more thought.  Does anyone seriously think the NRA won’t target Democratic Senators in their 2014 elections even if those “Democrats” voted against gun safety amendments yesterday?  The same amendments that a majority of constituents in those Democratic Senators states supported?

Op-Eds Regarding Sen. Bennet (D-CO) & Republican Teabagger Ken Buck

I saw some op-eds weighing in on candidates for Colorado’s junior Senate seat.

Steve from Ft. Collins represents your typical hypocritical Republican Teabagger – deficits only matter when Democrats are in power:

How well have his [Sen. Bennet's] votes represented your children and grandchildren, who will be saddled with a lifelong debt due to the reckless spending of this runaway government?

Anyone want to bet that Steve sent in an op-ed when the Bush Regime blew the deficit up from $5 Trillion to $12 Trillion in 8 short years?  How about when Reagen blew up the deficit?  No, as usual, Steve is trying to use a topic to cover his true concern: a corporatist Democrat who isn’t 100% white is in the White House.  If Steve took the deficit seriously, he would fully support both the health insurance legislation that passed this year and push to reduce the bloated war budget.  Don’t take Steve seriously.

Scott from Loveland has a good point regarding health care solutions:

These bandages [high-deductible plans and open health savings accounts, espoused by Republican Teabagger Ken Buck] have been available for years and do not address the issue of those citizens who can afford neither.

That’s true.  It’s like the Republican Teabagger complaint about tax cuts: would one of you please tell the rest of us where the millions of jobs created by the Bush tax cuts are hiding?  The fewest jobs of any president post-WWII were created under Republican Teabagger economic policies.  The rest of us are still trying to fix your damn mess.  Your solution is ridiculous and has been proven to not work the way you think it works.

Martha from Denver speaks for a lot of progressives about Sen. Bennet:

He has finally come clean and admitted that he will be voting to continue the Bush tax cuts and against the Employee Free Choice Act. [...] He may earn a few Republican votes with his tactics, but when combined with the loss of thousands of votes from registered Democrats, he will lose this election. Be clear, he will lose because he stepped right of center.

Martha argues along the same lines that I have for years – Democrats need to stand for Democratic principles.  Not bipartisan principles or Republican principles; Democratic principles.  The number of issues which Sen. Bennet not only voted against his base’s wishes but cynically used micro-issues to raise cash and visibility from that base prior to those votes are long indeed.  It surprises me that so many Democrats are still willing to support somebody who on too many occasions hasn’t supported them.  Oh, when you vote for the lesser of two evils, you’re still voting for an evil.  Don’t expect a ton of good to come from that.

Baxter from Silverthorne addresses my top issue:

If Ken Buck is like every other Republican in the U.S. Senate, he will fight all attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions with a comprehensive energy and climate bill.

While true, some additional context should be made clear.  Sen. Bennet early in 2009 voted to require that climate legislation be subjected to the 60-vote super-majority instead of the 50-vote majority requirement that wins most other contests.  What followed was a lot of hand-wringing and lamenting that with the largest majority in the Senate in years, 60 votes just couldn’t be found, gosh darn it.  No, it’s not as though Sen. Bennet found global warming to be a leading issue of the day.  Let’s not kid ourselves and blindly think Sen. Bennet is a global warming champion.  If anything, he found Senate procedure to be more important than any legislative topic.  Sure, he started talking about “filibuster reform” after all Senate work had ground to a near-complete halt by mid-2010.  It wasn’t like Republicans abused the rule throughout all of 2009 or anything.  Heck, it wasn’t even like Republicans told Democrats they would do just that when the session started, right?  And after being told this, Democratic Senators still continued to try to bring one, just one, Republican over on bill after bill after bill.

Leading up to voting this year, you should ask yourself this important question: will Sen. Bennet vote to change Senate rules on the first day of business in January, when rule changes only require 50 votes instead of 67 afterward?  If Sen. Bennet wins this election and Democrats retain control of the Senate, will the filibuster rules be changed back to what they were historically, or will they continue to ask the Republican Teabaggers to steamroll over them, yet come back to the voters in 2012 and ask for more money, more volunteering, and more votes from us?

Sen. Mark Udall Pushes National RES. But Where Is The Bipartisanship?

Sen. Mark Udall has done a functional job in his first term as Colorado’s senior Senator.  Far from leveraging his huge bases of support in the Denver-Boulder metro area, Sen. Udall has made more effort to reach across the aisle to the psychotic Cons of the 111th Congress who have ground the U.S. Senate to a near halt.  I have argued in numerous posts in plain and simple terms why this is such a bad idea.  To date, and in extreme summary form, we have a half-assed Stimulus Bill, a Health Care Insurance Bill Giveaway, a Wall St. Reform Scott Free Bill and no Climate and Energy Bill.  This situation largely exists because people like Sen. Udall and President Obama want to spend more time chasing the Holy Bipartisan Grail than passing powerful progressive legislation that might actually move this country forward in this 21st century.  To be clear, I do not consider either man to be a progressive; nor did I consider them to be so prior to the 2008 election.  The place I’m arguing from is that this country badly needs progressive legislation and we’re ill-served by the current crop of politicians who don’t care that the Senate is broken.

Recently, Sen. Udall announced that he really, really badly wants a National 25% Renewable Energy Standard by 2025 bill passed during this session of Congress.  That’s fair enough, I suppose.  Sen. Udall did establish some credentials as an environmental advocate in the state of Colorado and during his time as 2nd district Representative in the House.  But, as I’ve also argued in numerous posts, the U.S. Senate is where good legislation goes to die.  By moving from his base of support and joining the Quest for the Holy Bipartisan Grail in the Senate, I challenge the Senator on his calls for an RES.  If he’s not serious about truly enacting such a policy, or if he wants to give utilities policies they support in return for weakening the RES in any way, I’m not interested in listening to his announcements.

Colorado News Stories: Connecting Some Dots

Today was another day in which a number of news articles caught my eye.  They warrant additional context, especially the connections between some of them.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been working behind the scenes to talk with what the corporate media likes to term “centrist”/”moderate” Democratic Senators regarding health care.  He will continue to try to convince CorporateDems to vote to allow debate on the Senate health bill.  What’s the center position between corporatist lackeys and principled public servants anyway?  Another very popular Washington buzzterm came into play: Salazar is involved because he was involved in several bipartisan agreements while a Senator.  He was at the forefront of what I term the Gaggle of Gangs in the Senate – joining with other “centrists” to keep the filibuster around but ensure Democrats wouldn’t use it while in the minority.  Which is part of the reason why Salazar is being sent back to work on his former colleagues: the Cons are threatening to filibuster the health bill (though Democrats won’t actually force them to carry one out) and -gasp- Democrats might join them.  That’s the answer to “How did that bipartisanship end up working out”.  Whatever happened to the Cons’ “Upper-down-vote!” they couldn’t get enough of?  One person of concern is Sen. Lieberman, the man who campaigned for Sen. John McCain in last year’s presidential election and is doing everything he can to keep himself in the news this year.  Salazar was “mentored” by Lieberman when he joined the Senate, so I’m sure Lieberman can be convinced to play nice – aren’t you?  Oh, and after watering down the bill with nonsense to appease “centrist” Republicans, where are their votes to move to debate?  MIA?  Why did we negotiate with them exactly?  They’re not going to vote for the final bill.

Drilling Ban to Expire in 5 Days

Congressional Democrats have capitulated on the off-shore drilling ban.  The House has voted to allow off-shore drilling, putting the ball to the Senate’s side.  That “capitulation” description was provided by Rep. Boehner of Ohio.  Normally, I stay away from Republican framing.  Working within it only reinforces it.  However, in this case, I’ve decided to do it.  In this case, I do want Americans to have the opinion that Democrats are spineless in the face of a little resistance.  Democrats dramatically misread the conditions surrounding off-shore drilling.  I don’t want a bunch of bought off fools making my energy policy, be they Democrats or Republicans.  One of my Senators had an interesting role to play in this failure and I’ll have more on that below.

In slightly better news, the Senate did vote for a $17 billion energy tax package that extends credits for wind, solar and energy efficiency projects.  Those provisions were sent to the House as part of a larger tax bill that also extends several business and personal tax breaks.  Unfortunately, it only provides a one-year extension for the Alternative Minimum Tax, something that should be taken up with seriousness and made permanent.  I know, that’s tough to do with ideological Republicans and spineless Democrats.  Perhaps next year, we always hear.  In any event, the energy tax package is definitely good news because it provides for multiple-year extensions.

The current House version of the energy tax package removed fossil fuel incentives: expansion of refineries to process oil sands and oil shale, as well as alternative fuel credits that could have been applied to coal-based fuels.  I’m going to write another post describing some updates on the global warming front.  Seen through that lens, the removal of fossil fuel incentives is indeed a good thing.  We’ll see how the final bill comes out of Congress.