I’ve criticized the Democrats’ failure to use the filibuster and their failure to call the bluff of Republicans who threaten to filibuster. This tactic, like Senator Tom Coburn’s use of the hold, is vital to bringing democracy back into Congress.
Congress is running scared of (or maybe wants to cooperate with) the neo-con regime and the 20% of Americans who support that regime. It’s past time for progressive senators (such as there are) to be as bold as Tom Coburn.
Please share widely!
Okay, then, will the O’Reilly campaign stop complaining that Kerry is not a team player? You can’t have it both ways — even if they both sound negative about Kerry.
I figured someone might think my motivation in this post was to boost O’Reilly. Nope. You got that wrong.
<
p>I wrote this because I think the US Senate might still be salvageable and I think the salvage job is based on restoration of debate and voting — real debate and voting, not “unanimous consent” and cloture votes before the filibuster.
<
p>It’s true that Kerry is one of the Senators who goes along to get along (unlike Tom Coburn with his 80 holds). It’s true I have criticized Kerry on that ground. I’ve also criticized Paul Krugman on this point.
<
p>You’ve got it backwards: I didn’t write to boost O’Reilly; I don’t even mention him. But I do boost him, and in large part because he is the kind of person who is not afraid to stand alone in defense of what he believes. That’s a mark of a good candidate for a senate seat.
<
p>BTW, the ‘team’ I’m interested in helping is the one with stand-up progressive people. This election could add one from MA, while subtracting one of the do-nothings.
Why aren’t say Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer, or Feingold employing these tactics?
<
p>EORites have a negative narrative about Kerry. Do you have the same negative narrative about Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer, and Feingold? Why aren’t Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer, or Feingold doing what you suggest?
<
p>I don’t know the answer to that question. And yes, I wish the Democrats would act more “partisan”, but they don’t. Why don’t these six Senators?
Yes, I know this was not an Ed O’Reilly post. However, the inability of the O’Reilly campaign to answer such concrete questions about the working of the Senate makes me suspicious of the whole campaign.
<
p>We hear a lot about O’Reilly’s personality being better than Kerry’s. Fine. Is his personality better than Dodd’s, Leahy’s, Kennedy’s, Boxer’s, and Feingold’s too? If not, why does the personality question matters at all? Or stated differently, what specific actions does he plan to bring to the Senate and why haven’t they been done before by Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, and Kerry?
Dodd, Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer, and Feingold are not running for reelection in Massacusetts. John Kerry is and he has a challenger running to the left of him on several important issues, most notably on national health care legislation, marriage equality, and Iraq.
<
p>Feel free to explore their policy differences.
The subject of this post was procedural tools in the Senate. It was not issues per se. I prefer discussing just one topic at a time; otherwise, I get all confused and lose my place.
Which is how a single senator can exercise senate rules to force attention to an issue, requiring real debate and a vote.
<
p>My point is that this can be done and that it is basic to restoring the Constitutional role of the Senate. I take it you agree about the existence of the power, but you ask why other Dems (not just Kerry) are failing to exercise it for progressive ends.
<
p>The short answer is I don’t know. I think the main problem is likely an agreement among them to follow party leaders. That means Harry Reid, who is a wimp when it comes to challenging neo-cons. He is not a wimp in his district (NV) where he helps to cut off Western Shoshone land rights in favor of big mining interests. But even there, his actions are done in the back room, not by open debate. (Disclosure: I have worked with WS litigation efforts for more than 10 years.)
<
p>It’s interesting to see that an agreement to follow party leadership in the House also explains why otherwise progressive people like John Olver refuse to support impeachment proceedings. Again, party is put before public democracy.
<
p>Maybe you or others have different explanations for the timidity of the Senate majority Dems. Whatever the explanation, I maintain the failure to debate and vote is a major problem affecting the Dem agenda (if there is one) and the public view of Congress (now at historic lows).
<
p>If I may refer to your other question about Ed O’Reilly, I’d say the evidence is in that he is NOT a party aparatchik. His whole campaign and the Party’s response at the nominating convention in June are proof of that.