I thought we elected Barack Obama and Joe Biden last November and that we kind of endorsed their platform. But it looks a lot like we actually elected Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, and that we can’t do a single thing that doesn’t have their permission. If we want to overcome this obstacle, we’re going to have to change the Senate rules or hope that we net a few new Senate seats in the 2010 midterms. I think Democrats are going to be discouraged by this farce, but I’d still ask them if they want to be led by Lieberman and Nelson or Obama and Biden. If the latter, they better get out and work to elect a few more Democratic senators. Yet, even if we do that, we’ll probably be bitching about Lincoln and Landrieu, or some other constellation of pains-in-the-asses. If we want meaningful climate change legislation, we’re going to need to change the Senate rules or use budget reconciliation or something, because this Congress, operating under these rules, is dysfunctional.
About The Author

BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
it doesn’t help when the president we elected goes to congress over the weekend to talk health care and doesn’t mention the public option.
or when the president we just elected went out and said Lieberman can keep his seat.
It doesn’t help when the enemies of change are empowered by Cap’n Changey himself. just sayin’.
I see. You expect Obama to carry a little laundry list of words to use to salve your angst ridden self.
‘OMG he did not use the words Public Option everytime he speaks. OMG!!! We are doomed. I just knew it. We always get thrown under the bus!!! Whaaaa’.
Personally, if someone has made known what he wants and has publicly said so, he does not need to talk about it endlessly for me to feel secure.
Andrew Sullivan posted this by Chaung Tzu this morning:
When we wear out our minds stubbornly clinging to our partial view of things, refusing to see a deeper agreement between this and its complementary opposite, we have what is called “three in the morning”.
What is this three in the morning?
A monkey trainer went to his monkeys and told them:
“As regards your chestnuts: you’re going to have three cups in the morning and four in the afternoon.”
At this they all became angry. So he said: “All right, in that case I will give you four in the morning and three in the afternoon.” This time they were satisfied.
The two arrangements were the same in that the number of chestnuts did not change. But in one case the animals were displeased and in the other they were satisfied. The keeper had been willing to change his personal arrrangement in order to meet objective conditions. He lost nothing by it!
The truly wise man, considering both sides of the question without partiality, sees them both in the light of Tao.
This is called following two courses at once.
wise words
honestly, I don’t need you channelling lao tzu or chuang tzu at me.
and, to continue the zen/tao metaphor, you just did a very good job of looking at my finger. you missed the moon!
adding, i don’t think you even know what that means, or even who chuang tzu is.
have you ever read chuang tzu’s book?
The question is how to a force change in the Senate rules when they serve individual senators quite well.
Watching Washington Journal on cspan this morning, they had one of the editors of CQ.
He said, and this is something I thought was very insightful, that the president for the most part stays out the fights over health care for a reason.
He thinks it is to keep them emotionally involved in the issue and legislating.
If he just gave them a laundry list, they would try to follow it but, would they work weekends, holidays even?? Would they pour as much as they have already into this.
Same with problem senators. Would the democrats have to learn to fight and develop a backbone, to outwit and put in place disloyal dems who don’t care if they derail Obama presidency (and give the gop and Rush what they most want for xmas. For Obama to fail).
CQ did not say all that. I expounded on the theory. He did say to keep them emotionally involved and they would not be if given a laundry list.
Dither has become the word de jour since Cheney spoke it. The media just loves when the republicans sneer at democrats and just love those so-called ‘tough’ talking repubs.
But, dither is not a word I would ever associate with Obama. However, the word does bring to mind our democrats in congress and the senate.
I concur.
I think that’s about right, or something similar. Obama is facing two problems: craven, mendacious Democratic senators who would rather betray the stated will of their constituents than the source of their bribes, and 40 Reps who would rather see the country go down in hellfire than see Obama succeed in any major legislation.
The so-called American Left, or much of it anyway, has an amazing capacity to go from bitching about the imperial presidency to bitching about letting the legislature do the job it’s supposed to do. Obama, for whatever reason, is refusing to be the sole water carrier for legislation. How do Congressional Dems grow spines if they can just sit back and leave it all to the President? How do we ever get anywhere if we can’t get a Congress that takes some responsibility? I think one reason some Congressional Dems are finally coming out of their comfy shells and speaking some truth is that Obama is giving them the space and the prodding to do so.
He’s very clear in one of his books – “Audacity of Hope” I guess – that one of his political aims is to try and fix the broken US political system. It’s also quite clear that he’s about 100 times better at politics than I am, so I’ve given up trying to work out what his scheme is. I’ll have to judge him on eventual results.
I don’t really expect this to change, do you?
As for “electing a few more Democratic Senators”, isn’t that what we did in 2008? I think that’s probably the view of the vast swath of independents that helped give the Democrats the supposed “filibuster proof” majority. Is there anyone foolish enough to believe that the behavior of Senate Democrats up to this point will convince anyone with half a brain to give them even more of a margin in the Senate?
I can hear the campaign ads now. “If you, the voter, will just give us 75 seats; we can finally bring change to Washington Obama promised and that will help you, the average American“
Afraid the Senate Dems are screwing the pooch. As for political capital, I’d say that very soon they’ll probably need to start digging in their couch cushions and under their car seats for any loose change lying around. Cause they’ve probably spent most everything that was in their bank of political capital. And it’s probably a safe bet that behind all of these closed door “negotiation meetings” they are quickly compromising away what little capital they might have left.
The hard part about electing many more Democratic Senators will be the inability to pass any meaningful legislation that helps people lives and thus policies that Dems can run on. Also, the Administration’s current path of not throwing the D activist base any ammo to get fired up about will have a negative impact in 2010 too.
Lieberman and Nelson are just not going to vote for any Health Care reform that Dems can get behind. The only way it happens is the reconciliation route.
That option is available, use it already…
Agreed. I will lend them my balls if they need them! Nice picture, BTW.
You noticed that too, huh? Why do these assplugs seemingly have unilateral veto power over practically any legislation? What. The. Fuck.
You sure do blow hot and cold, Boo — it’s hard to keep up with you. I’m glad you’re finally recognizing that Congress is dysfunctional under the antiquated rules and rituals that serve nothing useful but the members’ inflated belief in their own importance. The goal has to be to find a way to make filibusters cost something — whether it’s putting a limit on the number that require more than 51 votes, making them stay on the floor and keep a quorum til it’s done, or something else. Or we could just have a Constitutional Convention and abolish the damn Senate altogether. Given the personal advantage the rules give incumbents, I more and more believe that a CC might be the only way we can open the way to restore some democracy to this country.
Once again, I strongly agree, BooMan. Our founding fathers were very concerned about the possibility of a tyranny of the majority in the U.S. What we have now, I believe, is something close to a tyranny of the minority.