"Now the Dems' congressional majority is a little bigger. It just takes a little courage to resist the run away."
Hahaha

Democrats are drowning in their own flopsweat.

Sure, make your best effort to be positive about what Congress might do with respect to this or that, but the game is over: Obama has (effectively) given up on health care. He's shown that he doesn't have the chops to get this done. Which means not only that health care reform is toast, but so is his presidency. Surely the Republicans will have no fear at all in going at him even harder. More important, Obama's wimpiness has just lost him his progressive base (like me). So tell me, what exactly is he going to be able to accomplish?

I guess a year ago we didn't think possible that ALL the republicans were going to oppose every important legislation introduced by the President, but after a summer of a NO-Republican Party, it is really hard to feel hopeful like a year ago...
I'm depressed....

This sausage isn't quite done being made yet, I think.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827478/-Can-health-insurance-reform-still-pass

Ah yes, COURAGE. Well apparently, Barney Frank is panicked:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/placing_a_call_part_ii.php#more?ref=fpblg

... and knowing Democrats, he's not alone.

Your comments on this fiasco have been truly spot-on, Steve. I simply can't believe how eager the Dems seem to be to throw away any chance of success and doom themselves to electoral defeat. And even if they are despairing of passing anything, why do they feel compelled to go on the TV and reveal their lack of determination? Nobody is going to vote for someone who's already declared himself a Loser.

Well, last year @58, the movement was towards the D side. Now at @59, the momentum is going the other way, and also ignores the 'Death Panel' crap.

That August showed that the (R) side could still make shit up and not get called on it.

My take is that by talking up the 60 vote limit more, it's increased the filibuster's power immensely.

there's certainly a possibility that the GOP will simply not let the Senate function in 2010.

Strictly speaking, that would be the Democrats not letting the Senate function at Republican request.

max
['To be deservedly mean about it.']

On the subject of the inability of the Democratic
majority in the Senate to function, I submit the note I sent to Chairman Bingham earlier today and the bizzare news story that triggered it. What you need to know is that Robert Dillon the full committee's 'communications director' is from Alaska and judging from the PR Murkowski issued when he was appointed to his job, she hired him. What in the name of heaven is going on the US Senate?!

Dear Chairman Bingham:

Is Senator Murkowski now running your Committee?

Does the statement by your Committee's Communication Director in the article below truly reflect the Committee's position. If so, when did the Committee adopt this position and how is it that a Committee with a Democratic majority is carrying water for Senator Murkowski!?

The EPA can and should regulate GHG emissions because it is becoming ever more clear that the Senate is frozen in stalemate due to the majority's willingness to allow an obstructionist minority to abuse the antiquated filibuster rule to cower the majority into inaction.

If you are wondering why Democrats are not voting lately, you can put this sort of bizarre and extremely discouraging nonsense at the top of your list.

Robert

*****************

Senator Murkowski Aims to Shut Down GHG Reg

Posted By Environmental Leader On January 20, 2010 @ 10:09 am In Emissions, Government, Policy & Law | No Comments

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is expected to introduce an amendment that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act, reports the Los Angeles Times [1].

Murkowski, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, unveiled [2] her initial amendment in September, as the EPA was preparing to announce [3] that pollution from greenhouse gases endangers public health, reports the Miami Herald [4].

Murkowski will either try to block the EPA by seeking an amendment to an unrelated debt bill due to go to vote on Jan. 20 or she will seek a resolution of disapproval, which would not be subject to filibuster and only need 51 votes to pass, reports the Guardian [5]. She has the support of 34 Republicans and is reaching out to Democrats, according to the article.

Robert Dillon, communications director for the Senate energy and natural resources committee, told the Los Angeles times that the EPA regulation of greenhouse gas stationary sources is “going to be a bureaucratic nightmare, and really pose a serious threat to the economy.”

Dillon also said in the article that the proposed amendment would not interfere with the Obama administration’s plan to finalize new standards for cars and light trucks.

Murkowski’s proposed amendment is said to be drafted with the help of two energy industry lobbyists, according to several newspaper articles.

According to Politico [6], Murkowski has received more than $124,500 in donations from clients of an energy lobbyist involved with drafting the environmental amendment.

The Miami Herald also reports that Murkowski leads Congress with the most donations this election cycle from electric utilities — $157,046 -according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Several months ago, Murkowski’s staff contacted two lobbyists, Bracewell & Giuliani’s Jeffrey Holmstead and Sidley Austin’s Roger Martella Jr., to help to craft the amendment, to prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant, reports Politico.

Holstead’s clients include Duke Energy, CSX, Progress Energy, Southern Co. and other top utility and energy companies, of which several are Murkowski’s top donors, reports Politico.

While Murkowski insists that the lobbyists did not influence the text of the document, according to Politico, she has said it is standard practice to consult those who will be likely impacted by proposed regulations, reports the Los Angeles Times.

Holmstead and Martella told the Anchorage Daily News they were consulted about the language in Murkowski’s first amendment, reports the Miami Herald.

However, it is not the first time environmentalists and industry groups have played a key role in drafting climate proposals, reports Politico. As an example, Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey relied on a proposal compiled by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an advocacy group of utility companies and environmental groups, to craft their legislation.

Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, told the Guardian that other senators who support climate change law but are opposed to EPA regulation could be tempted to vote for the Murkowski proposal.

Key Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan, told reporters in a telephone conference call, that he doesn’t believe that the Senate will pass a climate change bill this year, but instead will focus on an energy bill that has more bipartisan support, reports Reuters [7].


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from Environmental Leader: http://www.environmentalleader.com

Elected Democrats are eager to throw away the HCR because the folks who pay their bills don't like it much. Not much for them to give up. And to quote Rahm, where are the progressives going to go, anyway. We will all hold our noses and support the failures in the fall. Won't we? Well, I won't. Fool me once shame on you, fool me 25 straight years and shame on me.

If ever there was a time to wage war against the filibuster, now would be it. Won't let us govern? Then we won't allow you to filibuster. GOP repeatedly said they would do this and faced no repercussions for doing so.

So we got knocked down a peg, how about we punish them by getting even MORE progressive! Force them to vote against every piece of legislation that supports the people rather than the dictates of corporate America.

Seriously, do you want to go out with a whimper or a bang?

Seriously, I'm pumped! It's time to get serious about this fight and motivate.

NUKE THE FILIBUSTER. Destroy it before it destroys America. There are at least half a dozen different ways that Biden, acting as President of the Senate, could get rid of it if he wanted to.

The Road Ahead...

If literally every Republican refuses to consider literally every bill, then the legislative process will produce nothing this year.

That is exactly why Obama's presidency has effectively ended. The republicans are willing to do anything and everything to subvert and reject him. They aren't going to play ball. At all. Isn't that obvious? And of course the media will not call them on it. People are angry I believe is the phrase we will be hearing a lot. And they have a right to be, will be the return from other talking head. And the dialog won't go much deeper than that...

In other words: What the republicans did to Carter they now do to Obama. In a different sort of way. But the same bottom line result: cut off his legs and make him weak. Shit on his character every chance you get. Shit shit shit shit shit. Ultimately some will stick. Ultimately they will bury him. And now, the shitting has become a bipartisan affair. He is looking cooked to me. Looks like those Bush tax cuts might be saved after all...

That's why I say ultimately this country will end up a right-wing dictatorship. The republicans are lock-step creatures with simple software loops who are willing to murder the country in favor of party and god. The Dems are reluctant to filibuster even tax cuts for the rich.

Given the horrible choices that global warming will force upon us, the republicans are better suited to rule when our democracy chokes its last gridlocked breath.

Welcome to your future.
And if you have children.... I feel for you.

Seriously, do you want to go out with a whimper or a bang?
Posted by: kiweagle on January 20, 2010

I would perfer to go out with a bang, but you really ought to ask Harry Reid. Seriously, Harry Reid going out with a bang. You got to be kidding?

If ever there was a time to wage war against the filibuster, now would be it. ...Seriously, do you want to go out with a whimper or a bang?

If I understand this correctly, it takes 67 votes to change Senate rules mid-session. You can do it with a majority at the beginning of each session (Jan 6 or so, 2011) but the Dems aren't going to want to do that, as they will be the minority by then.

The new political book title of our age:

Profiles in Cowardice: the Democratic Congress

Actually, Tim- it takes 51. The VP, as President of the Senate, can declare the filibuster unconstitutional. It's then out up for a vote, and a simple majority can make it so.
I wish this cheered me up more than it did, but I agree with everything SJW says above. The thing that saddens me, is I wasn't that upset last night. I mean, what's one senate seat when you have 59. It took the Democrats to depress me. I'm taking this harder than W's reelection. I mean, we worked our asses off, got a Democratic President and Congress, and it's still not enough for them.
I'm done. No more calls, doorbells, townhalls, etc..

Wow, the Democratic congress may be pathetic right now, but I'm stunned at how quickly many of the commenters here are giving up the game already.

Think of it this way, the Redskins just had one of the worst seasons they've had in years, but do you think the fans won't be back to support them next year?

Don't start demanding a backbone without growing one of your own - I'm looking at you SJW and Kevin Ray. There's plenty of fight left in us yet!

NOTHING will come out of Washington for the next three years. Republicans DO NOT CARE who gets hurt. They only care about who gets blamed. Democrats have the presidency and big congressional majorities (far bigger than when Bush was in office) they will take the blame.

Republicans run on government bad and do everything in their power to make that statement true. Bush appointed utter imcompetents and industry insiders to key posts. He politicized the Justice Department. He did this because he didn't care if the departmens worked or not. The republican base doesn't care becuase they don't expect government to work anyway so they don't pay attention to Republican hacks destroy it.

When Dems are in power Republicans throw up every roadblock they can to stiffle legislation or water it down or fill it with loopholes. They they use the investigative powers of congress to tie up appointed officials and keep them from doing their jobs or to keep the public distracted.

And when government doesn't work they just say, "see we told you government doesn't work."

They created a message that rewards them for hurting their own constituents because nobody (not the Dem leaders or especially the MSM) ever calls them on the fact that the reason government isn't working is because of their actions.

If Obama won't fight for this, perhaps it's time to start lining up a primary challenger for 2012. Visibly and vocally. Sounds like dems might just need it.

As for the Redskins analogy, this is more like the Skins aquiring Peyton Manning, the best 4 receivers in the game, the best running back in the game, the best O-line in the game, and then sitting them down so they don't get hurt---starting in the 1st game of the regular season, and continuing all season long. Kiss the fans goodbye. It's one thing to support a team that tries hard but loses (I was brought up a Packers fan in the '70s and '80s---anyone remember QB Scott Hunter? We thought Lynn Dickey was a godsend.) Teams that give up deserve no fans.

By the summer, Congress, with "only" 58 Senate Dems, had passed [a list of accomplishments] -- Steve Benen

That was then. At the beginning, the Repubs were just testing their boundaries, figuring out how much they can (safely) get away with. By now, they *know* that there's no limit and no payback. So they'll make sure that nothing, but nothing, gets through the Senate. And, naturally, they'll have a solid chunk of Dems ably and zealously (from a to z) aiding them in their endeavours.

You know,

I'd like to say, to the House Democrats,

the Republicans had nothing at all to do with winning that election in Massachusetts.

It was sheer accident.

Don't think it was better than accident.

Suck it up.

From the New Republic:

"A Research 2000 poll released today showed, for example, that 82% of Obama voters who went for Brown in Massachusetts support the public option. Such Obama-for-Brown voters also thought that the reform bill “doesn’t go far enough” by a 3:2 margin."

I don't even know what to say.

Larry, I think it will be great if Obama waits for Brown before they vote on healthcare legislation, Brown's voters want a public option, which is what we all wanted - till Lieberman sold us out!
After all Brown says he will vote the will of the people in Mass.

"It just takes a little courage..." Steve Benen.

Cue Bert Lahr!

I think it speaks for itself Larry. The base is not willing to accept a pile dog shit and pretend it's filet mignon. Health reform needs to be done right. Not only is the senate bill incredibly wrong but the president was actively fighting to make it WORSE at every turn.

He and the dems in general thoroughly deserved a huge bitch slap. And if they don't straighten up they deserve another come Nov.

There was never a 60 vote majority in the senate. Sure, there were 60 people in the caucus, but in no way should one consider Lieberman part of the actual Democratic majority.

There are at least 8 dems who are actually republicans, they just couldn't get elected with an 'r' after their name.

Now we will see if there are enough dems still sticking to the dem platform to get legislation passed via other means than trying to beat filibusters...or if there are enough dems to break the 177 holds by repubs to defeat Obama's agenda.

177 holds is unprecedented...un heard of...well since they want to do historical obstruction then I suggest Obama do something unprecedented also...make a 177 recess appointments. Now that would make his base stand up and cheer. We don't think he's 'tough' when he sends troops to Afghanistan...we think he's tough when he has the Siegleman prosecutors and judge arrested for corruption. I'm beginning to wonder if his daughters are being held hostage or something. 10% of the more than $145 billion in Bank/wall street bonuses is $14 billion to hire assassins or buy congress etc.. Time to call out the troops to stop our nation from being destroyed from within by these banksters..seize all assets. Just saying...

You don't have to worry about repubs coming back to power if you remain true to the dem platform because the "Mayberry Government" crowd have no new policies or plans and will remain a minority if dems will just act like dems.

Brown's voters want a public option, which is what we all wanted - till Lieberman sold us out!
After all Brown says he will vote the will of the people in Mass.

After all Brown will vote the will of the Corporate Overlords of Mass. Fixed.

After all Brown says he will vote the will of the people in Mass. -- JS, @18:59

The people of Mass want Public Option. Public Option isn't "on the table", having been swept off it somewhere in the dinosaur era. So, when he votes against the health insurance reform bill -- as he had promised those who voted for him -- he will not be, in any way, inconsistent.

At the risk of being banned again from here, I must say that I told you say about the linpdikedness of the Democrats in general, and Obama in particular.

When they were more than a foolproof fillibuster minority they refused to do anything to slaughter the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displacement of millions.

When they are in a majority, (even with this supposed 'major' loss, a majority of 59), they capitulate to the Republican threats.

Why would anyone want to be a Democrat?

Repubs may be vile, but Democrats are no better - at best a bunch of wusses.

If you believe Sen-Elect Brown (R) of Massachusetts will vote for health care reform with a public option, well, as the very old saying goes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to show you.

On dog shit vs. filet. Apparently, anything that isn't filet isn't acceptable to some people. It must be very nice to be able to afford that. The rest of us would like to have some hamburger, thank you.

Because there was a united Republican party in the Senate, passage of the Health bill required a united Democratic party.

The question is really if the House Democrats can unite into a party. If they can, they will pass the Senate bill.

Personally I think Obama has failed to lead because he wants congress to step up. If they don't, does it really matter to him if some democrats lose their seats? If they can't support the agenda, do they deserve to benefit from running on the Democratic ticket?

The trouble with the democratic party is that they have believed since Al Franken was sworn in that they had 60 votes in the senate which is far from the truth. With Nelson NE and Leiberman CT their has always been a reliable 58 votes.

Further democrats can blame themselves for getting all shocked and awed about Obama whe had no experience working in congress. A president Hillary Clinton knows how congress works and would have already passed health care. She would instructed her cabinet to propose a HCRB and sent it to congress and twisted arms to get it passed. Went out and talked to the public about the proposals without letting the rethugs describe the plan.

Its obvious to me that now the democrats a rethinking their votes. Now is not the time to abandon our beliefs and start lining up the GOTV campaign. We can't let the rethugs tell voters what we believe in any longer. Our leaders need to grow a set and get r done not wait till summer to start.