In 2007 when Democrats got a small majority in the Senate - Majority Leader Harry Reid was dismayed because he just couldn't get anything done. Those darn Republicans filibustered anything the Democrats tried to do. Conversations went a little like this:

Harry Reid: We got this here legislation we want to vote on

Republicans: We're gonna filibuster

Harry Reid: Gosh darn it whatever will we do?

That's right. In a sort of bizarre Senate short hand Harry never made the Republicans filibuster. All they had to do was tell Harry over the phone that if a certain piece of legislation came to the floor then they would filibuster. Republicans were never made to filibuster.

This is quite a striking contrast to when Republicans had a small majority in the Senate. They told Democrats that if they didn't vote on the legislation then they would go nuclear on their asses and get rid of the filibuster. They then proceeded to berate Democrats in the media calling them obstructionists. Of course in the end Democrats caved to Republicans in a bizarre compromise where they promised to allow the vote on Supreme Court nominees if Republicans promised to not get rid of the filibuster.

Well Harry has his 60 votes now in the Senate so presumably things can get done. But we know this isn't the case. Harry promised years ago if he could only get 60 Democrats in the Senate things would move. Well, it's not going to happen.

In all fairness I can't blame it all on Harry Reid. We all know there are several Democrats who really shouldn't be in the Democratic Party (Traitor Joe Lieberman). We all know there are several more beholden to corporations just as much as Republicans.

Still I can't help but think just how weak it makes Harry look as majority leader if he can't get the votes he wants when he needs them. We all know he is weak. His purpose is to kiss Republican ass. What do you think LBJ would have done as majority leader? I am not sure but I am guessing he would have made the Republicans filibuster a few times. And Democrats that failed to get in-line on key votes I am guessing LBJ would lean on them a bit.

What's Harry going to do? The usual...cry the blues to the media.

NYT - What’s So Super About a Supermajority?

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are about to reach the magical threshold of 60 votes, allowing them in theory to sweep aside Republican delaying tactics. But the arrival of that 60th vote, in the person of Al Franken of Minnesota, is not likely to make the party’s very real difficulties in advancing contentious legislation disappear.

The persistent absences of two veteran Democratic senators because of serious illness, the varied ideological makeup of the Democratic caucus and the willingness of individual senators to break with the party if they do not get their legislative way make the new mathematical might of the Democrats a bit illusory.

“We have 60 votes on paper,” Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said Wednesday in an interview. “But we cannot bulldoze anybody; it doesn’t work that way. My caucus doesn’t allow it. And we have a very diverse group of senators philosophically. I am not this morning suddenly flexing my muscles.”

Full Article Here

Posted by PoliShifter at 02:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

For years Senator Harry Reid has stood at the podium exhausted and exacerbated crying that if he only had 60 Senators things could get done. Well, he has 60 Senators now that Franken was finally declared the winner in Minnesota. So what will be the excuse for complete failure to get anything done? Will he blame Byrd or Kennedy for not being able to vote?

The simple reality is that just because Democrats have 60 doesn’t mean they will get 60 to go along on anything. In fact, I bet they will barely be able to muster 52 or 53 on key votes. Many Democrats these days have taken to voting and acting like Republicans.

Not having 60 was a great excuse. It worked or years. Not sure what Harry will do now. My guess is that 75 will be the new 60 and Harry will cry he needs to have 75 Democratic Senators to ensure that at least 60 will vote for the desired legislation.

The sad reality is Democrats are squandering their chances. Rather than use their current power to get things done they are infighting and squabbling while caring more for pork and corporate interest than The People. The result will be a fall from power in 2010 and 2012 with nothing to show for their brief time as majority.

Posted by PoliShifter at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Dennis Kucinich voted against the Climate Change Bill. He said it gives too many concessions to the coal industry and won't do enough fast enough to make a difference.

That's pretty much the problem with Congress that for anything to get passed basically everyone needs to get some sugar. A little honey and a little pork for enough districts and legislation gets passed. Unfortunately the final bill typically ends up a watered down version of what its original intent was.

This seems to be the case with the Climate Change Bill. Like many Americans, I am lazy so I am not about to go read the entire bill and find out for myself if it's better than nothing or not. So I rely on articles about it. Environmentalists are not totally opposed to it but they are disappointed by the concessions made to polluters. Ofcourse Obama and other moderates are hailing the bill as landmark.

I would like to blame Republicans. After all they don't think CO2 emissions are a concern and don't think humans affect the environment. But reality is there is a huge swath of Democrats that are Democrats in name only who come from coal States that are also part of the problem.

I think we are just going to have to face facts. Congress will never enact real change. Congress takes small incremental steps toward a certain goal often never reaching it or if it does often too late. It's the design of our system. It's flawed. Congress serves Corporate Interest not The People and until that changes nothing changes.

Climate Change Activists Dismayed by Some of Bill's Provisions

Posted by PoliShifter at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Governor Sanford is now a distant memory due to the death of Michael Jackson and the media's decision to cover his death 24/7. Also missing from the front pages is Iran. Looks like Sanford might keep his job after all and if there is a revolution in Iran we won't hear about it this weekend.

Posted by PoliShifter at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

All of a sudden everyone in the media has shown an interest in fiscal restraint. They claim the American People are now concerned about spending, deficits, and fiscal discipline. Thus when it's estimated it may cost $2 Trillion over 10 years to pay for a public option for healthcare everyone freaks out.

No one freaked when we added $5 Trillion to the debt over the past 8 years under Bush Cheney. No one freaked as the cost of invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan topped $1 Trillion and may top $2 Trillion when all said and done. But now, oh my GOD, $2 Trillion over 10 years, why how on earth will we ever pay for that?

$2 Trillion over 10 years. That's $200 Billion a year. Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan would save us that much. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts surely would help. We spend over $1 Trillion a year on the military. Surely there is $200 Billion a year in the Pentagon we can save by simply axing some failed programs such as was the case with the Star Wars program. Hell, the Pentagon lost $2 Trillion and can't account for it.

It's just funny to me that when it comes to the military and wars no one cares about the cost. We've spent trillions of dollars over the years on the military, much of it wasted. To this day if America was to get into another war (a likely possibility) and we were told it would cost $2 Trillion no one would care. As long as it's a good war with bombs, tanks, and lots of death we are ok with that.

But $2 Trillion (over 10 years) to provide public healthcare? OMG, that's just like too much money. I'm all like fiscal conservative now and concerned about deficits and stuff. So like, it's real concerning about how they will find that money. What's that you say? Another $1 Trillion over ten years to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan? No problem!

Posted by PoliShifter at 09:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Can France get off the right winger shit list now? Can they finally start calling their freedom fries french fries again? Can they finally start calling their freedom toast french toast again? Will O'Reilly now sing the praises of France with Hannity and Limbaugh in three-way harmony?

Burkas not welcome in France: Sarkozy

VERSAILLES, France (AFP) – President Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday that the Islamic burka is not welcome in secular France, home to Europe's largest Muslim community.

Condemning the head-to-toe cover for women as a symbol of subjugation rather than faith, Sarkozy was emphasising his divergent views from US President Barack Obama.

On a visit to Paris earlier this month, Obama urged Western countries to avoid "dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear."

"We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity," Sarkozy said

"That is not the idea that the French republic has of women's dignity.

"The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience," he told lawmakers in a major policy speech at a special session of parliament. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic."

Full Article Here

While I am sure the right wingers would applaud the condemning of burkas they probably would not be so down with Sarkozy's secularism. After all, a large chunk of right wingers think this is a Christian nation founded by Jesus in 1776. They would like the Bible as a text book in schools and think the earth is 5000 years old. If they lived in France they might get Sarkozy's rebuke if they tried to get their religious beliefs instituted as law like they try to do here.

Posted by PoliShifter at 08:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ve been having a bit of trouble lately with regard to politics and what direction to take it in. I am not happy with Obama on many levels. We’re still in Iraq, Gitmo is still open, and for the most part the status quo has not changed. Obama is governing strictly from the center while trying to appeal to a majority of people (50% +1). By doing this however nothing really gets done. Instead he is busy doing political calculus about which decisions will help him or hurt him in the next election.

Case in point is gay rights. Obama knows if he comes out in favor of gay marriage and pushes hard to repeal don’t ask don’t tell that he will piss off the evangelicals. However, by not doing anything he alienates the left. So he throws the left a bone here and there hoping it will placate them enough. The net result though is very little gets done. It’s a simple nudge to the left of a boat that has been drifting far right for decades.

The problem I struggle with is do I stay true to principle or play politics? Principle dictates to criticize Obama day in and day out until he changes course. Politics dictates that if the left joins the right in being critical of Obama then it paves the way for a Republican come-back in 2010 and perhaps Sarah Palin in 2012. And while I am certainly not happy with the Democrats I sure as hell don’t want to live through another Republican Congress and President again.

I guess in the end it’s all bullshit and maybe we need a revolution in this country to divest corporate interest from government. Our choices for decades have been between a pile shit and diarrhea - neither one of them good but one maybe slightly better than the other depending on one’s point of view.

The media as of late has been on an Obama take-down over stating polls that “clearly show Obama trending down”. Well if they keep saying it day in and day out over and over it will become true. On the other hand the American People will start to blame Obama for everything soon if something doesn’t happen. Republicans know this and are waiting in the wings to pounce as soon as they sniff that flip coming. The administration says it will take two years for the so-called stimulus results to come in. That’s too long. They have till the end of summer.

But here is the kicker: If the economy sputters and we see inflation then we get another god-damned conservative revolution that makes Sarah Palin President. I strongly believe that would devastate our country even worse than the last 8 years of Bush Cheney and a Republican Congress.

So what do we do? Do we play politics as Republicans would just to keep Democrats in power? Or do we pile on Obama and the Democrats thereby paving the way for a Republican comeback and sow our own demise? Remember Republicans remained loyal to Bush to the bitter end just so they could maintain power. In the end it didn’t work out for them but they had a good 6 years of free reign over our country while enriching their cronies.

I just don’t know what to do. A part of me thinks maybe we should work to undermine Obama so we get another round of Republicanism which would further sink the country. Then maybe that would finally wake the American People up and we’d get some real change.

Posted by PoliShifter at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Republicans are not letting go. They are trying to align themselves with the protesters in Iran. They are comparing themselves to the protesters in their fight against Obama. They are rebuking Obama for not showing more support for the protesters. Anyone with half a brain knows if Obama voiced support for the protesters that it would work in the Iranian government favor. I guess Republicans don't have half a brain.

What's worse though is the Republican's feigned concern for the freedom of the Iranian People. Yesterday 6/18/09 on MSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports around 10:30 PST Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison said

...you know in a free country you may have protests but you don’t see police shooting and beating up the protesters - that’s the difference between a free country’s protests and the protests against a dictatorship or a caliphate

--Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Video Here quote half way through video

If you belong to any sort of perceived anti-government activist group you are monitored. Members of the Quakers, Code Pink, and Raging Grannies to name a few were all being spied on by the Bush Administration. To this day we still don't know if the warrantless wiretap programing is continuing. All indications are that the NSA is still collecting data, still reading emails, and still monitoring internet searchers. All without warrants or cause. I would guess even right wing extremist groups that you probably support Senator are being monitored by the DHS.

Worst of all Senator we still have human beings at Gitmo being held indefinitely many of whom have been tortured in our name. They have had their right of habeas corpus suspended. They are being held in the name of the American People where we supposedly value the freedom you speak about.

We've also had over the past few years the creation of so-called "free speech zones" where protesters are quarantined far away from the political candidates. Some freedom Senator. As far as making fun of Iran's State Run Media that's rich coming off the past 8 years where Fox News had unprecedented access to the White House which the White House used to get out its propaganda. That's rich considering the previous administration routinely distributed propaganda media to local news broadcasts.

I'm all for freedom Senator but perhaps we should start here at home guaranteeing some of our own rights and freedoms before we concern ourselves with Iran. Besides Senator, what is it you want to do? Invade them? Bomb them? How do you propose spreading this thing you call freedom? The way you did it in Iraq Senator wasn't exactly effective.

Posted by PoliShifter at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Seems these days Obama just can't catch a break. Everyone is upset with him. The left is upset with him for a whole variety of reasons ranging from Iraq, Gitmo, Bush Era prosecutions, gay rights, and healthcare. The right has always hated him and always will. Independents, the largest voting block in America, are turning on Obama because of concerns over the deficit. They didn't care about the deficit and fiscal responsibility for the 8 years under Bush Cheney but now it's become neo chic.

Yep, Obama just can't get a break. He should just start doing Rodney Dangerfield routines at his news conferences. No respect I tell ya. Why the other day in an interview on Tuesday with John Harwood of CNBC Obama swatted at and killed a fly. No big deal right? We've all swatted flies and on the rare occurrence hit one with our bare hands.

Well PETA is up in arms about it. They want Obama to be nicer to animals next time...even flies.

That should be a signal to all the Republican Haters out there that Obama isn't a liberal. Even the President has PETA after him. If anything all the gun toting conservatives who listen to Ted Nuggent and regularly tell Sierra Club to go hike to hell while making fun of PETA should be rallying to Obama's defense. Maybe they are...I never visit those sites so who knows.

I would expect Limbaugh to go on a rant supporting Obama for killing that fly while trashing PETA. If it had been President Bush who killed the fly that PETA was going after you can bet Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity would be trashing PETA.

So what say you right wingers? Can you defend the President on this one? He's obviously not a liberal...he killed a fly.

Posted by PoliShifter at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The current situation in Iran has seemed to have flummoxed Conservatives, Republicans, and NeoCons. They can't seem to get on the same page. At first many were calling for stronger words from Obama with pledges of support for those in Iran that support the opposition. Even McCain rebuked Obama for not taking a stronger stance. Then a few Republicans praised Obama for his careful and measured comments on the situation.

The NeoCons have been wanting to bomb Iran for 8 years now. Bush Cheney just couldn't muster the popular support for it. Now NeoCons see this bizarre opening where they want the U.S. to help promote and spread democracy in Iran...with the barrel of a gun ofcourse.

They didn't seem to learn the first time that if you kill hundreds of thousands of people in the process of bringing them democracy they aren't going to be very happy about it. That's what happened in Iraq. What do the NeoCons want to do? Drop bombs on Tehran with the word democracy painted on them? Do they want the Marines to storm into Iran killing people while proclaiming freedom for everyone?

The situation in Iran does not warrant military action. The Iranian People need to decide their own destiny. If we start meddling in their affairs pushing one side over another the Iranian People will reject us. I know the NeoCons love a good bombing and the killing of innocent people but I hope this time around no one listens to them.

Posted by PoliShifter at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Everyone is up in arms about how much money healthcare for Americans will cost. Why spend all that money on heathcare when there will surely be more wars to fight soon?

We've spent over $2 Trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. No one seems to mind except a few on the left and maybe Ron Paul. After all it's national defense. It's keeping us safe. It's fighting the war on terra. And as Americans we all love a good war or military action every ten years on average.

We spend over $1 Trillion a year on war related spending (also known as "defense" spending) and no one seems to care. Hundreds of millions in war related products are given to countries all over the world including Israel and Saudi Arabia. We give hundreds of millions of dollars to countries all over the world.

But spend money on healthcare? Don't be absurd. We may need to invade Iran soon or North Korea. Who knows when Russia might act up again. We prefer our war spending to domestic spending. It's been that way for over 40 years.

Show me a new missile system that will cost $1 Trillion over ten years and I guarantee you a majority of Americans will support it. "Gotta have a strong defense you liberal pussies!!". Show me a healthcare plan that insures Americans that will cost $1 Trillion over ten years and *cough* *gasp* *choke* we don't want no socialism 'round here bud...this here's 'Merica. We don't want no Frenchie system here bud.

Good to see we have our priorities straight (wars good/health care bad).

Posted by PoliShifter at 09:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I still think we are staying there forever but at least there is some sort of plan to reduce our troops...I guess.

US commander: US to stick to Iraq withdrawal date
By CHELSEA J. CARTER and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers Chelsea J. Carter And Qassim Abdul-zahra, Associated Press Writers
#
Under the Iraqi-U.S. security pact, American combat troops must withdraw by June 30 with all U.S. forces out of the country by the end of 2011. President Barack Obama has said all combat troops will leave Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, leaving up to 50,000 troops in training and advising roles.
#

BAGHDAD – The top U.S. commander in Iraq said Monday that he remains "absolutely committed" to pulling back all combat troops from urban areas by the end of the month, as provided for in a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement.

Gen. Ray Odierno said a limited number of advisers and trainers will remain in the cities to work with Iraqi security forces, leaving unanswered questions about how many U.S. troops would remain and where they would be located.

Full Article Here

Posted by PoliShifter at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)