With low enthusiasm expected from Democratic base voters and the new flood of money created by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, Congressional Democrats are terrified that they are being dramatically outspent by shadowy, corporate-funded, outside campaigns. Sadly, instead of using their complete control of the federal government to reform this situation, they have taken to simply whining. From Politico:
Twice in the past week, House Democrats used closed-door meetings with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deliver an urgent message: They’re being crushed on the airwaves by outside groups, and they need her to do something about it.
[...]
[A]ccording to an internal Democratic spreadsheet obtained by POLITICO, there is a canyon-size gap between the two parties right now when it comes to spending by outside groups.
As of Monday, pro-Republican third-party organizations had paid for a total of $23.6 million worth of ads, while Democratic-aligned groups had spent just $4.8 million on TV.
I’m very concerned about this problem, but extremely unsympathetic to the Congressional Democrats who are complaining about it. For progressives, the corrupting influence of money in politics has always been a serious concern, and I strongly wish big-spending corporations and wealthy individuals were not trying to buy our government. I deeply want to see campaign finance reform.
But I am not in sympathy with House Democrats. Despite having the power and the time to deal with this long-term, systemic problem, the Majority did nothing. Third-party spending has been a concern for decades, and the Citizens United ruling was a year ago. That was plenty of time for them to respond with hardcore campaign finance reform, with tough disclosure laws, and public financing of elections. Democrats clearly should have seen the big spending onslaught coming, yet leadership failed to even pass the incredibly weak DISCLOSE Act. (Ironically, many of the same blue dogs who did not want campaign finance reform are the same ones who will lose their seats thanks to big outside spending against them.)
In what I can only call “political malpractice,” Democrats failed to use their historic majorities to correct wrongs and reform broken systems that systematically disadvantage Democrats and Democratic-leaning segments. Instead of complaining about being outspent by shadowy corporate groups, Democrats could have joined the rest of the first world Democracies and leveled the playing field with public campaign financing legislation.
Democrats should have used this moment to fix their horrible historic mistake that has disenfranchised the mainly African American and overwhelmingly Democratic citizens of Washington, DC. They missed a huge moment in which they could have passed DC statehood, failing to even get the District a single voting member of Congress.
Instead of merely fretting about low youth turnout, they could have provided large grants to states to fund same-day registration, electronic voter registration, and early voting programs—all of which would make it easier for young people to vote.
Of course, pushing these things through against the Republican Senate minority would have required finally amending the rules that allow for a filibuster, something Democrats could do in 10 minutes if they wanted to. Instead of improving a broken system that structurally disadvantages Democrats, they have chosen to treat the shameful filibuster as sacrosanct, even as Republicans’ abuse of it has totally crushed Democrats’ re-election prospects.
This pathetic whining from Democrats about problems they could and should have fixed is deeply depressing. It is like watching someone starve to death because they are too lazy to walk to their fully stocked kitchen.



53 Comments
Excellent post. Thanks. The Ds are whining because that’s what they always do. They are going to pay a very heavy price and their destruction will be their own fault.
Again, I wholeheartedly encourage Firedoglake writers and readers to use the “Washington Generals” metaphor when describing the Democrats as opposed to the “rotating villains” metaphor. Here’s that story again:
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/wash-generals.htm
Just for background on this completely superior metaphor, the Washington Generals Party were paid to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters. Only the most gullible children thought that a real “competition” of ideas was actually taking place. I think out of a zillion games the Washington Generals only won once. So, being that they were paid to lose, they clearly didn’t mind losing. I can only guess that dems are looking forward to those cushy lobbying jobs just like Donna Edwards opponent did, quitting early to take a lucrative position.
I mean, they didn’t see the ramifications of Citizens United more than a year ago? They don’t know that cutting social security benefits by stacking the commission with anti social security people will have bad results? They didn’t know that the public option was the only way to put pressure on the insurance industry to act decently? They don’t know that they have to round up 50 dems in the senate and Joe Biden in order to change the senate rules right now so that they can pass their agenda? They don’t know that without net neutrality we’re looking at a Fox news like Internet? You hold off the benefits of your health care plan because you know people are going to really love mandated insurance buys without the meaningful price controls of a public option? Really? Do you believe in Santa too?
They’re bought off. They’re corrupt. They’re being paid to lose. They don’t really lose afterall. Daschle makes more than the president as a faux lobbyist.
Our only way out of it for this election cycle is support third party Senate Green candidates in Arkansas and South Carolina (no spoiling anything there), take a look at the Ohio race for senate and maybe make a spoilage call in Illinois. This would be in the hopes that they would be a truly disruptive force in the US Senate (more like Jim Bunnings of the left not Bernie Sanders…)
I think that’s all we got for this term. We still have time. The argument that both parties are corrupt is a very powerful one. But it has to be made, with tv ads and doorknockers.
Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com
The only good part of this article to me, is the opportunity to use Democratic apathy to trade some Blue Dogs for Republicans.
Only in a de facto two-party system with one party taking a permanent vacation do you get Blue Dogs elected as Democrats. I know this sounds like party-purity purging that makes Rush and his ilk look so pathetic, but when democracy only has “ONE” legitimate party this serious transgression against the politically pragmatic and savvy makes sense.
At least when it comes to preserving the fundamentals of democracy. For Republicans, it’s NOT Democrats who are problematic, but DEMOCRACY itself.
How could Democrats possibly be mature and respectful of managing and maintaining democracy when the other side has given up on governance (as opposed to seeking power) altogether?
Isn’t it way past time to admit that our experiment of placing the reins of democracy in two opposing groups has failed? If it wasn’t for scary names like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, this California Democrat would vote against Jerry Brown, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in a heartbeat (WTF was up with Barbara’s Bill of attainder bullshit with ACORN?)
The only difference I see between the two parties, is that there’s a small minority of Democrats who actually care about democracy more than power. That’s not much to go on when one goes to the polls on election day.
Yeah, the Washington Generals is an excellent metaphor. Instead of confronting their problems head on and charging (like Taffy 3 at the Battle off Sumar, the greatest day in the history of the Navy), the Democrats just whine they’re not appreciated more for always losing with such grace.
You can also add to this list increase the number of union members by passing EFCA
Democrats aren’t dealing effectively with a political problem. There’s a surprise.
The filibuster rule is a double down on protection of
oligarchsminorities. It’s patently undemocratic and I’d like an explanation why I’m wrong.Political malpractice, indeed.
As for the filibuster… “all power to the oligarchs”.
Well, we do have to keep our powder dry.
Jon,
what are the chances that the Senate, nearly equally split in the lame duck session will actually commit the 10 minutes to get rid of the filibuster rule?
I happen to think that, if Democrats will stay true to form, it’s as good as a done deal.
The lame duck session would not be equally split. It is lame because it is all the same people even if some just lost. I think your best bet and we are talking like 2% would be a change at the start of the next congress if Dems hold control
Dude, you have no powder.
This self-created problem is interesting. The Democrats thought that by refusing to pass campaign finance reforms, they could keep the flow of corporate money coming their way. It never occurred to them that Wall Street, having given the GOP time to recuperate, would switch back to dumping the bulk of the campaign bribes on its preferred political party.
You’re preaching to the choir, brother.
As to Jon’s point to passing EFCA, Tom Geoghegan (himself a labor lawyer) wrote something very interesting a couple of weeks ago:
Remember: organized labor is not our base. The working people of the country are our base. We have to repackage labor law reform, even over the protest of organized labor itself. Except for those in the big white buildings in Washington, few working people understand the Wagner Act. Few understand card checks or secret ballot elections or mandatory first-time arbitration. Few labor lawyers understand it. So make it simple: instead of trying to fiddle with an old 1935 law based on a collectivist view of the world, let’s bring labor law up to date. How? Let’s amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to give the same individual type of civil right to join—or, yes, not to join—a union.
You’re wrong for two reasons.
First, Article One, Section Five of the Constitution grants each house the right to craft its own rules so it may fulfill its purpose. The Senate, having been created specifically to slow down legislation so as to ensure that a bare majority would not easily be able to impose its will upon a slim minority, is operating within its Constitutional parameters by retaining the filibuster.
The second reason is related to the first. You do NOT want the Republicans having such an easy time ramming their bills through the Senate without even the possibility of blocking it.
They must have peed on the powder in one of their cowering fits and now they are afraid to tell us they haven’t had any powder for years.
Michale your understanding of history is completely and totally wrong. The Senate was not meant to stop a slim majority from passing laws. The Constitutional makes it clear it is a majority body and even the original rules of the Senate did not allow for a filibuster. The filibuster only emerged decades later when one senator figured out how to exploit a drafting error in the most recent write of the rules.
This made me literally laugh out loud.
Thanks for that.
This is a great idea – Geoghegan has been pushing it for a while and it is time for us to listen. Aside from its effectiveness, it would be simple and straightforward as we tried to explain it to the public. The symbolic significance of tying the rights of workers to the civil rights movement should not be underestimated either.
Here’s the irony: For the Dems, staying in power would mean vigorously pursuing progressive pro-democracy initiatives. They know that. Instead they push policies through which they can satisfy their individual greed. For the party as a whole, winning no longer really matters, except as the prelude to losing (i.e., retiring with a golden-parachute equivalent, such as a cushy lobbying job). And for the country as a whole, that could well mean disaster.
I’ll take a snapdragon over powder, anyday. And, that’s the truth.
The Senate was created because small states fear being hurt by the large voting blocks of big states. It had nothing to do with not passing laws with a simply majority of senators.
I’ve often commented about how, on the issues, the American public is far more liberal than they self-identify as. But there are a few issues where the American public is quite at odds with us progressives. Isn’t public funding of campaigns one of them?
That would be the way for the party to stay in power in the country, not the way for the existing leadership to stay in power in the party.
That assumes that Democrats will filibuster and shut down a Republican bill under Republican control. From 2003 to 2006, that did not happen and some really crappy bills dealing with human rights and civil liberties got passed with Democratic votes.
There is no mandate in the Constitution for the Senate to act specifically to slow down legislation. That interpretation depends on the history of the debates in the writing of it; not every delegate thought that that was its intent. And those who pushed for it specifically were interested in not tampering with the “peculiar institution”.
It was intended to be undemocratic in that small states were given as much power as large states. That did not imply that there needed to be a supermajority to act.
Except it’s not “For the Dems”, it’s “For some Dems”…
You’re astute, baby. Paying attention.
God, all this time bashing people with strong pro-left opinions, I wonder why they’re having so much trouble with third-party spending now?
Nope. 2008 election time polling found:
And I really don’t think people are happy about the Citizen’s United decision.
You can call it ironic, Jon, I call it Karma. Either way it’s pretty damn funny when you think about it.
Wow, you guys see Jon Stewart’s comments on Obama from the O’Reilly Factor.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/23/stewart-saddened-by-obama/?hpt=T2
Hey, Obama and Rahm hows that kissing Wall St ass work out for you?
No reform.
No money.
Oh well.
At least you got to screw over those f&*king ret&*ds, who cares if the Democratic party and the whole middle class is going down the shitter.
While I agree about the desirability of campaign finance reform, my analysis is:
If the Dems had passed a real HCR bill with a public option and real FinReg reform they wouldn’t be in this situation. The GOPers couldn’t spend enough money to offset the enthusiastic “thank you/way to go/keep it up” turnout of the progressive base (and independents).
The private insurance mandate is the single biggest turnout killer in living memory.
still gives me goosebumps thinkin’ about WWII escort carriers running straight at battlewagons like the Yamato and making them blink. The US Navy back then sure had balls, once upon a time Democrats had them as well.
(OT and to quote Sean Connery from “The Hunt for Red October”…”Halsey acted stupidly at Leyte Gulf”)
I’m sorry Michael, you’re 180 degrees out of phase with reality. The Republicans haven’t had (as the Democrats have currently) 59 Senate votes since 1924 and somehow, they’ve still been able to get their agenda through once in a while. As Matt Yglesias wrote today,
This is a really genuinely and non-ironically praiseworthy attribute of the Republican congressional caucus that makes congressional Democrats look really, really bad. Republican members of congress and of the United States Senate generally have a correct understanding of the relationship between process and substance in a constitutional democracy, and do a good job of taking their responsibilities as public officials seriously. Some Democrats match them in these regards, but most utterly fail…
Republicans are determined to follow the actual laws and rules. When in the minority, they don’t rebel. They don’t murder their political opponents, they don’t organize coups d’état. What they do is they try to win legislative battles through all the tools at their disposal. And when in the majority they . . . do the same thing. They believe, strongly, that letting wealthy businessmen get what they want is good for America, and they go about doing that with seriousness of purpose. Many Democrats, by contrast, seem to believe that their highest responsibility is to make themselves look good, to preen for the cameras, or to maximize their own personal authority. (emphasis added)
They have all the levers of power and have made an incredible mess of it.
Why would voters trust them with another go?
I mean, the GOP is crazy but at least people know where they stand, exactly what got W re-elected (by the way).
If you haven’t read Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors, you should.
But then, who reads books anymore? I just came up across the History Channel CGI recreation of the battle, wow!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQzxsFtNdk
Gee, ya know, if the Senate doesn’t act, that lets the House off the hook. No foul. Right?
There really is no excuse for the Democrats in the Senate except this: their agenda ain’t that much different from the Repubs.
And to think I’m actually agreeing with almost half of what Yglesias is saying here. Wow.
i find myself addicted to the Military Channel because of their excellent WWII documentaries – which is ironic because I’m as anti-imperialistic as they come. Will keep my eye out for that book at the local used book store though, I couldn’t put down Midway when I was a kid even after i saw the movie w/ Chuck Heston.
I used to think so, but I’ve come to the conclusion that the 1919 Black Sox is even more appropriate.
“… about problems they could and should have fixed ..”
Whatever excuses the election post mortum may produce, in the end the dems need look no further than their failure to govern. This election is a performance review: no more, no less.
I, too, have no sympathy for the Democrats in Congress. But at the same time I have utter loathing for the Republicans in Congress.
As far as the Democrats in Congress (especially the Blue Dog Democrats who got their way when Democrats finally had a majority in both Houses, selecting Harry Reid to lead the Senate and Nancy Pelosi to lead the House) not only have these Democrats not addressed successfully this democracy-destroying Citizens United ruling by fascist Republicans on the Supreme Court, but Democrats have also not addressed the fact that a bunch of Republicans own voting machine companies, leaving the door open to vote tampering and election rigging in favor of the culture of corruption Republican Party.
So, not only are some oligarch Americans siding with Republicans against Democrats, but even on election day the possibility exists that Democratic Party votes will disappear, replaced with the Republican’s name on a voter’s ballot, to say nothing of evidence of voter caging by Republicans occurring already around the country.
Loathing doesn’t even begin to describe my feelings toward Republicans and the evil their conservative agenda for America represents. Our founding fathers warned us about these type of loathsome right-wing individuals. Just as Jesus Christ warned us about these type of loathsome right-wing individuals. Frankly, it doesn’t look good for American, for our liberal democracy.
Still, I am definitely voting straight Democratic Party ticket in November. The Tea Potty radical Republicans are just too loathsome for my liberal, progressive tastes, and patriotic ideals.
so many Ponies they inexplicably did not produce!
maybe, actually, they are doing exactly what they want with their time in power, consolidating and entrenching the wars and torture and pervasive surveillance, continuing the upward redistribution of wealth.
you see, that is what the government does these days, naively pretending that the Democrats want to produce Ponies, ought to produce Ponies, but are so darn incompetent is pretty wishful thinking.
The Washington Generals metaphor is imperfect. The Generals aren’t being paid to lose they’re being paid to put on a a show. Losing, just happens to be part of the script. The Dems. are also being paid true, but not to lose. Their being paid to win BIG benefits for their Corp. clients which they do. It’s all of our mistaken belief to think just because we vote for them somehow we should expect some kind of pay off reward for that. The average GOPer voter I think knows that they’re candidates are going to take care of their big Corp. clients first, so they’re not as disappointed when they do.
A good point, and I quite agree. The average GOPer & T-bagger will passionately defend the Oligarch’s bounden rights to low taxes & no regulations, not be bothered one whit while US jobs are off-shored to other countries, and believe that maintaining our infrastructure is somehow a commie plot.
Of course – to borrow from a prior post – rather than expecting govt to provide them with ponies, most rightwingers appear to believe that the Oligarchs will some day, if we all just wait long enough, clap hard enough and suffer enough, shower us all with ponies.
Who’s more foolish?
In the not too distant past, Democrats did work *more* for the good of the nation than they do now. Our votes were somewhat akin to “hiring” them to work for us. It’s within the past couple of decades this notion became quaintly outdated. Citizens United in Jan just sealed the deal.
We’re in a paradigm shift where our votes count for sh*t – whether they’re actually counted or not, tampered with or not. Doesn’t matter. Pols now mostly all work for themselves alone and clearly see no problem with payola and lining up cushy lobbying jobs once they’re voted out.
And so: on it goes…
This.++
We continually perpetuate this polite frame that the Democrats are either craven or incompetent, rather than just simply stating what they are: the other brand of corporatist politics.
They didn’t produce better HCR, better FinReg, etc. specifically because they didn’t want to, that was never the intent in the first place.
Can we drop this bullshit already?
He didn’t say it was unconstitutional. He said it is undemocratic and it is.
Damn there were really good posts on this thread!!!!
I believe all of America is seeing through this garbage now, hopefully
the same will happen with some of the Tea Baggers, now all of them are
bad people, just paid actors that leading them.
To the California Voter…..
I understand your Delemma, its part of the scheme to keep the left from
straying from their Centrist Democrat Vote. Make the others look so scary,
you will still vote for a member of the Duopoly.
What they have done in this very RED District that I am in is even more
maddening. My Republican representative never gets challenged by a
Democrat oppenent, she always is a shoe in , and her husband Bill Emerson
before he died the same. They have had this Red District without any
oppisition since the eighties. (As people go, Jo Ann and her staff are
seemingly nice people). I have never voted for her, she knows this.
However, this being a get rid of incumbent mode election cycle, the
Oligarchs are concerned about this district and have put up a Democrat
to run against Jo Ann Emerson. He ,again a nice young man, is back from
two Iraq tours, teaches at West Point, and is as a BLUE DOG Dem as you
could get. His only campaign against Jo Ann is, “she voted for bailouts”.
He supports the wars, doesn’t talk about the gross agri-business that
is destoying our environment and ground water around here , ect.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO? My decision, is not to support this nonsense, if I
were to vote for either, since they both would probably have the exact
same voting record, would be for Jo Ann, even though I have never in my
life ever voted for a Republican. She ,with her seniority could certainly
get more done for the individual. (I won’t vote this time)
Man, I’ve seen that History Channel doc about Taffy 3 a half dozen times and it still mesmerizes. More recently there was another multi-part doc about WWII and one of the segments featured Jack Yuen, who was one the few survivors from the Samuel B. Roberts after it sank. Man, what an incredible feat of courage and seamanship by everyone in that pitifully small, outgunned Task Force.
Unfortunately, the only way to make the Dems learn is to vote them out of office. Make them pay for their sins. Every Dem at every level has got to pay the price and feel the pain.
I’m in Harman’s district, where she will win re-election, but I still get to vote against her, plus Brown, Babs, etc. Going straight GOP this time. No diluting my protest by going third-party.
The first question, as always, is what is “the filibuster rule” to which you refer?
I assume you are aware – as is, I hope, everyone here who’s calling for limiting the right of the representatives of our states to be heard in the Senate Chamber (everyone besides Jon Walker, at least, who evidently neither knows nor cares) – that:
1. There hasn’t been an actual filibuster in the U.S. Senate for something like 20 years – one stunt by Harry Reid last decade aside. [The good government-harming, deliberative debate-shunning reasons for this fact deserve our attention (which they will never publicly receive from the power accumulators known as Parties).] Unless I somehow missed the referenced “shameful filibuster” on, most recently, the motion to proceed to the $700-Billion Defense Authorization bill (with the DREAM Act, a ban on Guantanamo detainee repatriations to Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc., etc., included)? If so, who conducted it, how long did they stay on their feet, what did they say, and how long did the majority wait them out before filing its cloture motion to bring debate to an end?
2. The Senate majority files “cloture motions” – an optional motion, intended to be deployed mid-filibuster, if at all, which triggers a supermajority 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster. Today, however, the Democratic majority under Harry Reid files cloture motions immediately upon the mere privately-delivered threat to filibuster. Thereby imposing an artificial supermajority on Senate action, in place of its default simple-majority order, even in the absence of floor debate.
3. The Senate may change its rules at any time by simple-majority vote. If someone proposes a rule change, and a real (physically-taxing) filibuster actually develops in opposition, the Senate majority either waits out that filibuster, or files a cloture motion to end it, if it can’t or won’t wait it out. In either case, final passage of the rule change would be by simple-majority vote. In the case of the filing of an optional cloture motion on a rule change filibuster, 67 votes would first be needed to end the filibuster (if the filibuster continued for the two days that cloture motions must wait for a vote). [The longest one-man filibuster in Senate history lasted 24 hours. Such a filibuster has been possible from day one of the Senate, based upon its "original rules" (it's an open question whether multi-Senator filibusters were possible under the rules organizing the first 10-20 years of Senate proceedings). There was no "drafting error" in early rule changes in the Senate that has somehow been exploited, without change, for over 180 years - those early Senators were practiced legislators, and showed it.]
I’d be interested to know, specifically, what you find “patently undemocratic” about the facts in those three statements (feel free to point out where I’m wrong on any of them).
What beowulf, among others here, endorses – as I noted in reply to a more explicit beowulf comment in an earlier thread – is that a lockstep majority of Senators should – to manufacture this and thus any ‘rule’ (or just corruptly-manipulated precedent) – violate existing Senate rules, instead of changing them (by simple majority) as the rules provide.
Honestly stated, that’s what both the “nuclear” option – which doesn’t bother waiting for a new Congress – and the “constitutional” option – which pretends that the next new Congress begins with no Senate rules, for the first time in over 200 years – are all about.
And the driving motivation (based on the present Democratic Senate majority) of such Party partisans is to end the right to extended debate in the Senate without debating the question. [And because such an abuse of Party power would avoid the need to force the practice of real filibusters - which require public debate (instead of the status quo of Reid-filed supermajority cloture motions) - and with it the Senate's default simple-majority order, back into being in the Senate. This latter reason is obviously a primary motivation of the Party leadership of both Parties and their private caucuses (who fear and loathe public debate and the accountability it brings), which support of their efforts promotes, whether supporters recognize it or not.]
In order to eliminate the right to extended debate in the Senate without debating the question, a Party majority has to pretend to act in accordance with existing Senate rules – either by having an unprincipled Presiding Officer, backed by a power-abusing Senate majority, knowingly violate existing rules of order and Senate precedent (on this and thus potentially every future question of order in the Senate), or by pretending that the Senate’s rules have, for the first time, all expired at the close of the preceding Congress (and thus will expire at the close of all future expiring Congresses, every two years, going forward). Which amounts to a profoundly-destructive “10 minute” action that would permanently undermine parliamentary order, and destroy the right of every Senator to be equally heard in our Senate. A destructive action that erroneously equates the right to be heard with an ability to actually derail a committed majority’s agenda by mere threat or by short-lived floor debate.
Meanwhile, to little or no public notice, as compared to the “filibuster” bogeyman, our Senate today, when “in session,” consists mostly of pretend quorum calls, that don’t actually call the quorum, in order to suspend all action in an empty chamber, while the private objections and deals get made in the back rooms, off the public record. Calls for even less Senate floor debate than now exists appear nonsensical and counterproductive in the extreme.
Our “self-government” is our Congress. President Obama (cheered on by the national media) may have appointed himself Chief Legislator, but the head of the Executive Branch – whose unfulfilled Constitutional duties lie elsewhere – can never be the “self-government” of our democratic Republic. Ending the rarely-exercised right to extended public debate in the Senate – even if it’s done without first violating Senate rules – will not cure the ominous and inexcusable failure of Congressional incumbents today to play their essential role in our representative democracy – by, among other things, publicly debating and legislating.
Great post… and no sympathy from me, either.