Manchin-Toomey: A gun control "compromise" manufactured by the gun lobby

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Gun-crazy "bipartisanship"

I wrote on Friday that there was no hope in hell of meaningful gun control legislation getting through Congress. Manchin-Toomey may be a "bipartisan" "compromise," insofar as it has a few Republican backers, but even if it were to get through the Senate it would still have the House to contend with -- and there the NRA, which opposes the measure, has even more sway. Which is to say, we're a long way even from this limited measure making its way into law, and it may never get there.

Ah, but the tide is turning, is it not, what with two Republican senators -- John McCain and Susan Collins, joining Mark Kirk -- coming out this weekend in support?

Well, there's your "bipartisanship" on an issue that has the overwhelming support of Americans: Democrats plus a few Republicans. And we're not talking about a comprehensive gun control package here. This is just expanded background checks (important, yes, but not nearly enough). And even then McCain's support is a tad wishy-washy: he's "very favorably disposed," which is not a full endorsement, leaving him more than enough room to back out. What's more, Republican Jeff Sessions, a staunch opponent, said yesterday that he didn't think the measure would pass, and co-sponsor Pat Toomey acknowledged that passage is an "open question."

And again, this is just the Senate.

But okay, let's say it does pass, and let's say House Republicans buck the NRA, however unlikely, and support it, doing the least they can do as a way to make it seem like they're doing something, appealing to popular opinion, while pushing off having to do anything else. And let's say President Obama signs it, which he would, even though he's called for much more, because it's something, and something is supposedly better than nothing, and he likes the whole bipartisan thing anyway.

Read more »

Debt ceiling crashing down

By Frank Moraes 

As I posted the other night, the House voted to fund Hurricane Sandy relief with only 49 Republicans. The Fiscal Cliff deal passed the House with only 85 Republicans. Both of these votes violated the "Hastert Rule," which says that the Speaker of the House should only bring a vote to the floor if a majority of his caucus is in favor. That should mean that for a vote to come to the floor, there should be at least 122 Republican votes. But twice in one month, this has not been the case.

This is good news, and it makes me kind of hopeful about the Debt Ceiling crisis. It suggests that the Republican leadership is not going to allow its extremist caucus to destroy the United States and thereby the Republican Party. Hopefully. But there really is cause to be hopeful. It isn't just this recent abandonment of the "let the crazies block all legislation" rule.

The whole Republican Party seems to be splitting in half over the issue. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have said that the Debt Ceiling must be raised. Admittedly, both of these Senators are of the "not quite so crazy" variety of Republican, but it is always the weakest joists in the ceiling that crack first. 

Read more »

Rice and Benghazi: Why is this so fucking hard for Republicans to understand?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And so the Republican obsession with the tragic Benghazi attack and its aftermath -- and specfically with comments Ambassador Susan Rice made on the Sunday talk shows about how the attack wasn't pre-meditated (and so not a planned act of terrorism) -- continues. Rice met with key Republicans on Capitol Hill the past couple of days, but apparently the meetings didn't go well. Or, at least, these key Republicans didn't emerge from the meetings content with what they heard:

The Wednesday meeting in a secure briefing room in the Capitol basement came a day after a similar sit-down Rice had with three key voices on foreign policy and defense issues went terribly wrong. GOP Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte, all members of the Armed Services Committee, said they were more "troubled" about the Benghazi affair than they had been before their meeting with Rice.

And Graham and Ayotte went so far as to say they would place a hold on her possible nomination.

And this gang of three was joined by one of the Beltway's overhyped "moderates":

Even Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, just the type of moderate Republican who might help break a filibuster on a nomination, said there were still too many questions about why Rice incorrectly characterized the Sept. 11 assault in five Sunday talk show interviews as the result of spontaneous protests at the same time the Libyan president was calling it a terrorist attack.

"I don't understand why she would not at least qualify her response to that question," Collins told reporters after emerging from a 75-minute, closed-door meeting with Rice.

Troubled... don't understand...

Seriously, are they fucking stupid?

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: "On Benghazi, it's desperately partisan Republicans vs. Obama, the CIA, and the facts."


Read more »

Elephant Dung #33: Snowe and Collins to vote NO on Ryan budget plan

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

As the recent Gingrich vs. Ryan brouhaha revealed, the Republican wunderkind's budget plan, including its Medicare-slashing component, has become, despite its widespread unpopularity, Republican orthodoxy from which deviation/dissent is not tolerated. (If you do happen to dissent even just a smidge, the party's Bolsheviks will do their utmost to purge you from their ranks.)

And yet it's obvious that many Republicans are having their doubts. The result in NY-26 yesterday, in a way a referendum on Ryan's plan that was a resounding NO, shows that Republicans are vulnerable, and many are distancing themselves from the plan, if not outright opposing it already. Fear of voter revolt, it seems, may just overcome the party whip.

And that appears to be especially true in Maine:

Maine's Republican senators will vote against the House Republican 2012 budget authored by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, with Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe in opposition to the House GOP-proposed Medicare changes.

Snowe confirmed her opposition [yesterday] afternoon during a Capitol Hill interview, while Collins reiterated a position she first made known last month.

Senate Democratic leaders are expected to call up the House GOP budget for a Senate floor vote later this week, probably Thursday. Collins and Snowe join a small but growing group of Republican senators – including Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and possibly Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – who have announced they will vote against the proposal to partially privatize Medicare, the federal health care program for seniors, and hand over authority to run Medicaid, the state-federal health care program for the poor, completely to the states in the form of a block grant program. 

To be fair, both Collins and Snowe are on the more moderate, more sane side of the party and aren't exactly the sort of right-wing hardliners who have been falling head-over-heals for Ryan. And Snowe, who is facing a Tea Party challenge in 2012, would seem to have every reason to reach out to the right, but isn't. So maybe, just maybe, this is a matter of principle for them, not political opportunism.

Still, what we're seeing here, and not just in Maine, is what I'll call The Great Republican Exodus of 2012. It isn't really exodus from the party but rather exodus from the new party orthodoxy, from the new right-wing Republican mainstream. As more and more Republicans come to see how unpopular the Ryan plan is, and how vulnerable it makes them, more and more of them will do what Collins and Snowe and Murkowski and Brown are doing (and what it looked like Gingrich was doing), which is rejecting it as way too extreme.

Yes, this too is opportunism. The fear of a voter revolt, of losing moderates and independents and possibly even losing safe Republican seats, apparently outweighs, for them, the fear of a Tea Party challenge and of being attacked by their fellow Republicans and in the conservative media for being un-Republican and anti-American.

Still, it's the sort of opportunism that makes them look respectable, and obviously more appealing to voters in states like Maine and Massachusetts (if not necessarily Alaska). This will be one of the dominant stories over the next year and a half, this divide in the Republican Party between those on Ryan's side and those who, for whatever reason, have had enough, with a large gray area in between for those who want to hedge their bets and have it both ways.

Enjoy.

Can we get some DADT repeal, please?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

First, it's the right thing to do.

Second, for Democrats (including the White House) it would go a long way towards winning back some support from the liberal-progressive base, particularly in light of the... oh, how shall I put it?... less-than-perfect tax deal.

And, lame-duckery notwithstanding, it looks like the Senate could very well get it done, if only it weren't for that ridiculous filibuster rule.

And it it weren't for all those obstructionist, hostage-taking Republicans, which is pretty much all of them. Even the supposed moderates won't do anything to break the GOP's monolithic partisanship.

As CNN reports, "a planned make-or-break vote on starting debate on repealing" DADT was postponed late today.

And why? 

It looks like Republican non-teabagging renegade Lisa Murkowski will vote for repeal, assuming a "free and open" amendment process, but chief hostage-taker Susan Collins, one of the few supposed moderates left, is holding out, demanding votes on 15 amendments (including 10 Republican ones) but also -- and here's what this is really all about -- that the tax deal be pushed through first. "Everyone on the Republican side wants to see the tax package completed first," she said.

Consider her line of reasoning: "If we're in the same situation that we are now, I don't see how I could vote for it. But I'm obviously going to think further. But frankly they won't get to 60 votes even if I did vote for it. So why not take the path that would lead to 60 votes."

This makes no sense, unless you realize what the Republicans are up to. Why would she vote against repeal now but for repeal if the tax deal is done first? Is she for DADT or against it? She's probably against it, or at least agreeable to repeal, but that hardly matters. What matters is leverage, her leverage, her power, and the power of her party, which she is placing before her own principles (if she has any at all other than the use of her anti-majoritarian senatorial prerogatives to their fullest extent in the service of her party (or whatever her self-interest happens to be at any given time).

So she could vote for repeal, she just won't. It's all just a game. She just refuses to admit it.

And, meanwhile, time is running out. And she's working on behalf of her party to run out the clock. Because, let's face it, the tax deal isn't going to get done quickly. There's too much opposition, in both parties, and a lot will need to be hammered out to get the votes.

So when will DADT be repealed? Well, not anytime soon. Because "the tax package" won't be "completed" before the lame-duck Congress is done. And then DADT repeal will be pushed back into the next Congress, where the votes will be even hardly to come by, given near-unanimous Republican opposition in what will be a Senate with a smaller Democratic majority.

Sure, maybe Collins reduces her demands and allows a vote to go forward (if Democrats can put together the necessary 60 votes), but, even then, we'd still be a long way off from repeal. After all, the vote today would just have been to start the debate, and there's hardly any guarantee the votes will be there on a final vote.

See what's going on? The Republicans won't even allow for debate until the tax deal is done. But even if they allow for debate, they may not vote for repeal -- most of them won't, of course, but even Collins might not, and Democrats might not get the 60 votes.

In other words, they want what they want without actually guaranteeing anything in return. That, presumably, is what they mean by compromise. Here's how Steve Benen explains it:

It's worth emphasizing that Collins just isn't being reasonable. Looking back over the last couple of decades, a total of 10 amendments is entirely routine for this defense authorization bill, and is actually far more than the number of amendments considered most of the time.

Why not just give in and tell Collins she can have unlimited debate? Because Republicans really are desperate to kill the legislation, and the most far-right members will keep offering unrelated amendments indefinitely, running out the clock on the lame-duck session, and derailing the bill.

[A senior Senate aide] told me, Collins is "basically asking for a unicorn for Christmas. We can't give her a unicorn."

So, is that it? Will Collins screw over gay servicemembers and blow off Pentagon requests over baseless procedural demands? That appears pretty likely.

There's also the matter of the "hostage strategy" -- Collins is part of a united GOP caucus that has vowed to kill literally every piece of legislation until Republicans are satisfied with the result of the tax debate. As of now, that includes DADT repeal.

Democrats are "still trying" -- even Lieberman is on board, promoting repeal -- but, given the way the Senate works, Republicans will likely get their way.

Which, as usual, is terrible for the country.

Thanks for nothing, Maine

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Quite the Senate delegation you've got there:

Olympia Snowe: "President Barack Obama 'should take it [i.e., the public option] off the table,' said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) on CBS's 'Face the Nation.' 'It would give real momentum to building consensus.'"

Susan Collins: "A moderate Republican who has previously broken with her party to support President Obama's $787 billion stimulus bill said Sunday that she does not support the idea of using a so called 'trigger' on the public health insurance option as part of health care reform legislation. Asked on CNN's State of the Union if the use of the trigger would make inclusion of the public option more acceptable, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, unequivocally replied 'no.'"

No public option, no trigger... so what's the point?

And what good is "compromise" -- or "bipartisanship" generally -- if it just means allowing a couple of split-the-difference Republican "moderates" to get their way at the expense of meaningful reform?

The Great Republican Purge of 2009

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And the self-immolation of the Republican Party, much of it at the hands of Dear Leader Rush himself, continues.

Earlier in the week, Colin Powell, long a loyal Republican (even with so many of us wondering why) criticized the nastiness of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and those like them. They are, simply, polarizing figures who engage in the politics of polarization, and, as a result, the Republican Party is in "deep trouble."

In response -- and the response was nothing if not predictable -- Limbaugh called Powell "just another liberal" and told him, pretty much, to get the hell out: "What Colin Powell needs to do is close the loop and become a Democrat instead of claiming to be a Republican interested in reforming the Republican party."

Like so many Communist, Fascist, and otherwise ideologically extremist and absolutist parties, the Republican Party of Dear Leader Rush, which is to say, the Republican Party as it is right now (with some exceptions, but not many), is purging its ranks of those who don't toe the extremist, absolutist party line. Part of it is a response, post-2006 and -2008, to electoral defeat. Out of power, Republicans are dealing with crisis (insofar as being out of power amounts to a crisis, which it does for them, so enamored are they with power) not by opening up, not by seeking to expand their appeal, and hence their electability, but by closing down, by closing in on themselves, by narrowing themselves to ideological rigidity and intolerance, by suppressing (and eliminating) difference of all kind. Some of those who are different and who find themselves on the outside leave of their own volition -- like Arlen Specter. Some are openly ridiculed but remain -- like Meghan McCain. And some, just a few, stand firm, remaining in the party even as they are pushed and pushed out the door -- like Colin Powell.

With the party in shambles, struggling to rebrand itself, and almost completely bankrupt, we can expect much more of this going forward. What of those two moderates from Maine, for example, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe? How long will they remain in the fold? With secure seats in the Senate, they may just stay, but the purges will continue, and efforts to eliminate those like them, anyone and everyone who doesn't toe the line, will continue to define the Republican Party of our time.

All about Specter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Reaction team really came through yesterday with some outstanding commentary on the big news of the day, Arlen Specter's aisle-hopping from the Republicans to the Democrats. Here are some quick links to those posts:

-- Capt. Fogg: "Arlen Specter, D-Pennsylvania"
-- Creature: "Specter's switch"
-- Mustang Bobby: "The spectre of Arlen Specter"
-- Carl: "What deal was cut?"
-- Carol Gee: "Big news about Congress"
-- Creature: "Quote of the Day" (Snowe on the GOP)

Here are some quick points:

-- It's pretty clear Specter's move had almost everything to do with politics, and with his own self-preservation, and, as Jon Stewart rightly noted last night, next to nothing to do with principle. Yes, he mentioned the "Reagan Big Tent" in his statement, as well as spending his 29-year Senate career representing not the Republican Party but "the people of Pennsylvania," but what is obviously of the utmost concern to him is his re-election, and he is currently running well behind challenger Pat Toomey in the polls.

-- Specter isn't so much a Democrat as a non-Republican (given the current right-wing bent of the GOP). As he explained: "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans." No, but he has been a Republican for a long, long time, and he obviously found enough to like in and about the GOP to remain a Republican for that long. He is admittedly more independent than most Republicans, but his claim to bipartisanship here -- actually, his claim to transcendence of partisanship altogether -- rings hollow. (As Glenn Greenwald rightly notes, Specter is hardly the liberal-moderate he is made out to be in the media: "The idea that Specter is a 'liberal' Republican or even a 'moderate' reflects how far to the Right both the GOP and our overall political spectrum has shifted.")

-- "I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America." That a nice way of saying that he's out for himself.

-- With Al Franken, the Democrats will have 60 votes on strict party-line votes -- yes, the filibuster-proof 60 -- but we mustn't forget that the 60 includes quasi-Democrat Joe Lieberman and the Blue Dog likes of Evan Bayh, not to mention conservatives like Ben Nelson. Democrats do not do party loyalty all that well, or certainly not as well as Republicans, and so it will be difficult to secure a filibuster-proof majority. With respect to Specter, what is clear is that Democrats won't be able to count on his vote. He will be a "Democrat," but not a Democrat, that is, a Democrat in name only.

-- Given that Specter will be a Democrat in name only, should we welcome his conversion? Insofar as it makes the GOP look bad, yes, absolutely. But there are real Democrats who could have run for the Senate, and won, next year. Would it not be better to have a Democrat like Joe Sestak or Patrick Murphy in the Senate instead of a Democrat of convenience like Specter? Unless Specter votes with his new party on key issues like health care, I'm not sure how this actually helps the Democrats beyond the obvious PR boost. (Greenwald again: "Democrats will understandably celebrate today’s announcement, but beyond the questions of raw political power, it is mystifying why they would want to build their majority by embracing politicians who reject most of their ostensible views.")

-- Well, unless other Republicans follow Specter across the aisle. Collins and Snowe, Maine's two "Republican" senators? Maybe. If Specter is the first domino to fall, then it's a positive move regardless of how he votes.

-- Snowe called Specter's move "devastating." More: "I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans."

-- The Republican Party is becoming ever more of an isolated, extreme, irrelevant party. And yet don't seem to care. Indeed, high-profile Republicans like Krazy Bill Kristol and Dear Leader Rush are welcoming Specter's defection. Limbaugh: "It's ultimately good. You're weeding out people who aren't really Republicans." Yes, and you're also purifying the party into oblivion.

That's it for now. Whatever my reservations, I'm still happy with the move. While Specter isn't a Democrat, and while Democrats shouldn't count on his vote, his defection hurts the Republicans and is a significant PR boon for the Democrats. The Democrats will still have to work hard to pass legislation in the Senate, and they not be able to reach 60 even with Specter in the fold, but with the Republicans further marginalizing themselves into a rightist party of rigid and narrow ideology, with a popular president in the White House, and with a huge majority in the House, there is every possibility that they will be able to overcome both internal and external challenges and enact meaningful reform.