Republican Obstruction Week
The blogosphere is abuzz at the moment over Harry Reid's announcement that he intends to make the Republicans actually filibuster the Reed/Levin bill (instead of merely announcing an intention to do so and then blocking a cloture vote). Reid plans to force the Republicans to debate the bill (or read the new Harry Potter book or something) all night on Tuesday.
Most liberals, who are justifiably fed up with Republican obstructionism, are cheering this news. Personally, I think it's poorly thought out. Here's why.
It is extremely unlikely that the Republicans in the Senate will back down and allow an up or down vote, which means that the best case scenario here is that this forced all-nighter will result in press coverage that highlights GOP obstructionism on Iraq. Given that the filibuster will be a one day affair, this press coverage will last, at most, one news cycle. And that just isn't going to make a significant difference.
If I were Reid, this is what I would do. Rather than setting aside one day, I would set aside a whole week. I would call it Republican Obstruction Week, and I would use it to highlight Republican obstructionism across a whole range of issues, not just Iraq. Each day I would force the Republicans to filibuster a different popular piece of legislation. Monday could be the minimum wage increase. Tuesday could be Medicare Part D reform. Wednesday could be the CLEAN Energy Act. Thursday could be the Webb amendment. I would save the Reed/Levin Iraq bill until Friday.
If done right, this could result in a full week of headlines and coverage of Republican obstructionism. The press would love the pure theater of it all. And perhaps more importantly, the Republicans might actually allow a few of the measures to be voted on, if for no other reason than to break up the news cycle and get some rest.
Someday the Democrats will learn that if it's worth doing something, it's better not to do it half-assed.
Hence the "fair and balanced" headline of the day from Fox News: Reid Threatens to Keep Senate Up All Night, Republicans Yawn. [Fox News has changed the link to this article, and I can't seem to find it anymore. Wonder if they were embarrassed by it. Here's a link to a Freeper version of the article.]
UPDATE: Clearly I'm not a Senate parliamentarian because I seem to have mischaracterized what Reid is planning to do. It's all very confusing. For the details, see Kevin Drum. My point still stands, though. Whatever this is, do it for a whole week and do it for all issues, not just Iraq.
Most liberals, who are justifiably fed up with Republican obstructionism, are cheering this news. Personally, I think it's poorly thought out. Here's why.
It is extremely unlikely that the Republicans in the Senate will back down and allow an up or down vote, which means that the best case scenario here is that this forced all-nighter will result in press coverage that highlights GOP obstructionism on Iraq. Given that the filibuster will be a one day affair, this press coverage will last, at most, one news cycle. And that just isn't going to make a significant difference.
If I were Reid, this is what I would do. Rather than setting aside one day, I would set aside a whole week. I would call it Republican Obstruction Week, and I would use it to highlight Republican obstructionism across a whole range of issues, not just Iraq. Each day I would force the Republicans to filibuster a different popular piece of legislation. Monday could be the minimum wage increase. Tuesday could be Medicare Part D reform. Wednesday could be the CLEAN Energy Act. Thursday could be the Webb amendment. I would save the Reed/Levin Iraq bill until Friday.
If done right, this could result in a full week of headlines and coverage of Republican obstructionism. The press would love the pure theater of it all. And perhaps more importantly, the Republicans might actually allow a few of the measures to be voted on, if for no other reason than to break up the news cycle and get some rest.
Someday the Democrats will learn that if it's worth doing something, it's better not to do it half-assed.
Hence the "fair and balanced" headline of the day from Fox News: Reid Threatens to Keep Senate Up All Night, Republicans Yawn. [Fox News has changed the link to this article, and I can't seem to find it anymore. Wonder if they were embarrassed by it. Here's a link to a Freeper version of the article.]
UPDATE: Clearly I'm not a Senate parliamentarian because I seem to have mischaracterized what Reid is planning to do. It's all very confusing. For the details, see Kevin Drum. My point still stands, though. Whatever this is, do it for a whole week and do it for all issues, not just Iraq.
posted by A.L. at 4:15 PM
8 Comments:
Why leave it at a week?
Keep introducing your legislation and if they block it call them on it.
Putting a window on it just means they can say "OK, we need to stick it out for X hours/days".
This isn't a short term fight.
Why leave it at a week?
A couple reasons. One, there actually is a lot of mandatory work that has to get done in the Senate to keep the government running. If Reid devotes 100% of the time to this, that stuff won't get done.
Second, and probably more importantly, the press will grow bored and attack the Dems if they overdo it. The Republicans have a right to filibuster. The point of this exercise is not to hammer them into submission (that won't happen); it's to highlight and bring attention to their obstructionism. To make them pay a political price for it. A week would be enough to make the point without risking a backlash. If this stuff continues, Reid could always set aside another week down the road.
I agree AL. One night look like/ and can be called a stunt. A week of this will start out looking as a stunt. After it takes the press a day or two( we all know how slow they are)of ridicule, people are going to want to know what the Repugs are constantly filibustering, and why are the Dems doing it.
That's when "our" talking points come in. Pound the Repugs on what they are doing; they are filibustering bills that the majority of both the Senate and the public want. Why should 9 out of 49( you know LIEberman will vote with the Repugs) Senators be able to stop what Americans want.
Strong speakers like Web, Clinton, Obama, and the rest of our Democratic Senators will let Americans know what what Democrats want, and how a bunch of obstructionists are stopping the Senate from operating.
Good points, but it also brings up a theme that has been part of the past few weeks threads.
THE MISREPRESENTATION OF THIS IS NOT "SLOPPY JOURNALISM" BUT FURTHER PROOF THAT THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ANYTHING LIKE FAIR OR BALANCED REPORTING.
It has nothing to do with who tells the lies and distortions - it is structural.
A.L., you are dancing around the key issue here - the MSM is lying about this issue and doing everything it can to keep the word "filibuster" out of the news.
Without the MSM "catapulting the propaganda" this would not even be an issue - honest reporting would call it what it is - FILIBUSTER!
It is not a coincidence that all the distortions and lies benefit the repugs and neocons - in fact - when repugs are caught with their pants down in sex scandals, someone in the MSM consistently mis-identifies the repug pervert as a DEM.
This is really more an issue about propaganda and dishonest framing that is only possible with the full cooperation of the MSM.
Anonymous is correct. Your suggestion wouldn't even be necessary, A.L., if we had an independent press corps. Still, your idea would push the Dems in the right direction. They are truly clueless when it comes to PR.
I agree with A.L. on this. The problem is that Reid is starting on the wrong end of this. He should have taken this road with the most popular, most easily defined bill. Something like expanding children's health insurance. Make the GOP filibuster health insurance for sick kids. Then work your way towards Iraq.
Terrific ideas, A.L.
I'm hoping and counting on some kind of serious followup on this by Reid and crew. I can't see them strapping their stones back on now only to lose them again before the week is out.
I think the longer term outlook in the Senate is also important to consider. The GOP has 21 senators up for reelection next year compared to only 12 Democratic incumbents. The Cook Political Report is already showing a huge imbalance between vulnerable incumbents among those Republicans contrasted with safe seats for the Democrats - and Cook seriously underestimated the seats that flipped from the GOP to the Democrats last year, while I think revulsion with the GOP incumbents is only going to keep rising throughout the country as long as we're in Iraq and Bush is president. If anything, the congressional elections next year are going to bring an even greater shift toward the Democrats.
So, I think we are going to have a veto-proof majority in the Senate starting next term.
Not that we can affort to wait that long on getting out of Iraq, and a million other priorities. But it's nice to look forward to.
Tell me, is it obstruction when the Democrats require a 60 vote majority on the "John Doe" amendment, and it dies despite a 57-39 vote majority? Or does obstruction only apply to Republicans?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home