Georgia Senate Seat

My guess is that Democrats are not all that unhappy not to have 60 votes. Obama at least, and presumably the leadership as well, would rather have to have Republican votes than have the Republicans have an excuse to beg off taking a stand on risky legislation. 60 votes would have upped the ante on the Democrats being responsible for everything, and 58 or 59 votes are enough to ensure that very few filibusters will hold. What’s your take on this, Karen?

Wait so are you saying that even after giving Joe Lieberman whatever he wanted the Democrats STILL don’t have a guaranteed 60 votes? Im shocked, SHOCKED I tell ya.
.
Prediction
.
There will be some folks who will say “Obama cut a secret deal with Lieberman so McCain and Lindsey Graham will vote with him”.
.
To that I say
.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

sgwhite – Having campaigned for Saxby Champbliss as the person who would protect the country from the terrible liberal policies of Obama, the Republicans will be hard pressed to explain to their constituencies why they were unable to stop Obama when it comes down to specifics.

KT here–

Kathy: I agree that this is possible, but don’t forget that on really controversial issues, Reid must also worry about holding his more conservative Democrats. The first really interesting test of this could be the card-check bill that organized labor is making a top priority.

KT
.
Ben Nelson might as well be a republican when it comes to voting record. I want to see how Harry Reid keeps him in line now that Reid has shown that he is willing to buy people off for votes.

KT and SGW: The 60 vote super maj was a red herring. Ben Nelson and one or two others (Lieber?) can never be relied upon to vote in line. It will always come down to issues, and people like Collins and her colleague will be key to getting something through. I have little confidence in Harry Reid.

Given the recent past, I agree with Kathy.

The only reason at all that there’s a 60 vote threshold in the Senate is that Harry Reid perpetually creates one. He does this by proposing and passing a rule specifying the vote requirement prior to the consideration of any legislation. He calls it “getting things done”, of course. During the FISA capitulation debacle last year, this is the rule to which Chris Dodd objected prior to a vote, thus preventing Harry from easily blocking his (and Russ Feingold’s) attempts to amend the bill the President wanted him to pass.

Oh well. The Senate was never meant to be a democratic institution, right?

bitterpill
.
Now you know you and I see eye to eye on this one. Thats one of the biggest reasons I was pissed about the Lieberman deal. The 60 vote myth was always just that, a myth. Even Claire McCaskill who I am a big fan of, is a very conservative voter and can’t always be counted on as a vote on contentious issues. Now if we had a stronger majority leader I would feel much more hopeful. But as it is I can see that next year is going to be a rocky road for the Dems

KT here–

SG: Once again, we come down to the differences between the Senate and the House as institutions. Harry Reid doesn’t have a lot of tools for keeping anyone in line. It’s not how the job was designed. I was re-reading an account the other day of how the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. Even with 67 Democrats in the Senate (the required number back then to invoke closture), it took something like nine tries to break a filibuster that had been led by the President’s own party, and ultimately, a backroom deal between Democratic leader Hubert Humphrey and Republican Everett Dirksen.

kathy
.
I know we won’t agree about impeaching Bush but I want to point out how all of the networks were talking about the Nixon tapes that were released yesterday and revealed just how crazy the man was and more of the illegal things he advocated. Now ask yourself a question, if Nixon had been impeached or at least brought up on charges and all of this stuff had come up way back then, do you really think that the people of this country would have been as easy to convince about WMDs? For that matter do you think Bush would have been as bold in subverting the Constitution as he has if he knew his azz might end up in jail? And if your answer to those questions are no, thats the strongest argument that I could ever make as to why Bush and Co need to be prosecuted when Obama gets in to office.

KT
.
Wouldn’t the biggest tool he has or one of the biggest tools for overcoming an obstructionist minority what you and I agree on about forcing a filibuster? That would be a show of power in my opinion because he would have to have support from the rest of the Dems. As I recall there was supposed to be a filibuster on FISA and we see how that turned out. As for keeping the rank and file in line, I guess he could give all the Blue Dogs an important committee chair since evidently is what he thinks will keep Lieberman in line. Hmmmm

Best campaign sign (seen in the background of a Washington Post photo yesterday):

“We’re bringing Saxby back”

KT – It’s because Reid will have trouble keeping all his Democrats together that I expect he’s just as glad not to have 60 of them. Not as much pressure to do something he couldn’t do anyway.
.
sgwhite- I think our biggest point of disagreement about impeachment is whether it would be knocking heads against a brick wall to try to do anything. I just don’t see any sign from anyone that Bush is going to be held accountable, and I think it’s even less likely after he’s out of office. Maybe 10 years from now, when the culture’s really changed.
.
This Bill Moyers interview with Bruce Fein and John Nichols pretty much sums up the argument for impeachment. If you didn’t see it the first time around is definitely worth reading or listening to. If Bruce Fein could convince conservatives of the need to hold some of this crowd accountable after they’re out of office it might happen. Otherwise I don’t think it will. I don’t disagree with you about the need. And I think the Obama could issue presidential findings that would give another president less wiggle room.
.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript2.html

Thomas Frank has an article at wsj on health care reform

I will reiterate my theory that Reid and Schumer were permitting the Republicans to win these “filibusters.” By voting in a bloc against popular legislation, by linking themselves so closely to Bush, they were guaranteeing themselves electoral failure. If Gordon Smith had broken with the president after the 2006 elections, and strongly supported a withdrawal timeline, he would not have lost.
.
We’ll see. My prediction is that the republicans will find it much more difficult to just say “Oh, we filibuster.” and have that stick. As Stuart says, when Reid wanted to break a filibuster, he did so.
.
I also think it’s going to be harder to hold a forty vote bloc with only, at most (Lieberman and Ben Nelson) four votes to spare.
.
And, of course, things don’t look good for Republicans in the Senate in 2010 either. One positive note for the Republicans in this session is that Martinez will not be feeling any voter pressure. But that’s a shortlived benefit.

Oh, and sgwhite. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, except to say that virtually every sitting member of Congress is old enough to remember what was going on with Nixon, and the fact is that Nixon was not impeached (though he would have been had he not resigned) and that reality makes it all the harder to hold Bush accountable. I think Bush was thoroughly convinced he was not breaking laws (and since he didn’t know the law or, one would guess, the constitution, he had only his sycophantic, compliant minions to gauge the law by).

kathy
.
Correct me if I am wrong but wouldnt an impeachment vote come from the House and there fore shouldn’t it be pretty easy to do right now? I mean the truth is I believe that regardless of if he gets convicted in the Senate, the investigation itself would reveal enough to the American people so that they could make their own decisions and or it could lead to criminal charges other than the impeachment proceedings. There really is nothing stopping the Dems from impeaching him. Nothing except their lack of courage that is.

Off topic: a topic evidently off-limits (to the American press):

Kidnapped by the US government, shot, and tortured? Maybe, possibly, can’t be? Who knows? No news is good news!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-593195,00.html

kathy
.
Correct me if I am wrong but wouldnt an impeachment vote come from the House and there fore shouldn’t it be pretty easy to do right now? I mean the truth is I believe that regardless of if he gets convicted in the Senate, the investigation itself would reveal enough to the American people so that they could make their own decisions and or it could lead to criminal charges other than the impeachment proceedings. There really is nothing stopping the Dems from impeaching him. Nothing except their lack of courage that is.

On impeachment, it’s pointless without republican support. Nixon would have been fine if the Republicans of the time were bloc voting like the spineless Republicans of today.
.
I know Reid, and the Democrats, get a lot of criticism, while the republican positions are sorta taken for granted. But the complete subjugation of institution to party is rare (I believe unprecedented) in American history. That, for example, Specter simply gave up his authority to the administration is not in the tradition and or consistent with the history of the Senate. The system was designed to (and has had the effect of) Senators sitting after the end of presidential terms.
.
The complete absence of a Howard Baker or a Bill Cohen objecting to the administration flouting the will of Congress is what I believe historians will comment on.
.

2 more things about impeachment

1. I find it totally incomprehensible that 8 years after impeaching a sitting President because he got oral sex from an intern, that impeachment for actual crimes that may have led to american deaths as well as breaking international law is somehow off limits or a moot point.

2. Nancy Pelosi should be using the threat of impeachment to stop Bush from issuing all of these orders at the end of his term trying to circumvent Congress to get his agenda put in place.

And kathy if Bush didn’t know, he should have knows. That would be a weak azz excuse if he tried to use it.

sgwhite – No, it wouldn’t be easy because Nancy Pelosi isn’t going to do it. Also, as Obama made clear he believes, most of the country just wants to get beyond the Bush years. We have serious issues, and starting impeachment hearings is going to pull oxygen out of the system and make it harder for Obama to get his agenda passed. Right now he’s got Republicans drooling over him.
.
Did you watching Morning Joe? Joe was defending Bush’s “legacy.” Said future historians aren’t going to see him necessarily as a great president, but…
.
Impeaching Bill Clinton did not help the Republicans, and made it less likely impeachment will be used again any time soon.

Off topic{
.
Bowers on Hardball: http://tinyurl.com/6nkuvp
.
Chris was good. Yesterday, as I do occasionally, I checked to see what Wolf was shouting about. He had the usual centrist Democrat, right wing Republican in the strategy session thing, asking them what the left wing of the Democratic party thinks. Credit to Tweety for putting a leftleaning Democrat on instead.
.
Chris conveyed the position that we are not seeing in the media (as on the front page of the NYT today, which has this:
.
Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left.
.
This is, of course, false. The people who rose up to document Brennan’s record were people like Glenn Greenwald, who could not possibly be characterized as “ardent [Obama] supporters.” This is part of a false narrative depicting Obama as having run much farther to the left than he actually did, and depicting his support as coming substantially from the left wing of the party, which is also not true. Part of this is hangover of anti-Iraq war=dirty hippie narrative, of using someone’s position on the invasion and occupation as the only element to use when assigning a position on the political spectrum.

kathy
.
I am talking about procedurally. Of course we don’t have the leadership to get it done and thats a crying damm shame. Its the RESPONSIBILITY of the House of Representatives to impeach a President if its likely he has committed crimes. How it can be a selective thing is totally beyond me.
.

“the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Notice that even misdemeanors are mentioned. Now if the situation were reversed do you think the Republican’s would think twice about impeaching a Democratic president if they were suspected of half the things Bush is suspected of doing? And you know what, in that case the Republicans would be right.
.
How impeaching a president for getting head would prevent another president from being impeached for high crimes against he country is again, totally beyond me.
.
We both know that Morning Joe is a propaganda show. Hell they had the CEO of one of the Big 3 on MSNBC and he laid out in plain terms the accountability the companies would have to have to not only get some money up front, but also to continue getting money in an auto bailout. That included hitting their sales numbers every month. And if they didn’t not only could the Government hold back the rest of their money, they could also liquidate some of their assets to recoup the money they had already loaned out. But did Joe Scarborough or any of his cronies mention this? Of course not. Wait let me post the video from Jon Stewart comparing Joe to Alan Colmes.
.
hilarious!

Congrats to those who can watch MO-U-RNING JOE and not puke. By the way you can find out everything you want to know about the Senate and its traditions by going to CSpan and watching the farewell for Porker in chief Stevens. His recent conviction did nothing to moderate the hosannahs. If a convcted felon (with an appeal pending) can get this treatment then you can draw your own conclusions about the Senate.

How impeaching a president for getting head would prevent another president from being impeached for high crimes against he country is again, totally beyond me.
.
The effect of the Clinton impeachment was to politicize the impeachment process. Any attempt by the Democrats to impeach would have been denounced as brazen partisan politics.(Yes, I know that is mind-numbingly hypocritical. See digby on that topic.)
.
as always, crossing fingers and missing my friend preview when I insert an anchored link.
A party line vote on impeachment, which is the best that could have been expected, would have accomplished nothing. Moreover, a (quite likely) bipartisan vote against impeachment would have vindicated Bush.

KT here–

SG writes: Wouldn’t the biggest tool he has or one of the biggest tools for overcoming an obstructionist minority what you and I agree on about forcing a filibuster?

You and I are exactly on the same page about those filibusters. If they are going to do it, make them do it. And not one of those wimpy overnight stunts where they bring out the cots.

jay
.
Thanks for the digby link. I think this should be posted up in every Democratic member of Congress’ office and Obama should keep a copy on him at all times during the next 4-8 years just like the soldiers bracelet.
.

We live in a world where the right wing ruthlessly and without mercy degrades and attacks by any means necessary what they perceive as the enemy, and then uses the great principles of democracy and fair play when the same is done to them. They leave the rest of us standing on the sidelines looking like fools for ever caring about anything but winning.

sg:

I believe the “misdemeanors” entry in the constitution has to do with a different definition of what a misdemanor was at that point in time as compared to today. Felonies, an English common law invention, were crimes that were punishable by loss of property. All other crimes were misdemeanors.

koabd
.
Thanks for the correction. Personally I want them to take Bush’s property AND freedom. But hey thats just me.

Obama just said he was dissappointed about Bill Richardson cutting his beard. I think we ALL are lol

sg:
Why would there even have to be an impeachment? Couldn’t the new administration just appoint a special prosecutor or a bipartisan commission and seek an indictment for Bush’s FISA and torture crimes?
.
I would really like to see Bush locked up for the crimes that he committed, but I don’t think it is going to happen.

Is anyonbe really surprised about Georgia? Ever tried to get correct change when buying something anywhere in Georgia outside of Atlanta? Most of these southern Republican strongholds glorify the illiterate. Obama was at least smart enough to understand what he was up against in Georgia.

But then again 60 was not important either! The Democrats will be much more powerful operating as the party fighting the obstructionist who are voting an ideology rather than voting for the American people. Expect the Bully Pulpit to be used quite effectively by Obama when necessary.

SG: You have a lot of energy about this “impeachment” thing. I would rather let the punishment fit the crime. Can you say “rendition”?
.
Perhaps a little waterboarding, for fun and frolic? Or my biggest fantasy, “a walk outside the green zone” without any protective gear or escorts.

CP in FL
.
I would go for either or honestly. Impeachment at this point is mostly a pipe dream. Its too late to do anything. And of course our leadership is too spineless. But its my opinion that it SHOULD have been done. And if not now, then like you said they should seek indictments on Bush after he leaves office. But it doesn’t seem that Barack Obama is going to push for that. And really I don’t know whether or not a President has been investigated, charged and convicted of crimes he committed AFTER he left office but somehow I really doubt it. I could be wrong though

Andy
.
Trust me, if that was a possibility I would be out in the streets with a bull horn right now advocating for it. But really I am just pissed because once again a Republican is getting off scott free who should be legitimately imprisoned for crimes against the country while 8 years ago we had to go through the biggest farce in the world watching Bill Clinton give his definition of sex. Its bullsh!t and the Democrats are the ones allowing it to happen. I can just imagine 30 years from now we will be getting information from Bush’s library just like we got information again from Nixon’s Library yesterday and we all will be talking about how Bush helped set the table for the next Republican president who decides to stomp on the constitution with no worries of any kinds of punishments or even threats of punishments.

“…beating challenger Jim Martin by a lopsided 58-43%.”

Is that with 101% of votes counted?

Doesn’t it warm your heart to know how Nixon REALLY felt about black folks? I just love hearing Republicans talk about how their party is the perfect place for black folks.
.
Nixon: Well if you’ve got a candidate, what we need there… Godammit Chuck, we haven’t got an Italian yet. I can’t find any…
.
Colson: Did Bob mention the [foreign adviser John] Scali idea to you? …Could be at the U.N.
.
Nixon: Instead of the black?
.
Colson: Instead of the black. Who the hell cares about the blacks? Scali would love the U.N. That would give you an Italian in the cabinet. At least it’s a thought. And he’s a legitimate Italian. A good Italian…

.
Nixon: You know, basically, we don’t owe the blacks a damn thing anyway.
.
Colson: Oh hell, no. As a matter of fact, I think it’s a bad signal to put a black in the Cabinet… The people that voted for us– (Laughs)
.
Nixon: …And after all, this pampering of blacks isn’t a good idea. I think you’ve got a good point there…
.
Colson: If we appoint a black in the cabinet in the second term and we didn’t have one in the first term, people are going to say, “My God, they’re moving–

.
Nixon: That’s right.

What’s on sgwhiteinfla’s Christmas tree this year

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/03/white_house_ornament/

KT here–

SG: Yes, they don’t make them like Nixon any more. On the bulletin board above my desk, I have a copy of a WH memo to Haldeman written on June 2, 1971, where Nixon complains:

“I hope you will note the next time you are talking to Ziegler, Scali and Klein that in this first press conference after the appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner where I played the “good sport” role, the reporters were considerably more bad-mannered and vicious than usual. The bears out my theory that treating with considerably more contempt is in the long run a more productive policy.”

KT — I remember Nixon asking Dan Rather at a press conference, ” Are you running for something?” and Rather answering, “No sir, are you?”

When new tapes come out, I like to compare to the Haldeman Diaries….

KT here–

Another one, which I keep taped to my door (I just love these old Nixon quotes);

On Sept. 19, 1971, two days after the retirements of Justices Hugo black and John Marshall Harlan, Nixon tells Haldeman on the tapes:

“I’m not for women in any job. I don’t want any of them around. Thank God we don’t have any in the cabinet.”

Alan Greenspan quote on Nixon:
.
“A member of the Clinton administration once was accusing Nixon of anti-Semitism, and I said, ‘You don’t understand. He wasn’t exclusively anti-Semitic. He was anti-Semitic, anti-Italian, anti-Greek, anti-Slovak … He hated everybody.’”

KT
.
lol thats AWESOME! What a small small man who some how managed to get elected to our nation’s highest office. I propose that Presidential candidates should have to go through a full pscyh eval and they should have to take a competency test that includes constitutional questions as well as a series of current events questions dealing solely with universally recognized facts. I think imma make up an online petition for that initiative

The scary/interesting thing is that I can hear Nixon’s voice when I read these quotes. Or at least, the caricature of Nixon’s voice that I’ve heard over the years on TV.

I was unable to watch Morning Joe today; I underwent a colonoscopy instead. On balance, I prefer the latter.

KT –

In case they think everyone’s forgotten, please tell the High Sheriffs this comment format still sucks. It ain’t gonna fix itself.