Blue Dog Bayh gets GOP challenger

Former Republican congressman John Hostettler is challenging Blue Dog Sen. Evan Bayh by caricaturing him as a wild-eyed, Harry Reid-loving, tax-raising liberalsocialistfascist.

In a YouTube video, Hostettler repeatedly ties Bayh to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, blaming the pair for what he calls a failed economic stimulus package.

“Hoosiers need real jobs created by real companies that are not taxed and regulated to death by new big government boondoggles like government-run health care and cap-and-trade,” Hostettler says. “These new programs will only push jobs out of Indiana.”

Hmm. And here I thought that positioning yourself as a "centrist Democrat" always eager to sell your party out in the name of "bipartisanship" was the best way to keep the GOP from caricaturing you as a wild-eyed, Harry Reid-loving, tax-raising liberalsocialistfascist.

Could it be that nothing will keep the Republicans from doing that? Could it be that the best way to win as a Democrat is to govern like a Democrat and produce results for your constituents?

I guess we'll see.

Progressive tenacity forced Reid's hand on public option

Well, inagine that. The senate's health reform bill includes a public option because, and only because, liberal senators insisted on it.

Democratic leaders were forced to include a national public health insurance option as part of health care reform by progressive Democratic senators who refused to support anything less, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday.

Durbin's assessment was made to a handful of reporters following the announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that after weeks of talks with his colleagues he had determined that including a public option that states could opt out of was the best way to go.

For many years, it's been centrist and conservative-leaning senators who have been scoring legislative victories by digging in their heels, so this represented a quite dramatic turnabout. It is difficult to remember the last time that progressives won a legislative victory by laying down firm demands and sticking to them.

Isn't it amazing what you can accomplish by simply refusing to shut up and sit in the corner?

As late as Sunday, the chattering nabobs of centrism were insisting that liberals would have no choice but to accept Olympia Snowe's absurd "trigger" compromise as a public option substitute.

It is about time that liberal lawmakers started speaking up loudly and proudly for what they believe. In this case, the progressive caucus had everybody against them: the Republicans, the chattering nabobs, their own congressional leadership, and the White House.

But instead of listening to the bipartisanship fetishists, they listened to the people. Yes, they had their spines stiffened by some serious liberal blog activism, led by Jane Hamsher and others, but the voices of the chatterers were loud. Harry Reid was barely there. And the Obama administration was clearly in favor of selling out to Olympia Snowe rather than fighting for real reform.

But the progressive caucus in the House was always on the side of the people, and the libs in the senate stood their ground. And they got what they wanted.

It's not over yet, obviously, but real reform has the momentum.

Will Democrats really support a Republican filibuster of health reform?

Olbermann and Howard Fineman discussed the need for Democrats to get 60 votes to shut off debate on the senate floor for health reform.

Fineman concluded that if the public option is included in the Senate Finance Committe bill, the Democrats "could lose" the support of two or three of their own senators.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Let's be clear about what we're talking about here.

No bill needs more than 51 votes for passage in the United States Senate. The 60-vote threshhold that has become the de facto standard for legislative success in the senate is merely what is needed to end debate on a measure and bring it up for a floor vote. It is, essentially, what is needed to overcome the threat of a filibuster.

Once upon a time, the Republicans insisted, and the news media agreed collectively, that every bill and every nominee deserved an up-or-down vote in the senate. This was when Republicans controlled congress and a Republican president was in the White House. The up-or-down vote narrative created the perception that any Democratic filibuster of a Republican legislative priority was nothing less than an affront to democracy.

That was then. This is now.

Now, the Republicans hold just 40 seats in a 100-member body that requires only a simple majority, 51 votes, to pass legislation.

In order to compensate for their lack of power in congress, the Republicans have begun rountinely issuing filibuster threats against Demcocratic legislative priorities. In fact, it has become so automatic that lawmakers and the news media assume now that any significant Democratic bill will be subjected to a filibuster. What was once considered an aberration has become the new normal. The Democratic majority is so cowed by this procedural tactic that they are willing to gut their own legislation pre-emptively to account for the likelihood of a Republican filibuster.

This would be pathetic even if the Democrats did not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster threat.

But with the appointment of Paul Kirk to replace Ted Kennedy, the Democratic majority has the 60 votes it needs to beat back a filibuster and bring a strong health reform bill to a floor vote in the senate. With 60 votes, the Democrats can shut off debate and bring a bill containing a public option to the senate floor where it would pass by a comfortable margin.

The 60 votes are needed only for the routine act of ending debate and bringing a measure to the senate floor for a vote. Any senator who disagrees with the bill, Republican or Democrat, who disagrees with the bill would be free to vote "no."

When pundits like Howard Fineman warn that the Democrats "could lose" some of their own members by including real reform in the reform bill, what they are talking about is Democrats supporting a Republican filibuster against their own party's legislation. What does it even mean to be a member of a political party if you support the opposition's effort to keep your own side from even voting on its top priority?

This dynamic literally allows a 40-seat minority to control the process in a 100-member body that passes legislation by simple majority. It renders moot the results of the elections that handed the Democrats such an overwhelming majority in the first place. It is complete surrender. It is obscene.

The majority must begin to change this dynamic now. The Democrats should pass out of the Senate Finance Committee a health reform bill with a strong public option. The leadership should make it clear that any Democrat who doesn't like the bill is free to vote against it during final passage.

But they must make it equally clear that there will be severe consequences for any Democrat who supports a Republican filibuster.

LA-Sen - Rep. Charlie Melancon announces candidacy

Congressman Charlie Melancon (D-LA) announced via web video today that he is a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Republican David Vitter. Melancon described himself in the video as a "pro-life, pro-gun Southern Democrat."

"I am a proud centrist, a Blue Dog, a straight-up-the-middle fighter for the little guy who is struggling to make ends meet."

Melancon says nothing in the announcement about health care, but his views on reform are on display in this interview he gave in July to Louisiana: The State We're In, a newsmagazine produced by the state's public television network.



To the extent that Melancon has any thoughts on health reform, they seem barely distinguishable from those of Republicans motivated by a desire to delay reform long enough to kill it:

• We need to slow the reform process down
  
• We must not cover illegal immigrants

This, along with some platitudes about how "every man, woman, and child" deserves a "perfect" bill, sums up Melancon's views on health reform.

I suppose anybody would be better than the incumbent, but it's too bad the best we seem to be able to do is Vitter without the hookers.

Republicans oppose judicial filibusters as a matter of principle

Hold the GOP to its principles on every judicial nominee's right to an up-or-down vote.



Click here to see other Republican senators who agree with Senator Hatch that judge Sotomayor deserves an up-or-down vote on her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Potential primary opponent against Specter drops out

Philadelphian Joe Torsella, chair of Pennsylvania's state board of education, says he will not challenge newly-minted Democrat Arlen Specter for the party's nomination in next year's U.S. Senate race.

Philadelphia civic leader Joe Torsella says in a video to friends and supporters to be posted on his campaign Web site Thursday evening that he's concerned the race would become more about Specter's record than looking forward and that's not good for the state.

The 45-year-old Torsella is a former president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and is the chairman of the State Board of Education.

He entered the race before Specter switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

Congressman Joe Sestak is said to be considering a primary run against Specter.

For the sake of the party, I hope somebody does. A primary challenge is the only thing that will force Specter to support anything resembling a progressive agenda for the next year-and-a-half.

DiFi: 'Seat Burris'

From Politico:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) broke with her party’s leadership Tuesday in calling for Roland Burris to be seated in the Senate once his paperwork is signed by the Illinois secretary of state.

Feinstein, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said that not allowing Burris to be seated could broadly undermine future gubernatorial appointments.

“I can’t imagine the secretary of state countermanding a gubernatorial appointment,” Feinstein said. “The question, really, is one in my view of law. And that is, does the governor have the power to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? And the answer is yes.

“Does that affect his appointment power? And the answer is no until certain things happen.”

She added if Burris isn’t seated “it affects gubernatorial appointments all over the country.”

As I noted in a previous post, Burris has the law on his side. The investigation of Blagojevich does not change that.

Senate blocks Burris

The Secretary of the Senate blocked Roland Burris from taking his seat today as the junior United States from Illinois.

Roland Burris failed in his bid to take President-elect Barack Obama's Illinois Senate seat on Tuesday in a scripted piece of political theater staged just before the opening of the 111th Congress.

"Mr. Burris is not in possession of the necessary credentials from the state of Illinois," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in his speech opening the new session of Congress.

Burris, 71, earlier confirmed that Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson had informed him in a private meeting that his credentials lacked a required signature and his state's seal.

"I will not be accepted, I will not be seated," Burris told a mob of reporters who had followed him across the street for a news conference in a cold and steady rain outside the Capitol.

I do not understand the rationale of senate Democrats on this matter.

Burris was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to serve the remainder of Barack Obama's term. Blagojevich's legal troubles notwithstanding, the governor has the legal authority to appoint Obama's successor. That, it seems to me, should settle it.

Something is going to have to give here, and if Burris continues to press his right to take his seat, what will have to give is the senate leadership's effort to keep him from doing so. The man has the law on his side. That has to count for something.

Lieberman keeps chairmanship of Homeland Security Committee

And the New York Times swallows the spin and reports it as news.

Many Democrats were infuriated that Mr. Lieberman, Vice President Al Gore’s running mate on the 2000 Democratic presidential ticket, ardently supported Senator McCain of Arizona. Mr. Lieberman actively campaigned against Mr. Obama, and harshly criticized him in his speech at the Republican convention.

But Mr. Obama signaled that he did not want Mr. Lieberman thrown out of the Democratic caucus, since expelling the senator could prompt him to align himself with the Republicans. Mr. Lieberman had also signaled that losing the chairmanship of the homeland security panel would be unacceptable to him.

The vote had nothing to do with expelling Lieberman from the Democratic caucus. Nobody suggested expelling him from the caucus.

Lieberman threatened to leave the caucus if he did not get to remain chair of Homeland Security. He threatened to expel himself if he were subjected to any punishment campaigning for the Republican presidential nominee, for speaking at the Republican convention where he accused the Democratic nominee of not supporting the troops:

[W]hen Barack Obama was voting to cut off funding for our troops on the ground, John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion and support the surge, and because of that, today, our troops are at last beginning to come home, not in failure, but in honor!

Or for accusing the Democratic nominee of not putting the country first. Literally.

[A]s he introduced Mr. McCain at a campaign event here on Tuesday, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut made the attack a lot more explicit, calling the election a choice “between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.’’

Yet with all this, nobody but nobody threatened to expel Lieberman from the Democratic caucus. They merely discussed taking away his chairmanship, which any reasonable person could argue should belong to a loyal, competent, senior Democrat.

LA-Sen - Landrieu outraising GOP challenger

Mary Landrieu (D-LA), once viewed as the most vulnerable Democratic U.S. senator in the country, enjoys a substantial fundraising advantage over her Republican opponent.

U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu has raised $9.5 million in campaign contributions for her re-election bid, according to Federal Election Commission reports released Thursday.

The Democrat collected $4 million more than her Republican opponent, state Treasurer John Kennedy.

Kennedy raised $5.2 million, including $262,153 during the last reporting period covering the three months ending Sept. 30.

Kennedy received big support from the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee, each contributing $17,500 during the period.

The bad news for Kennedy is that the NRSC has pulled its advertising money out of Louisiana. The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the Republicans are effectively giving up on their only opportunity for a senate pickup this year in order to focus on protecting Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), who are facing unexpectedly strong challenges from their Democratic opponents.

Polling shows Landrieu with a double-digit lead over Kennedy, a former Democrat who switched parties and challenged the incumbent at the urging of Karl Rove.