Why Should He?

Commentary By Ron Beasley

The headline reads:

Obama must do more to get GOP on board

My question is: why should he want them on board ?  Why should any of us care if they are onboard since we all know that their only agenda is to sabotage his presidency.  The only way the GOP can regain power is to insure that Obama and the Democrats fail and that his been their only goal.  I;ve seen this but until his press conference I was beginning to suspect that Obama didn't.  The entire "bipartisan meme was absurd from the start - how can you negotiate with people who only purpose in life is to stab you in the back and make sure you fail.  I was not the only one who had some hope that Obama got it - Noam Scheiber saw it too:

Barack Obama is nothing if not a master rope-a-doper. For months last year, anxious liberals pleaded with him to respond to John McCain’s lacerating attacks. And, for months, Obama soared above the fray. Then, in early September, the McCain campaign squeezed out two ludicrously dishonest ads—accusing Obama of force-feeding sex education to kindergarteners and of calling Sarah Palin a pig. The press screamed bloody murder—Joe Klein labeled the former “one of the sleaziest ads I’ve ever seen;” Joy Behar of “The View” personally told McCain they were “lies.” At which point Obama saw an opportunity. With the media having pronounced McCain the aggressor and him the victim, Obama began to whale away—on healthcare, on McCain’s age, even Charles Keating—with virtual impunity.

My sense is that we’re seeing something similar play out with the stimulus. For weeks now, Obama has soared above the fray—inviting dour-looking Republicans to the White House for cookies and patiently hearing them out on Capitol Hill. Once again, the Republicans have exploited this stance, notching a series of tactical victories, like their unanimous no-vote in the House last week. And, once again, liberals have panicked. “[W]hy in these desperate times does he seem to care so much about being liked by the side he defeated?” Tina Brown wondered.

But complaints like this miss what’s been accomplished these last few weeks: Obama has completely defined the stimulus narrative on his own terms. To the average voter, Obama has been earnest and conciliatory while the Republicans have been cynical, self-serving, and puerile. Which, if the past is any guide, is precisely the moment he’ll start playing hardball.

In fact, Obama spent Monday basically telegraphing these intentions. The headlines from his trip to Elkhart, Indiana, focused mostly on his comments about the urgency of the stimulus. But the day’s key moment took place toward the end of the town hall meeting. After a weekend in which the White House scrupulously avoided any indication it preferred the House version of the stimulus to the stingier Senate compromise, Obama let it be known that he’d like to see some of the Senate’s education cuts restored.

Then, at his press conference last night, Obama sounded like a man who was done soliciting ideas and was ready to lay out the stark terms of debate: A vote against for the stimulus is a vote against jobs—in particular, the 4 million the plan would save or create. (He used the word “jobs” 19 times in his 1,000-word preamble.) Once the questioning began, he explicitly announced the end to the bipartisan phase of this operation: “I think that, as I continue to make these overtures, over time, hopefully that will be reciprocated,” he said. “But understand the bottom line that I've got right now, which is what's happening to the people of Elkhart and what's happening across the country. I can't afford to see Congress play the usual political games.”

The bill that comes out of conference will be unacceptable to the Republican "turncoats".  They will vote against it but will they filibuster?  I suspect not but if they do they will fall right into Obama's trap.  That is if Obama can get Harry Reid to go along with making them actually filibuster.  Will the Republicans in the Senate really be ready to have one of their members spouting nonsense on C-Span 24-7 while Rome burns?

Comments

[Batocchio]

That's one of the stupidest headlines the press has produced. The Beltway view is that something is wrong if the Republicans aren't happy, whether or not they're in power, and certainly regardless of whether their policies are any good (they're mostly disastrous). Add in that the authoritarians of movement conservative compare themselves to the Taliban and feel it's unmanly ever to negotiate or compromise, and we've got real problems.

[Kat]

>> "That is if Obama can get Harry Reid to go along with making them actually filibuster. Will the Republicans in the Senate really be ready to have one of their members spouting nonsense on C-Span 24-7 while Rome burns?"

I wonder... Has any Senate Majority Leader required a traditional filibuster since they came up with Senate Rule 22?

Quoting from Wikipedia's page on Filibuster:

Procedural filibuster

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can therefore be as powerful as an actual filibuster. Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.

Preparations

Preparations for a traditional filibuster can be very elaborate. Sometimes cots are brought into the hallways or cloakrooms for senators to sleep on. While in a filibuster the senator talking must remain in the same spot and is only allowed to filibuster twice in a legislative day. A legislative day lasts until the debate is adjourned, which can take days. According to Newsweek:

They used to call it 'taking to the diaper,' a phrase that referred to the preparation undertaken by a prudent senator before an extended filibuster. Strom Thurmond visited a steam room before his filibuster in order to dehydrate himself so he could drink without urinating. An aide stood by in the cloakroom with a pail in case of emergency.

Filibusters have become much more common in recent decades. Twice as many filibusters took place in the 1991-1992 legislative session as took place in the entire nineteenth century.

20th century and the emergence of cloture

[...]

The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the filibusters of the 1960s, was when southern Democratic Senators attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters. In the fall of 2007, the 110th Congress' 1st session broke the record, for filibuster cloture votes, topping 70 as of Nov 15, 2007. It is on track to triple the number of such votes in 2008's 2nd session.
/end quote

Seems to me, Senate Rule 22 is a big reason why, more and more, Congress gets so little of substance accomplished.

Kat