Friday Talking Points [59] -- New Year's Resolutions (For Democrats)

Happy New Year 2009!

Because I've always felt it is more amusing to make new year's resolutions that others should follow, today's Friday Talking Points will be some resolutions for Democrats. For once, I will keep a foolish resolution I made at the beginning of 2008 to write shorter columns, because this close to New Year's Day it's about all I can handle writing (and probably about all you folks can handle reading).

I have to limit this to Democrats, as well, since making resolutions for Republicans is even more an exercise in futility (George Bush: "I will not issue blanket pardons before leaving office," for instance). Worthy resolutions spring to mind for other groups as well, such as: "We in the mainstream media will stop being idiots, go to any decent community college and take a refresher course in Journalism 101, and then start doing our jobs the way we should have been doing all along." But the list would be way too long if I didn't limit it in some way, so I've chosen to restrict it only to Democrats.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't feel free to add your own, if any spring to mind, in the comments section. Be my guest!

So, very quickly, let's hand out the awards, and then get to our list of new year's resolutions for Democrats.

 

I've really got three weeks to cover, since we're returning from our annual "McLaughlin Awards" hiatus. Which is good, since all the politicians are also on vacation, and political news in thin right now.

President-elect Obama and his transition team certainly deserves an honorable mention here, for putting together their cabinet before putting together their White House team. Bill Clinton did it the other way around, and suffered because of it. But Obama has put together his cabinet in record time (quite literally) and will be able to get them approved much easier as a result. With the possible exception of his Attorney General pick, since the Republicans are making noises about attempting to derail his appointment. But, in general, the sheer competence (there's a word we're going to be using more in the coming years, I reckon) of the Obama team in their process deserves mention here for being so impressive.

But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Al Franken, who took one giant leap closer to being named Minnesota's newest senator in the last week or two. The vote count stands (right now) with Franken up by a slim 49 votes (out of almost three million) -- but the real news is that this is the first time he's been up in the official vote count. Now, this is really the end of "round 2" in a three (or four) round fight, so it's not over yet. Round three will be the remaining absentee ballots, which are expected to favor Franken. But then we may have a fourth round in the courts before anyone takes that Senate seat, so stay tuned....

But for pulling ahead in the vote count, Al takes home this week's MIDOTW. Well done, Al, and we look forward to when we can officially call you "Senator Franken."

 

While Illinois Governor (for now) Rod Blagojevich is the obvious choice this week, for (1) remaining in office, and (2) for going ahead and naming someone to Obama's Senate seat; he is not really the one to blame here. He still is governor, he still has the power to appoint a senator, and Harry Reid notwithstanding, there may be no legal way to refuse Blagojevich's choice.

No, the real culprit here is the Illinois legislature. Which is controlled by Democrats. Here is the relevant phrase from the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The key word, used twice, is "may." They "may" empower the executive, and they "may" direct how the power is used. What this means is, they may also take this power away. This scandal broke in mid-December. The Legislature dithered over whether to call a special election or not (Democrats thought twice about it, since they could actually lose the seat to a Republican). But what they utterly failed to do was to immediately strip the power of temporary appointment from Blaggy. They could have passed a one-sentence bill:

"Until such time as this Act is repealed, the Governor shall not have the power to appoint a temporary U.S. Senator."

That's all it would have taken. And they could easily have gotten a veto-proof majority to do so, meaning they didn't even need Blaggy's signature (he would, assumably, veto such a bill). This would have removed the problem before it happened. Sure, Blagojevich might have sued and forced it to his state's Supreme Court, but that would have taken some time. Meaning they could have impeached him in the meantime, making the point legally moot.

But they didn't. They blew it. By their inaction, we're in a Constitutional mess. Call it a mini-crisis (it doesn't really rise to a full-on separation of powers "crisis" in my opinion). By failing to head Blaggy off at the pass (as it were), the Democrats in the Illinois legislature bear full responsibility for the situation Illinois finds itself in now. And for that, they collectively get the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

 

Volume 59 (1/2/09)

OK, enough of that. Onward to our mandatory resolutions for Democrats. Here are my ideas for what everyone on this list should be resolving right about now.

 

   House Democrats

"We, the Democrats in the House, resolve to get something done, as quickly as possible. President Obama needs to get large parts of his agenda passed in his first year in office, and we need to be the ones on the forefront of this effort. We have to keep the pressure up on the Senate, so they won't water down everything we do. We have an enormous majority in the House, and we resolve to use it to get some things done for the American people. And we need to use Obama's 'honeymoon' period to do so."

 

   Senate Democrats

"We, the Democrats in the Senate, need to get our heads out of our collective..."

No, wait, that's not right. It's a new year, I have to be more positive here. Allow me to begin again...

"We, the Democrats in the Senate, need to first figure out who exactly is among us. We need to get Democrats seated from Delaware, New York, Colorado, Minnesota, and Illinois, and we need to do it as quickly as we possibly can. Then, we need to stop being so timid. We need to repeat, every morning, in front of our collective mirrors (assuming Franken makes it): 'We have a 59-41 majority. We have the power. We have the power! WE HAVE THE POWER!!' We need to realize that we only have to peel off one Republican moderate and we can defeat any filibuster attempt. Republicans are scared and we need to use that fear -- the fear of being voted out of office. We need to send flowers every week to Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Susan Collins, and we need to use only Maine maple syrup on our pancakes and eat lobster once a week from this point on. We need to use the power of our overwhelming majority in the House, and President Obama's extraordinarily high approval ratings, to pass Obama's agenda without too many compromises. We need to realize the power of our numbers, and use it to get some things done."

 

   Nancy Pelosi

"I, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, resolve to lead the way I've been itching to for the past two years. I will become the voice for progressives and liberals throughout this country, and I will insist on passing the most progressive legislation possible from the House. I can even afford having defections from 'Blue Dog' Democrats, because we have such a huge majority that we can still pass legislation without them. I resolve to push the Congress to the left, and make it truly representative of the new center-left country that America has become. The voters put Democrats in control because they wanted to see some progress, and I will be behind the wheel, driving that progress. I resolve to be more progressive than the Senate Democrats, and more progressive than President Obama himself."

 

   Harry Reid

"I, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, will grow a backbone."

Seriously, that's about it. Reid has been so willing to abandon his own principles and his own party's position on so many crucially important issues, it's a wonder he doesn't show up to work every day wearing a lime green T-shirt with the word "Welcome" on it. Because Republicans have been walking all over him (and wiping their feet while they do so) pretty much since he took control of the Senate. This needs to end. If the House is passing good bills, and if President Obama is pushing for good bills, then Harry needs to pass some good bills and not just crumble in the face of one or two Republicans who say mean things about him. Reid only needs to court one or two Republicans over to his side, and then he can tell the rest of them to go pound sand. Republicans may not be bright enough to realize that their obstructionism is what lost them the last election (or the last two elections, depending on your point of view), and they may continue to try and block every good idea Obama and the Democrats come up with. Reid needs to realize that Democrats are not reliant any more just upon the goodwill of Joe Lieberman. It's not a 51-49 game any more. If he'd just grow a backbone, he could laugh in the face of Republicans threatening filibusters, and tell them that they are just insuring their own defeat at the ballot box. No matter which party, the one thing politicians are terrified of is losing their power. And Harry could use that as a blunt object to keep them in line.

If he only had a backbone, that is.

 

   Hillary Clinton

"I, soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will have a drama-free term in office. I will execute President Obama's foreign policy as best I can, and I will do so without personally becoming the story itself. Oh, and I will keep Bill completely under control. I resolve that Bill's leash will be so short it will damn near be invisible. Because now my legacy is more important than his."

 

   Barack Obama

"I, soon-to-be President Barack Obama, will understand the fine line between holding to my principles, and making necessary political compromises. I resolve to move beyond partisanship, but not in a way that lets Republicans undercut the core parts of my agenda. I can compromise on some of the details, but I will not budge from certain deal-breaker positions. Including the other side in discussions will not give them a veto over what gets done. I resolve to not 'give away the store,' in other words."

 

   The Lefty Blogosphere

This one includes me, for the sake of discussion. Just wanted to say that up front.

"We, on the left of the blogosphere, resolve not to go ballistic on every perceived slight coming from Washington. The bloggy left grew to the power and position it now occupies because we've been so good at being against those in power -- George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and all of their ilk. We on the left have never really found ourselves in the situation we now face: Democrats hold the White House, the House, and the Senate. We are in power now, and we have to realize that getting half or even three-quarters of a loaf is a lot better than no loaf at all. To get some good ideas passed, we're going to have to realize that compromises are going to be made. This is the nature of politics. The right wing media (talk radio, Fox News, etc.) will do a dandy job of ripping into the Obama administration for all kinds of perceived shortcomings. We on the left know we need to counter such by pushing our issues to the fore, but we should also show some restraint. Three areas, in particular, we resolve to show restraint: (1) the language we use, (2) keeping a sense of proportion, and (3) not holding grudges too long. We need to enter the debate about the issues of the day without demonizing our own, and realize that some compromises are going to have to be made. When some detail is given up in negotiations that we have fought hard for, we need to step back and look at the bigger picture, and realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good. We're never going to get everything we want, so we should keep reminding ourselves of the good progress we are making without obsessing over the one issue that got thrown under the bus."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

Comments

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Re: Senate Dems

You're forgetting Joe LIEberman and Evan (not Birch, not a Dem) Bayh: DINOs chomping at the bit to stagger off of the reservation the first chance they get.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

LiarLiarIraqsOnFire -

No, I'm not forgetting them, I'm just pretending they don't exist, for now. It's the difference between denial and refusal to face facts.

Heh heh.

:-)

-CW

[thecanadian]

Thanks Chris! Hopefully, Obama will be able to "lay it out" with some sharp elbows for them all! You are dead on about Reid & Clinton. Have a great 09!

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

thecanadian -

OK, I just can't resist. Here's a joke told on Jay Leno by Robin Williams recently, which seems so obivous I'm surprised I've missed it until now....

Q: How do you spell Canada?
A: C, eh? N, eh? D, eh?

Heh heh. OK, I abase myself and apologize to all my neighbors to the north, but I thought it was hilarious, about on the level of a 9-year-old's sense of humor. Which, I should mention, is about where mine is, usually.

Mea culpa, eh?

Heh heh. Have a great '09 yourself!

:-)

-CW

[texanna]

Chris, it isn't just that Harry has no spine. His problems are exacerbated by his complete, utter lack of understanding of how to execute the office he's ascended to! I swear, I do not understand how he became the best example of the "Peter Principle" that I've ever seen, but we're all paying for it. It will be interesting to see how long Obama tolerates Reid's inability to get the Senate in line with his agenda.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

texanna -

I thought my lime green "Welcome" shirt summed up Reid nicely. But I must admit, I didn't make the connection to the Peter Priniciple. You are so right...

:-)

-CW

[Dap]

Outstanding post brother Chris. Agape,

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Dap -

Where you been?

Agape to you in the new year. Hope springs eternal, and all of that...

:-)

-CW

[twofish]

Reid is who he is. He isn't going to "grow a backbone" at his age and with his experience. The problem with all the Democratic leadership in the Congress is that they come from the ranks of those able to live under the Rethuglican regime that came in after the 1994 elections. They were people who could stand to be treated like dirt, cut out of the drafting of legislation, forbidden to hold hearings or issue subpoenas, bullied out of filibustering by the threat of having the filibuster demolished. I still remember how disgusted I was by the number of Dems that retired after '94, but I came to see that they were unwilling to play by the Rethug rules. Now we need some fire-breathers. Are they there?

If they aren't, one reason is the DLC and the blue dogs they keep backing, especially in the House. But don't get me started on that one.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

twofish -

I hope you are mistaken, I truly do. I personally have my own problems with the Rahm Emanuel strategy to get House Dems elected, versus the Howard Dean strategy, so don't get me started, either. I think we may agree on that subject, personally.

But I have to say, among 58 (or 59) Democratic senators, there are easily 10 or 20 better candidates for Majority Leader than Reid. Not everyone bears the taint of the DLC. There are some strong voices, if they could only be heard....

Thanks for commenting.

-CW

[gemstone1000]

Great post, Chris. My favorite is the resolution for Harry Reid to grow a backbone! I don't understand why the Democrats still think they need to lean to the right. The reason the the Congress's approval ratings are so low is because the Democrats keep giving up their power to the repugs.

[zilru492]

(continued from previous post)

Besides, since the operative part is "may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until..." -- in my interpretation, If the legislature empowers the governor to make a temp appointment (as opposed to a full appointment, which the Constitution empowers Blago with), the legislature must also have an election brewing. That's the "until" bit. Nowhere does the legislature have the power to strip the temp appt -- either the legislature does nothing and the Constitution gives Blago the power, or the legislature does the only act they can under the Constitution, which is allowing Blago to temp appoint until an election. I would argue that stripping Blago of temp appointing powers at all would therefore be Unconstitutional as well.

[zilru492]

I would check your constitutional interpretation on "Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week" -- I think you're using "temporary" in two different and contradictory ways.

Your quote from the Constitution:
"When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

The governor gets to choose the appointee. Unless the legislature chooses to hold an election -- but then, the governor may still make a temp appointment to last until the special election. That's what it reads like to me. In Illinois, the legislature has not opted for the election at all. You're going on about how they should've stripped temp duties from him -- but first of all, he has full appointing duties (Burris is a full, non-temp senator and needs no election), not temp duties. Second, if the legislature strips him of full duties, then they have to do an election. A law simply stripping him of full duties is Unconstitutional! unless the legislature concurrently puts an election into law.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

zilru492 -

While not a constitutional law expert myself (although I do occasionally play one on the internets...), I would caution you that "temporary" can mean (depending on the state's laws): "until the next scheduled Senate election" -- in other words, two (possibly even four) years in the future. If the state legislature does not allow special elections until the scheduled Senate elections, then sometimes both Senate elections happen in the same year (MS had one of those in 2008, as well as one other state, I'm doing this from memory, sorry).

It all depends on the state's laws. But the US Constitution allows a lot of leeway on the issue. That's not saying I have any insights as to how IL handles it, but there is a lot of elbow room at the state level...

-CW

[zilru492]

Ah, drat, I completely misread the "writ of election" part -- your interpretation is absolutely correct. Sorry about that.

[legalgirl]

All good! I can hardly wait for them to get started!