It was an interesting bit of commentary and perhaps faux sophistication, on PBS's Newshour, Monday when Gwen Ifill resident skeptic of all things Democratic and Amy Walter, frequent "deviner of the truth" from 'safe source' NationalJournal agreed that President Obama's latest effort (in a long series of appeals) to gain a bit of active participation from the Party of "NO!" was really just political posturing on the part of the President.
Ms. IFill and Walters were discussing the President's latest offer to the Republicans to have a meeting where Republicans could offer up any ideas (hopefully constructive) they might have on Health Care Reform.
Obama Looks to Bipartisan Summit to Revive Health ReformGWEN IFILL: The president's olive branch strategy begins tomorrow, when lawmakers from both parties arrive at the White House for a previously scheduled meeting on the economy.
Here to help us sort through this weekend's political news is Amy Walter, editor in chief of The Hotline, National Journal's daily briefing on politics.
~~
~~
GWEN IFILL: So, are these meetings, whether it be tomorrow's meeting about the economy, which is one of their regular bipartisan meetings at the White House, or this big thing on February 25, I guess, are they really about fixing the problem, or are they about leaving the impression that they are at least talking to one another?
AMY WALTER: I think it is the latter. I think political posturing, as you put in your piece, is probably the better way to look at this -- Democrats hoping that voters are going to look at the ballot in 2010 and see not a Democratic Party that failed to deliver, but Republicans who stood in their way.
That is a very tough argument to make when you control everything in Washington, and by big margins.
..................................................................................................................................................................
Ifill asks: "are they really about fixing the problem, or are they about leaving the impression that they are at least talking to one another?"
and Walters, accomodatively asserts: "I think it is the latter. I think political posturing, as you put in your piece, is probably the better way to look at this.."
and continuing, Walters says: " Democrats hoping that voters are going to look at the ballot in 2010 and see not a Democratic Party that failed to deliver, but Republicans who stood in their way.
That is a very tough argument to make when you control everything in Washington, and by big margins."
.................................................................................................................................................................
...REALLY, is that the take-away people should remember, Ms Walters. Well, perhaps that's what people will think when they are not fully informed of all facts.
Maybe Ms. Walters should go to Talking Points Memo (
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/the-rise-of-cloture-how-gop-filibuster-threats-have-changed-the-senate.php">The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate) and get informed herself about how the Republicans are using the threat of filibuster to grind progress in the Senate to a halt.
"While Republicans spent the last several months threatening to filibuster the Democrats' health care reform bill in the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambled to secure 60 votes" ..he needed to get the bill passed.
But what ever happened to the rule of simple majority is required to pass a bill?
Here is another article on the rise of the use of the filibuster, Ms. Walters might find interesting:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/the_filibuster_and_family_full.php">The filibuster: let's talk about it - James Fallows, The Atlantic
I say "modern" because, contrary to the tone of most day-by-day political reportage, this is not some timeless feature of American constitutional design. In newspaper accounts, you read things like this -- the second paragraph of an (otherwise very good) NYT story today on the struggles over health care reform:
"To get the 60 votes needed to pass their bill, Democrats scrapped the idea of a government-run public insurance plan, cherished by liberals, and replaced it with a proposal for nationwide health plans, which would be offered by private insurers under contract with the government."
Of course, the number of votes the Democrats need to pass their bill is a simple majority -- 51 votes at most. ("At most" because a 50-50 tie would be broken by the Vice President, who of course is now a Democrat.) The reason we talk and act as if "majority" = "60 votes" is that in the past 25 years, something that was an exceptional, last-ditch measure has turned into a damaging routine.
~~
~~
"The significant thing about filibusters through most of U.S. history is that they hardly ever happened. But since roughly the early Clinton years, the threat of filibuster has gone from exception to routine, for legislation and appointments alike, with the result that doing practically anything takes not 51 but 60 votes."
So the fact is that because of Republican's nearly constant use of the threat of filibuster, they have made it necessary to have super majority to pass a bill in the Senate.
Also, if Ms. Walters has forgotten, I must remind her of certain statements of Republicans, such as "We will be the party of 'NO'"..John Boehner, and "We'll make Health Care Reform Obama's Waterloo"... Demint. I would take these statements as pretty good indicators at how interested in bipartisanship the Republicans are.
So it is not Democratic campaign rhetoric to say that the Republicans have made it very difficult to get anything done in Congress.
But I wouldn't want to spoil Ms. Ifill's and Walters' efforts at disinformation in the interest of a little reality based tv journalism.
Here is a very good statement on how Republicans are using the threat of filibuster to keep anything from being accomplished in the Senate:
The Senate has had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and '60s combined. This has prevented an honest debate from taking place, which has made it impossible to find agreement on important legislation that would benefit working families in this country.