US Democrats get 60th Senator

[Humodour]

Since I figured a lot of you guys follow American politics, or at least followed the American election, you might be interested to know that the Democrats (Obama's party) just got their 60th Senate seat.

 

In America, over the years, the senate has evolved such that you need not just a majority (50%) but a supermajority (60%) in order to pass legislation (cloture used to be a rare move, but since around Bush senior's term its been used willy nilly). The Republicans were trying extremely hard to prevent Dem cloture, but now a Republican has defected to the Democrats, so for the next two years the Dems will be able to pass subject only to their own party discipline (which isn't a sure thing - there's lots of moderate and conservative Democrat senators, Arlen Spector for one).

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...sg0VpgD97RKDNO1

 

Al Franken is waiting to be seated after being certified by his state as a Senator. He can't beat seated until the Senator he beat - Republican Coleman - stops trying to sue him for winning, however.

 

Snowe called Specter's decision "devastating news" for Republicans, particularly Northeastern Republicans who have almost vanished in the Senate over the last decade. "Many Republicans feel alienated and disaffected from the party," Snowe said. "It just helps nourish a culture of exclusion and alienation."

 

Snowe recalled former Sen. James Jeffords switch from being a Republican to an independent caucusing with Democrats in 2001, a more dramatic switch that flipped power from Republicans to Democrats in the chamber. "Frankly, the party never woke up from that event," she said.

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a prominent conservative voice who was John McCain's staunchest supporter in his 2008 GOP presidential campaign, warned that the party has become regionalized in its mentality. "We have to find places in the party for people who couldn't win in South Carolina," he told reporters.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews

Edited April 28, 2009 by Krezack

[Aristes]

This is pretty bad news for republican diehards, but probably a good thing for the party in the long run. The party has strayed. First and foremost, regardless of Iraq, the market meltdown, or any other issue, the Republican party stopped being the voice of small government, fiscal discipline, and integrity. Yeah, I've been a registered Republican from the time I turned 18. I was in the Navy at the time. I'd joined at 17. I'm not an internet tough guy, but I'd like to think that I've always put my country before any specific party affiliation. I was an American before I was a Republican.

 

The Republicans need to clean up their act because, at the end of the day, I don't see a huge difference between Republicans who want to tax and spend and Democrats who want to tax and spend. ...And just because I've been a Republican all my life adult life doesn't mean I'm going to be a Republican for the rest of it.

 

Graham is entirely right. I could rightfully be pilloried for being liberal by other Republicans (and I have been) then there is something weird with our party. I don't want to win the argument, I want to do what I think is best, and if losing Specter is the harsh medicine the party needs to find it's way, then so be it. The Republican message could win the day in the Northeast, but to many Republicans say it has to be the whole package or nothing at all. That's why we keep seeing Republicans defect.

[Enoch]

This is all about Arlen positioning himself for re-election, getting out of the hotly contested GOP primary, and into the Democratic primary where he would likely get the nod. His "RINO" status is well liked by the middle-third of the state's electorate, but the primaries tend to go to the true believers (who often have a much lower chance of winning in the general election). Probably doesn't change much with regard to, for example, whether he would vote for cloture on a hotly contested bill or nomination.

 

The demise of the northeastern Republican in the '00s is blowback from the GOP's use of social wedge issues to kill off the southern Democrat in the '80s and '90s.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Employee Stalinist Choice Act just got a lot closer to passing.

 

And what, cloture used to be rarely used? Where the hell to you get your info Krezack?

[Enoch]

The Employee Stalinist Choice Act just got a lot closer to passing.

 

And what, cloture used to be rarely used? Where the hell to you get your info Krezack?

Specter has already stated that he's not going to change his vote on the EFCA.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, that's his current position, but as a Democrat he'll be a lot more dependent on unions for campaign cash and volunteers, so it may just require some small cosmetic changes to get him to flip again (he was for it last year, when it had no chance).

[Enoch]

I don't think the unions are likely to pressure him much on that particular item. I'm sure the powers that be in the PA democratic organization have promised to make sure that there won't be any major challenges to him in their '10 primary, and the unions are certainly not going to choose to support the far more hard-core GOP nominee that runs against him in the general election. This switch makes him a quite safe bet to be re-elected, with or without full-throated support from union leadership.

 

The area where this will probably have the greatest effect is on judicial nominees. Specter loves his seat on the Judiciary Committee and is very engaged in the vetting and questioning of nominees. He will try to set himself up as the decisive vote over whether a GOP filibuster of a particular nominee is succeeds or fails. In his previous role as the Ranking Minority member of the Judiciary Committee, he would've been under pretty heavy pressure to toe the party line on court nominees. Now as an ordinary Democratic member of the Committee, he can be the rogue moderate Senator who everyone has to entice over to their side if they want a nominee approved/stalled.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Enoch

[Humodour]

The Employee Stalinist Choice Act just got a lot closer to passing.

 

You might not agree with Labour unions for some reason or another, but there's nothing Stalinist about them. Perhaps this is an area you need to do some research on.

 

And what, cloture used to be rarely used? Where the hell to you get your info Krezack?

 

Cloture used to be a last a resort, the 'nuclear option' and the ultimate threat to force compromise on bills. No longer.

 

This is all about Arlen positioning himself for re-election, getting out of the hotly contested GOP primary, and into the Democratic primary where he would likely get the nod.

 

The Democratic fundraiser thingy (DSCC?) and Obama have both stated they'll back him in the primary.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The Employee Stalinist Choice Act just got a lot closer to passing.

 

You might not agree with Labour unions for some reason or another, but there's nothing Stalinist about them. Perhaps this is an area you need to do some research on.

Taking away the secret ballot is what's Stalinist, you're the one who needs to do some research.

 

And what, cloture used to be rarely used? Where the hell to you get your info Krezack?

 

Cloture used to be a last a resort, the 'nuclear option' and the ultimate threat to force compromise on bills. No longer.

Again, where are you getting your info, the filibuster is a long standing tradition in the Senate, it is the primary reason why change takes a long time in the US.

 

Enoch, I have to disagree, EFCA is the number one legislative priority for unions, and what good is it to have a Democrat that doesn't vote their way? True, they can't very well support a Republican, but there are options in the primary, and certainly they could withhold cash and volunteers. I agree it's not a sure thing though, as they don't have all the cards.

[Arkan]

Will Franken be 61?

[Enoch]

Will Franken be 61?

No, Franken would make 60. (Technically, 58 + Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, both Independents who are caucusing with the Democrats.)

 

 

WoD, I don't think that the EFCA is a particularly good idea either, but slapping silly extremist labels on it isn't going to convince anybody that your position is reasonable or convincing. Also, as I said, unless something unforeseen happens, Specter should have little trouble winning re-election as a Democrat in 2010 regardless of whether he has the full support of union leadership. They can try to convince him, but they can't threaten him with much credibility.

[Walsingham]

I don't think I can be alone when I am reminded of the words of Chris Rock. Republican, Democrat. If you've made up your mind on an issue before you've heard the issue, you're just a moron.

 

I'm not against having clarity on, and fixed axioms established, like human rights, which way is North etc. But I do like a healthy debate on how to get towards these things. Most political parties seem to have it the wrong way round. they're a hodgepodge of principles, but a monolith of practice.

[Humodour]

The Employee Stalinist Choice Act just got a lot closer to passing.

 

You might not agree with Labour unions for some reason or another, but there's nothing Stalinist about them. Perhaps this is an area you need to do some research on.

Taking away the secret ballot is what's Stalinist, you're the one who needs to do some research.

 

"In the American democratic tradition the principle of the secret ballot is not simply the fact that you go into a voting booth and pull a curtain and nobody sees what you do. It is your right to keep your political opinion private to yourself before, during and after the act of voting; that you can't be lured or coerced into a conversation that is designed to make you reveal your political preferences. In the NLRB, while the vote does take place in a booth where nobody sees what you're doing, management is allowed to engage in a series of behaviors in the lead up to the vote that force the vast majority of workers to reveal how they're going to vote long before they ever step into the booth."

 

Also, you still haven't explained to me how secret ballots have anything to do with Stalin's strain of Communism.

 

And what, cloture used to be rarely used? Where the hell to you get your info Krezack?

 

Cloture used to be a last a resort, the 'nuclear option' and the ultimate threat to force compromise on bills. No longer.

Again, where are you getting your info, the filibuster is a long standing tradition in the Senate, it is the primary reason why change takes a long time in the US.

 

Um, Cloture was introduced in 1917 and between then and 1962 was used only 11 times, all of which failed. in 1975, the supermajority required was reduced from 67 senators to 60 senators. Yeah, what a "long-standing tradition" that is.

 

Frequency of Cloture use since 1947: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...947_to_2008.jpg

 

Where do you get YOUR information?

 

Enoch, I have to disagree, EFCA is the number one legislative priority for unions, and what good is it to have a Democrat that doesn't vote their way? True, they can't very well support a Republican, but there are options in the primary, and certainly they could withhold cash and volunteers. I agree it's not a sure thing though, as they don't have all the cards.

 

Enoch is right: if you think Specter is going to vote for EFCA in its current form you're dreaming. The Dems want him for other things, namely healthcare and budgets.

[Enoch]

To my knowledge, Krez is correct about the history of cloture in the U.S. Senate.

 

But I can't be the only one who finds his demand of "Where do you get YOUR information?" just a few scant spaces after citing something from Wikipedia to be effin' hilarious.

[Arkan]

To my knowledge, Krez is correct about the history of cloture in the U.S. Senate.

 

But I can't be the only one who finds his demand of "Where do you get YOUR information?" just a few scant spaces after citing something from Wikipedia to be effin' hilarious.

 

 

Would you be happier with an encyclopedia?

[Wrath of Dagon]

"In the American democratic tradition the principle of the secret ballot is not simply the fact that you go into a voting booth and pull a curtain and nobody sees what you do. It is your right to keep your political opinion private to yourself before, during and after the act of voting; that you can't be lured or coerced into a conversation that is designed to make you reveal your political preferences. In the NLRB, while the vote does take place in a booth where nobody sees what you're doing, management is allowed to engage in a series of behaviors in the lead up to the vote that force the vast majority of workers to reveal how they're going to vote long before they ever step into the booth."

 

Also, you still haven't explained to me how secret ballots have anything to do with Stalin's strain of Communism.

Way to fall for propaganda. How is the management going to get you to reveal how you're going to vote or have voted when the ballot is secret and federally supervised? Amazing how easy it is to brainwash people, it's happening all over again. The secret ballot is the cornerstone of democracy, an open ballot election is no different than a Soviet election, so no Enoch, it's not an extremist label.

 

Um, Cloture was introduced in 1917 and between then and 1962 was used only 11 times, all of which failed. in 1975, the supermajority required was reduced from 67 senators to 60 senators. Yeah, what a "long-standing tradition" that is. Frequency of Cloture use since 1947: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...947_to_2008.jpg

 

Where do you get YOUR information?

The graph you posted shows cloture votes increasing sharply in 1970, certainly way before Geoge HW Bush ever became president. Why don't you actually read that article, the history of the filibuster is quite a long one, as I said.

[Humodour]

Um, Cloture was introduced in 1917 and between then and 1962 was used only 11 times, all of which failed. in 1975, the supermajority required was reduced from 67 senators to 60 senators. Yeah, what a "long-standing tradition" that is. Frequency of Cloture use since 1947: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e...947_to_2008.jpg

 

Where do you get YOUR information?

The graph you posted shows cloture votes increasing sharply in 1970, certainly way before Geoge HW Bush ever became president. Why don't you actually read that article, the history of the filibuster is quite a long one, as I said.

 

Dear me you're a fool. You can try and hide that fact all you want, but you clearly said the following which is down and out wrong: "And what, cloture used to be rarely used? Where the hell to you get your info Krezack?"

 

Moreover, the 'sharp increase' is actually under the Reagan-Bush Sr tenure, it's certainly in full swing for Bush Jr's reign. Regardless of exactly whose term it started in, the point is Cloture never used to be so abused, which you refuse to accept for some reason.

[Guard Dog]

I'm not surprised by this. I am a little bummed out however. I had Susan Collins in the Which-Senator-Bails-First pool. Oh well.

 

On a more serious note this move is entirely self serving on Spectre's part and any attempt to use it as a referendum on the GOP would be a mistake. This is a classic case of a career politician seeing which way the wind is blowing and tacking in the direction that best seves their own interests. It does however shed a little more light on the growing schism between the Goldwater Republicans and the Rockefeller Republicans.

 

Perhaps the GOP really will fade as a viable political force after 2010. I'm curious, does anyone here think that is a good thing?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm curious, does anyone here think that is a good thing?

 

Frankly, yes, I do. I want the social-conservatives to fade away into nothingness and not return.

[Aristes]

Good in and of itself? No, but I would really like to have some fiscally conservative voice in the government and the Republicans, at the crossroad, have been choosing to be socially conservative. I'm not entirely jaded. I want the republicans to do better, but I don't understand what they're doing squeezing out folks like Specter, and self serving or not, the Republicans in his state have been increasingly hostile to him based virtually entirely on social issues. Sorry, GD. I'm a Republican like you, man, but I'm getting sick of this business.

 

I'm an unashamed and unabashed Reagan Republican. I believe in having hope for the future and standing strong and tall. What I don't accept is that we should stand or fall as a party based on abortion. Why is this a bigger issue for so many Republicans than stewardship of our resources and empowering our people?

 

I'm not a fan of the Democrats. I've never let that get in the way of a friendship anywhere along the way. ...And some of my Democratic friends have said some stupid and crazy things. However, it's my Republican friends who insist that we're all going to end up in a socialist gulag. You know what, we Republicans used to be the party of optimism. Even when we were down and out, we were always sure there would be a better day and that our country would do right by itself and the world. Now I hear from my conservative friends that the US is going to fail, that we're on our way out. I'm disgusted.

 

More than any other thing, Republicans used to be the party of a hopeful future. I never hated my liberal friends for saying that we were terrible and that things would get worse. I never hated them for saying that the United States wasn't as good as we Republicans claimed. I've always understood there needed to be people who kept our unrestrained exhuberance in check. However, now the Republicans are telling me to look fearfully to the future?

 

Small government? Limited spending? Responsible stewardship of our resources? These used to be the gospel of the Republican party. Those of us who donated our money, not to mention our time and talents, to the needy never hated the Democrats for depicting us as greedy and selfish, either explicitly or by implication. We knew it wasn't true. ...But, if we're going to deficit spend, why shouldn't we spend it on social programs? And corrupt and self serving Republicans have eroded my faith in the party.

 

I don't want to see the Republicans to be dispersed as a party, but if it gets rid of the dead weight when the new conservative party forms, I'm all for it.

[Meshugger]

Uhm, what's with the open ballots in trade unions or whatnot? Why abandon the option of secret voting? Anyone care to elaborate?

 

Diatribes in the vein of silly-over-the-top-daily-mail-world-news-net-daily-sensationalism-HURRRRRR will be considered as rubbish.

Edited April 29, 2009 by Meshugger

[Killian Kalthorne]

I think that the fading of the Republican party is definitely a good thing. While I do agree with many of their fiscal conservative policies they want to put in place I am definitely against their social conservative mentality. I would vote for a fiscal liberal before a social conservative. With the destruction of the Republican party, maybe parties that have their fiscal minded principles coupled with the Democratic liberal social views can rise.

[Guard Dog]

Uhm, what's with the open ballots in trade unions or whatnot? Why abandon the option of secret voting? Anyone care to elaborate?

 

Diatribes in the vein of silly-over-the-top-daily-mail-world-news-net-daily-sensationalism-HURRRRRR will be considered as rubbish.

 

In short the the Card Check law would allow work place unions to organize without the consent of the workers by eliminating the secret ballot vote currently required. Increased marketplace competition for skilled workers has had a positive affect on employment benefits and the relevance of labor unions has faded the last thirty or so years. Union membership has been in a steady decline for years now. The unions are very closely aligned with the US Democrat party and since they are running the show these days they wrote this law to increase union membership by eliminating the one thing stopping it: the consent of the people who don't want to be in it. This is a payoff of sorts to the unions who supported Obama over Clinton and then McCain. A little slanted point of view I admit but this is a very heinous law in my opinion because it does trample on individual freedom. That is something the government is getting very, very good at.

 

From the US Chamber of Commerce: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labo...hecksecrbal.htm

[Guard Dog]

@Aristes. I do want to respond but it will be somewhat lengthy and I want to see some more replys as to whether or not single party rule in the US is a good thing. Deadly and Sand had some interesting things to say. I imagine we'll see more in that vein and it really ties into what I want to say.

[Aristes]

Uhm, what's with the open ballots in trade unions or whatnot? Why abandon the option of secret voting? Anyone care to elaborate?

 

Diatribes in the vein of silly-over-the-top-daily-mail-world-news-net-daily-sensationalism-HURRRRRR will be considered as rubbish.

 

If you don't like diatribes, you're in the wrong place.

 

As far as EFCA, I think most unions believe that secret ballots discourage unions for a couple of reasons.

 

First of all, the emplyer can use the time to try to persuade workers that unionizing is not in their interests. Unions figure, in this scenario, that time is not on their side.

 

Because of that, some places will not unionize who normally would. If the process were simpler like, say, checking yes or no on a card, then employers would not have time to use propaganda to sway workers to vote no. In fact, most unions claim that Employers use varying forms of coercion, from intimidation to outright termination (nope, not assassination. Simply termination of employment.) to prevent unions from forming. So, as you can see, a quick decision would favor unionizing.

 

Also, unions view workers as part of a unified population and cite the fact that industries do better by the workers when that particular industry has more union presence. In other words, workers in a particular industry, as part of that industries population, fare better when unions are strong, even if they are not part of a union themselves.

 

By making it easier for more of an industry to unionize, the workers will do better across the board, and that would mean an increase in the American middle class.

 

Aside from everything else, I distrust the EFCA because I don't take for granted that the union is less coercive than the employer. In fact, both unions and employers have a long history of using strong arm tactics in their struggles with one another. Both unions and employers have had long histories of criminal activities.

 

That's my take at any rate. Hopefully, someone who agrees with the EFCA legislation will chime in with what would certainly be a better argument, although I've certainly tried to be fair. I held the diatribe to a minimum. lol