Apr 092013
 

Senate Minority Leader and Lead Filibusterer Mitch McConnell was recorded at a meeting with aides discussing opposition research on potential opponent Ashley Judd. While McConnell deserves contempt, after reading through the transcript, I’m not finding anything noteworthy from him. His staff is doing almost all of the talking. Some of what they say might be interesting, but this is a lame way to attack McConnell. His years leading the obstructionists in the Senate should provide ample and more outrageous fodder for that.

Maybe this is only getting a lot of attention this week because it is a mean-old-man leads attack on adorable celebrity lady who dares to consider challenging him. So it’s more of an Ashley Judd story.

In case Mother Jones is forced to remove it, below are highlights from the transcript. It does shed a light on how this guy’s staff (and probably, and sadly, politicians in general) operates.

From Mother Jones:

Sen. Mitch McConnell: If I could interject…I assume most of you have played the, the game Whac-A-Mole? [Laughter.] This is the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign…when anybody sticks their head up, do them out, and we’re even planning to do it with the Courier here shortly, so…

And, that’s all from McConnell.

Presenter: Yeah, it is really hard to get your arms around…

The good news is, she’s to the far left of every issue she’s taken a public stance on, not just far left, nationwide…[Inaudible.] So you know one of the first themes we can sort of hit on, clearly, is that she openly supports President Obama.

Their first evidence that she’s “far to the left” of the country is that she supports Obama. It shows their skewed perspective, and how their unfamiliarity with the facts could be their undoing. This staffer is from the “Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Marxist Socialist” crowd if he actually believes that Obama is synonymous with the far left.

Presenter: Another thing is she’s clearly anti-coal. She’s tweeted that “the era of the coal plant is over, unacceptable, it’s the dirtiest. We in the US can do better, we need to innovate.”

I’ve omitted all of her mountaintop removal stuff. It’s a whole separate category. It doesn’t quite test as well. But she has, we have her on film, she’s led protests. She’s done speeches at National Press Club condemning mountaintop removal.

This part might be the most interesting bit of the whole meeting. The campaign says they have her on record as being against mountaintop removal, but, “Hey, guys, we’re going to leave that out, because even we know that the majority of the public agrees with her.”

Presenter: I mean clearly she’s a carpetbagger. …

What a blockbuster revelation! I hope you didn’t hurt yourself finding that one. A Hollywood millionaire who travels and lives outside of Kentucky? Who woulda thunk it?

I guess he is assuming that Kentuckians rabidly perfer a douchebagging McConnell over a carpetbagging Judd.

Presenter: I think too she’s clearly sort of anti-sort-of-traditional American family. I think Jesse tracked this down. She described having children as selfish, and she thinks it’s unconscionable to breed. So you put that with what we’ll talk to you later about her sort of pro-choice stance and it’s sort of a, you know, pretty extreme posture to take. She also is critical of, of fathers giving away their daughters in marriage ceremonies. She says it’s a common vestige of male dominion over a women’s reproductive status when her father gives her away at a wedding. And then she’s clearly for pro-abortion.

So he found a bunch of quotes likely to shock and appall only the types of people who were going to vote for McConnell again anyway. I’m beginning to think the McConnell campaign is really getting ripped off by their opposition researchers. I thought they were getting paid to find something useful.

Presenter: She’s an open advocate as you can see. Anyhow I know this is sort of a sensitive subject but you know at least worth putting on your radar screen is that she is critical…[inaudible] sort of traditional Christianity. She sort of views it as sort of a vestige of patriarchy. She says Christianity gives a God like a man, presented and discussed exclusively with male imagery which legitimizes and seals male power, the intention to dominate even if that intention is nowhere visible.

And this is sort of an interview that sort of manifests this sort of I would say oddly synthetic approach to Christianity.

[Plays recording.]

Judd’s voice: I still choose the God of my understanding as the God of my childhood. I have to expand my God concept from time to time, and you know particularly I enjoy native faith practices, and have a very nature-based God concept. I’d like to think I’m like St. Francis in that way. Brother Donkey, Sister Bird. [Laughter.]

Presenter: Brother Donkey, Sister Bird! [Laughter.]

Male voice: The people at Southeast Christian [Church] would take to the streets with pitchforks. [Laughter.]

Presenter: Brother…That’s my favorite line so far. Absolute favorite one so far. [Laughter.]

She also is an open advocate of gay marriage. You can see this is what she tweeted after election night when Maryland approved same sex marriage. “It’s okay to love whom you love.” And then she talks about Maryland’s bill.

Yes, Judd sounds goofy in a quote that can easily be taken out of context and presented as sincere, but I’ll repeat: So he found a bunch of quotes likely to shock and appall only the types of people who were going to vote for McConnell again anyway. I’m beginning to think the McConnell campaign is really getting ripped off by their opposition researchers. I thought they were getting paid to find something useful.

By the way, I chuckled when he said “synthetic approach to Christianity.”  That’s like saying her plastic is too artificial.

Presenter:  Ah, and again. She’s clearly, this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced. I mean it’s been documented. Jesse can go in chapter and verse from her autobiography about, you know, she’s suffered some suicidal tendencies. She was hospitalized for 42 days when she had a mental breakdown in the ’90s. Phil Maxson found this, which sort of I think is a pretty revealing interview.

[Plays recording.]

Judd’s voice: I call it the American anesthesia. You know, I come back to this country. I freak out in airports. The colors, the sounds, all those different ways of packaging the same snack but trying to, you know, make it look like it’s distinct and different and convince consumers that they have to have it. I mean all of that. The last time I came home from a trip, I absolutely flipped out when I saw pink fuzzy socks on a rack. I mean, I can never anticipate what is going to push me over the edge. [Laughter.]

But in a few weeks, you know, I’m driving along smooth roads and I think nothing of it. I’m, you know, choosing between four different brands of cereal from plastic dispensers so that I don’t have to have, you know, ugly, mismatched boxes on my shelf, and I don’t think anything of it. You know?

Presenter: So pink fuzzy socks are of concern. [Laughter.]

Female voice: …at Fancy Farm. We’ll all take pink fuzzy socks. [Laughter.]

This is the arguably offensive part of the meeting where it appears the gang is mocking mental illness or Judd’s goofy description of what she says she experienced. I think he almost admits the attack is a bit mean when he says “this sounds extreme, but she is emotionally unbalanced.”

I’ll end by letting these scumbags know that I’m not alone in preferring a candidate suffering from a treatable mental illness over an allegedly mentally healthy one who explicitly made it his mission to subvert American democracy. Anyone else feel like some turtle soup?

from BusterBlog: Mitch McConnell: Elderly Mutant Plutocrat Turtle?

Digg This
Jan 242013
 

It’s dead.  See you in 2015. 

Yes, it’s dead.  Cause of death:  Spineless Harry Reid.  The details are here.  Apologists and insiders are already polishing this turd.

Harry Reid filibuster

Does Harry Reid have the manhood to end the filibuster? That would be a NO.

I was also especially irritated that Harry scolded Merkley for naming names of the members of the pussycrat caucus that were opposing strong reform. How dare Merkley make those senators publicly accountable for their position?

Here, Harry, I’ll call them out again: “Max Baucus (Mont.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Joe Manchin (West. Va.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.).” I dare you to come yell at me, you spineless fraud.

Today was a victory for senators who like to hide behind the filibuster, facing no accountability for failing to do anything. No, we can’t take up that great proposal — which I wholeheartedly support (note to self: no, I really don’t) — because the other side says they will filibuster. I just don’t see us getting the 60 votes required. Oh, woe is me

Harry Reid caved to these worthless specimens. He didn’t have enough courage to stand up and do what is right for the American people. He needs to be replaced. Until he is, he will be the posterboy of the feckless Pussycrat Party.

Did I mention how much Harry Reid sucks?

Digg This
Jan 042013
 

Harry Reid has extended the opportunity for the Senate to pass filibuster reform.  Word is the debate is tentatively scheduled for January 22. 

A bipartisan “reform” effort is being led by Senators Levin & McCain.  The watered down plan merely removes the option to filibuster at certain steps in the procedure.  This is as close to the status quo as you can get and would have no impact on end results. 

The main reform of the Merkley-Udall proposal is the talking filibuster requirement.  This won’t end obstructionism; it just makes it harder.  I was going to say it makes obstructionism more embarassing, but then I rememebered a lot of these folks have no shame.  It makes filibustering less secret, but I predict it will have little impact on legislation.  Its ineffectiveness and increased visibility will help the chances of the stronger reform at the beginning of the next Congress in 2015.

The next two weeks will be used to build up support for one of the proposals.  It looks like it will take 51 votes, or 50 with a willing Biden tiebreak.  So look for pressure on the handful of Democratic senators likely to fold.  The rumored list of Democratic opponents to real filibuster reform includes:

 

If any of these are your congresscritter, please contact them and demand they work to reform the Senate by supporting real filibuster reform.

Digg This
Nov 302012
 

With a new session of Congress set to begin in January, there are again calls to ditch the filibuster in the Senate. This is becoming a biannual tradition inspired by the dramatic increase in the use of the obstructive tactic in the last 30 years. So it’s time for another filibuster rant.

Filibuster Use chart

from Joe Arrigo’s “Perspective”

1. Should the filibuster be reformed?

It has been ruined through overuse. Like many other abused privileges it needs to be taken away. It has grown from a rarely-used technicality to an exception that swallows the rule (in this case, the majority rule). A method for protecting and respecting minority voice and rights has been finally reshaped forever as a tool for minority rule. Minority rule is the seed of oligarchy (look it up) which could replace our democracy or republic (whichever version of America you subscribe to).

The historical filibuster data shows Republicans are the innovator of the evil, Democrats just follow their pace. End it so neither can use it.

President Obama didn’t win 67% of the vote, so does that mean Mitt Romney should get a veto pen too?

If you don’t like what the Senate is doing, the constitution already gives you the power to stop them through these things called elections. You have to persuade enough people that you are right. If you can’t convince majority of people (50% + 1) that you are right, you do not deserve to have the power to pass laws that affect the right of all of the people (100%).

We don’t need the filibuster to provide checks and balances. The constitution explicitly provides this by setting up separate branches of government, and further within the legislative branch divides power again with a bicameral legislature. You don’t need the filibuster to protect the country against 51 Senators. Whatever the Senate passes has to get through the House too, then has to get past a president’s veto power. If a policy has enough support to get through all of that it is an abomination that it can be stopped by one anonymous Senator.

2. Is the filibuster constitutional?

No. The constitution does give the Senate the power to set its own internal operating rules, but people are missing the obvious point that those rules cannot then violate other parts of the constitution. The rule-making power is not unlimited. Think about it this way: If the Senate is free to make any rule, they could make up a rule that says “No Girls Allowed” and ban all female members? Do you really think they could do that? The Senate’s power to make its own rules must have limits.

I said before:

If a law has the support of a majority of the people’s representatives, unless it falls into one of the categories where the Constitution requires more, it should pass. A republic based on representation of the people relies on majoity rule. Think about it. We don’t hold elections this way. If a candidate gets 51% of the vote, he wins. Nobody would tell him, “Sorry, 49% voted for the other guy. You can’t go to Washington.”

Some idiot will come back and say that there’s no mention of “majority rule” in the constitution. Majority rule is such a basic asumption of representative bodies and principle of democratic republic that it didn’t need to be expressly stated in the constitution. Next, you’ll tell me that dead men can serve in Congress, because the constitution does not expressly state a living persons requirement in the qualifications clauses.

3. Will the Supreme Court strike down the filibuster?

The Court may see this as a duckable issue using a form of the political question doctrine to let the Senate handle its own process. This would likely be the basis of a partisan motivated decision to uphold it, essentially, by punting the issue.

When a Senate rule in its operation is so egregious that it strikes at the core of what it means to be a republic (or democracy, take your pick, again) then it is the Court’s duty to intervene. A Court ducking behind a political question doctrine would itself be complicit in the Senate’s folly.

4. Will the Senate reform the filibuster on its own?

There is some hope or suggestion that the Senate will come to an agreement itself to reform filibuster or its use. It probably won’t happen, and it’s largely an issue of leadership. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, like President Obama, knows what is the right thing to do, occasionally talks about it forcefully, but ultimately lacks the guts to do what is necessary.

Harry Reid filibuster

Does Harry Reid have the manhood to end the filibuster?

With a bit of bluster this month Reid has finally offered his support behind a filibuster reform plan. This mediocre plan simply removes the ability to filibuster one step in the process and adds some transparency to the filibuster tactic by having the filibustering senators talk.

5. How do both sides benefit from the filibuster rule?

The obstructive minority helps all incumbents by keeping tough, yet popular issues off the table. Politicians are protected when they don’t have to make a call on the record. Look at 2007-2008 in the table above. The Republicans had George Bush in the White House and the minority in the Senate. President Bush could have vetoed everything the Democratic majority would have passed, but the GOP still went with the filibuster. The Democrats did the same in the Clinton years. Both sides have benefited from using the filibuster to duck accountability on the issues. It keeps your record clean: you do not have to vote against a bill, the president doesn’t have to veto, etc.

This last reason is why I won’t be surprised if it filibuster reform ultimately fails yet again.

Digg This
May 212012
 

 
Last week Common Cause filed a lawsuit to end the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. The filibuster has been a growing problem in the past 40 years, and has really gotten out of hand the past decade.  The Senate’s filibuster rule is one of the major problems ruining our unique American “republican democracy.”
 
The filibuster has become so abused that it has become the standard operating procedure in the Senate, the new de facto process for how a bill becomes a law.  The threat of 41 votes is enough to defeat any bill.  This means Senators of any 21 states representing as little as 11 percent of the population (in fact, elected by even fewer people) can block action supported by the majority.
 
Although Harry Reid recently hinted he would now be in favor of it, filibuster reform from within the Senate seems to be a lost cause.  They keep the filibuster rule out of fear of what the other side would do if they captured the majority.  (Who would have thought someone named Harry Reid would have such an empty sack?)
 
If a law has the support of a majority of the people’s representatives, unless it falls into one of the categories where the Constitution requires more, it should pass.  A republic based on representation of the people relies on majority rule.  Think about it.  We don’t hold elections this way.  If a candidate gets 51% of the vote, he wins.  Nobody would tell him, “Sorry, 49% voted for the other guy.  You can’t go to Washington.”
 
Some idiot will come back and say that there’s no mention of “majority rule” in the constitution.  Majority rule is such a basic asumption of representative bodies and principle of democratic republics that it didn’t need to be expressly stated in the constitution.  Next, you’ll tell me that dead men can serve in Congress, because the constitution does not expressly state a living persons requirement in the qualifications clauses.  (Also opens the door to corporate persons serving in Congress.  Hello, Senator Wal-mart!) 

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Do you really want to see a “Weekend at Bernie’s 3″ starring the corpses of Senators Byrd and Thurmond propped up on the floor of the Senate?  The Court should probably enact an “It’s obvious, you idiot!” doctrine.
 
The filibuster has become a way for one of the parties to try to cheat their way out of a minority status.  Listen:  You lost; deal with it.  Here’s how:  Spend the next two years saying “we told you so” every time the opposition passes a law you can’t stand.  If a majority of the public thinks the legislation is as egregious as you do, then you will win the election, take back the majority, and get a chance to implement your own asinine plans.  Eventually, after a few terms of back-and-forth control, America might reach an equilibrium of good governance.  Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
 
Whether the Common Cause lawsuit can succeed is unclear.  Certainly there is a legitimate legal theory supporting their position.  Check out this article. There’s a good chance that the court will duck the issue using a weak “political question” doctrine reasoning.  Of course, a lot will depend on the particular judge and the timing.  Conservative partisans (as opposed to those that are actually primarily loyal to the text) would kick this case to the curb if it comes up with the Democratic Party holding the majority in the Senate.  If the majority switches hands, they will suddenly see the light.  Many so-called liberal judges would probably also take a similar partisan approach.  (You can see that I no longer have much faith in the existence of an intellectually honest judiciary.)
 
If filibuster reform is attempted again via the Senate rule-making process they should try on this creative compromise:  if you are going to let them usurp popular sovereignty, make them sacrifice some dignity.  Turn the filibuster into a silly-buster.  The senator would be required to actually speak and must dress up as a famous clown.  You could read the phone book as Krusty, Bozo, Ronald McDonald, or Red Skelton.  If you want to make a mockery of American Democracy, it should make a mockery of you.  There will be no exception for dressing as a mime (to get out of speaking) or wearing a suit claiming to be dressed as Glen Beck (who famously referred to himself as a clown).
 

Digg This
Apr 192012
 

The most important race in the 2012 election might not be the quest for the White House. The control of the Senate appears up for grabs this year, and the effectiveness of the next administration is limited by which party holds the majority.

It is possible that the margin for gaining the Senate majority is one seat. Today, Angus King, the Independent former governor of Maine, is heavily favored to win that state’s open Senate seat. Right now he has not declared whether he will caucus with the Democratic or Republican parties for the sake of determining the majority. I say for the good of the country he should maintain this position through the election. Here’s why.

If the margin in the Senate ends up being exactly one seat, Senator-elect King would be in a great position. King should, on behalf of the American people, demand three things in exchange for his vote to swing the majority:

1. Filibuster reform,
 
2. A vote on a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, and
 
3. the Senate Majority leader post.

The third one is primarily a check against any shenanigans to undermine the first two.  Just these three items would make it much easier to enact subsequent pro-small-d democratic reforms that would make America’s democratic republic more responsive to its citizens again.

Is King likely to take this bold position? He is aware of and concerned about the defects of the current election process.

For example, he signed off on an amicus brief submitted in a Supreme Court case concerning Arizona’s public financing system which included a plan for triggered matching funds, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett. The brief stated:

Amici believe that a robust public financing system is vital for democracy, so that candidates’ dependence on private funders does not render government beholden to those with the deepest pockets, so that a variety of voices may be heard by the public, and so that public service and participation in public debate do not become inaccessible for all but a privileged few.

Governor King contributed significantly to both his campaigns, funding slightly over 50% of the first. Maine’s Clean Elections Act, which is very similar to Arizona’s, including a matching provision similar to the one challenged here, was passed by referendum during his first term, going into effect during his second. Governor King initially had some concerns about taxpayer-funded public financing. However, having had a close-up view of its effectiveness, and having seen no chilling effect on political speech, he has come to believe that it is one of the most important ways to protect democracy from the power of special interests.

King agrees with policy goal of the bold move, so the question left is: Does he have the guts? Maybe some Mainers out there can give us some insight about King’s intestinal fortitude. If it is still unclear that he would, maybe someone should start an online petition to pressure him to stand up for the rest of us and repair our American form of democracy.

Digg This