Good afternoon, Daily Kos readers. This is your afternoon open thread to discuss all things Hill-related. Use this thread to praise or bash Congresscritters, share a juicy tip, ask questions, offer critiques and suggestions, or post manifestos. We'll be here all weekend.
On a programing note, we're back to normal. All apologies for the extended absence. I'm a teaching assistant for a class in campaign management and we are wrapping up this weekend. My school was also doing a class in public advocacy and both were partially broadcast on C-Span. If you are at all interested in getting involved with the midterm elections or influencing policy debates, I highly recommend these classes. You can watch the C-Span coverage here. If I have piqued your interest, my email is in my profile. Feel free to email me. Also, a sincere thanks to C-Span for their coverage.
My thoughts on the news from Washington is across the fold...
As long as we are talking about C-Span, read the network's letter (.pdf) to the Congressional leadership requesting access to the health care reform negotiations. As we are nowwell aware, House and Senate Democrats don't want to go to a formal conference committee. Instead, they plan to hash out their differences and hope both chambers can pass the compromise bill, ideally before the State of the Union Address.
I'm reluctantly supporting this move. I hate the lack of transparency and my usual default position is to air the negotiations. The problem is that the Republicans have not debated/negotiated this in good faith for the past year. Instead, they have used parliamentary procedures including the filibuster to bring all progress to a halt. Remember when they tried to block the Defense Appropriations bill to delay the health care vote? (Side note: why do Republicans hate the troops?) If the opposition acted differently, I would be on the transparency bandwagon.
Since the Republicans are committed to killing the bill, I see no point in inviting them into the process. Besides, they froze Democrats out of negotiations on key bills when the GOP was in the majority. In addition, the appointment of conferees to a conference committee is subject to a filibuster. So there's that. So why not just film the Democratic negotiations? For one thing, there will be quite a bit of strategy discussions and neither side wants such discussions broadcast. For another, live cameras encourage political grandstanding which will only delay the bill further. Also, private negotiations allow members to make principled decisions that the media and blogs can parse and likely misrepresent (remember, Fox "News" would do some reporting on this).
Here's a good run down on the decision making process from Reuters.
At any rate, I'm in the minority on this. Check out the reaction to the C-Span letter here. They have perspectives from all sides, from Daily Kos to Red State; Robert Gibbss to John Boehner; Washington Times to the Washington Independent.
A small sample:
Harry Reid:
But what should truly concern the American people is the Republicans‘ shamelessly transparent strategy of relying on misinformation and myths to stop reform at all costs. Their ploys are broadcast on C-SPAN for all of America to see, as much of it happens on the Senate floor. For example, at the beginning of the floor debate Senator Reid asked consent from Senate Republicans to file all amendments well in advance and post them on the Internet, but the Republican Leadership refused this request. During consideration of the Sanders amendment, Republicans publicly made clear they would use procedural games to turn ‗transparency‘ into a tactic of delay and obstruction.
Wonk Room:
Turning the conference committee into another Senate floor debate won’t improve health reform legislation. The televised conference hearings will become a drawn out theatrical sideshow — the real discussions will still occur behind closed doors.
The public should have ample opportunity to review the final product before the vote, but when it comes to legislating, transparency is overrated. Changing Washington’s political culture requires far deeper systematic reforms than C-SPAN television. The hard politics isn’t pretty enough for TV.
Hot Air:
This, then, is transparency as defined by Democrats: votes in the dead of night, committee processes that produce strawman bills, and Senators scurrying from camera lenses to dole out favors and cash to one another.
Peter Suderman at Reason:
For one thing, secrecy makes the legislative sausage-making process even uglier. Without public scrutiny, politicians just aren't going to be as accountable. Democrats pay lip service to this idea all the time — the C-SPAN letter notes that "Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-files members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming health care." Obama has declared that his administration "is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government."
And finally, BarbinMD at Daily Kos:
C-SPAN says, bring it on ... TV:
~snip
I'm with C-SPAN.
Sorry, Barb. I disagree.
And don't miss David Waldman's thoughts on the matter.
So again, "yes and no." Yes, you can put a conference committee on C-SPAN. But no, you can't make them actually do their deals in front of the camera. And so you get the "steak sauce" answer: You asked for an open and transparent conference. We just showed you everything covered by the definition of "conference" on C-SPAN.
But you didn't learn anything.
****
In other news, the party of ideological and message purity is really not happy with their (official) mouthpiece.
Steele, who has been making regular television appearances, said Monday that he did not believe Republicans could win back their congressional majorities in 2010. "Not this year," Steele told Fox News Channel, saying he was just beginning to look at races, even though the party has been recruiting candidates for many months.
Believing that Steele's off-the-cuff remarks threaten to damage the party's brand -- at the very time when Republicans are trying to capitalize on a national political environment that may hurt Democrats -- senior aides to top Republican leaders confronted Steele's staff on a conference call Wednesday.
I'm making popcorn and hoping Steele is right on this one. In the meantime, get over to ActBlue and support some of your favorite House and Senate candidates.
In related news, meet some of the people the GOP is recruiting in their attempt to retake the majority.
The Republican road to redemption may well begin in Frog Jump, Tenn., where a gospel-singing farmer with no political experience is running for Congress.
Without any staff, Stephen Fincher raised $300,000 in September and delighted GOP leaders, who believed they had finally found a credible challenger to Rep. John Tanner (D). Then things took an even better turn for the party: On Dec. 1, Tanner announced he would not run for reelection in 2010.
Groan.
****
Republicans also claim to be all for individual liberties. Naturally, this does not apply when we are talking about a city full of Democrats who aren't pissing their pants and crapping their diapers over teh gay.
Before the District's law legalizing same-sex marriage can take effect, it must survive a 30-legislative-day congressional review. The clock starts ticking next week. With the Democrats in control of both houses and keenly uninterested in meddling in this bit of local governance, we and other proponents of the measure are optimistic that the measure will officially become law. Apparently the Gang of 39 shares this assessment. So it's trying a different tack: intervening in a lawsuit that is trying to force a public vote on the law. Such a move, which was proposed by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, was blocked by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.
Who's shocked at the trampling of local control?
#crickets
****
Is Bob Bennett too liberal for Utah?
Maybe so:
“Bob Bennett is out of touch with the times and with his state, and Utah Republicans have better choices for their candidate in November,” Club President Chris Chocola said.
“Our extensive research into the race suggests Utah Republicans already understand this, as they have begun rallying around several viable and superior candidates,” he continued. “The Club for Growth PAC is committed to seeing one of them defeat Bennett either at the nominating convention in May or in a primary election in June.”
So now the Club for Growth is deciding the composition of the Senate. I'm sure that will go well. And remember kids, this is the same outfit that was once headed by Pat Toomey who is running for Senate in Pennsylvania.
****
Retiring Senator Byron Dorgan is the head of the Democratic Policy Committee, which would have put him in line for even higher leadership positions. Now the leadership has to decide who will replace him.
A senior Democratic aide said the post is now viewed as No. 5 in the Democratic leadership. Reid, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), Democratic Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray (Wash.) occupy the top four slots. Reid, Durbin and Murray hold elected leadership posts while Schumer was appointed to his at the start last year, a reward for his service as DSCC chairman.
Some of the names being tossed about include Sherrod Brown, Bob Menendez, and Sheldon Whitehouse, any of whom would be great for the post.
****
Charlie Cook is predicting that the Senate supermajority will evaporate this year.
Come November, Senate Democrats' 60-vote supermajority is toast. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how Democrats could lose the Senate this year. But they have a 50-50 chance of ending up with fewer than 55 seats in the next Congress.
As for the House, we at The Cook Political Report are still forecasting that Democrats will lose only 20 to 30 seats. Another half-dozen or more retirements in tough districts, however, perhaps combined with another party switch or two, would reduce Democrats' chances of holding the House to only an even-money bet.
As if you needed any more encouragement to get out there and keep working this year.
****
Is Richard Blumenthal > Chris Dodd? Mother Jones investigates.
Most Democrats, meanwhile, were confident that Dodd would stay in the race—although many worried he might lose. "A lot of his 'liberal friends' have got wet pants now over the thought that he might not win," John Droney, a former Connecticut Democratic party chair, told me. At the time, some Connecticut Democrats were pushing for Richard Blumenthal, the state's longtime attorney general, to run in Dodd's place. "As a Democrat, I want to preserve the seat, and the seat's at risk with Dodd running," said Nick Paindiris, who served as legal representative for the Obama campaign in Connecticut.
Well, we might as well have a popular n00b than an unpopular incumbent.
****
And continuing with the "Democrats are Doomed" meme, the New York Times has stories about Martha Coakley possibly losing deep blue Massachusetts and Harold Ford Jr.'s ill-advised interest in mounting a primary challenge against Kirsten Gillibrand.
Meanwhile, we can't get rid of John Ensign.
****
Mike Castle, once a fairly moderate Republican Representative who is running for Senator from Delaware, is taking credit for stimulus money that he voted against.
Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) has staggered to the right, voting against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as the stimulus), financial regulation reform, the recent jobs package, and health reform.
~snip
In the past two weeks, Castle has blasted multiple press releases publicizing stimulus funds awarded to his state. In his most recent release, he not only calls the money “imperative,” but in “announcing” the funds, he tacitly claims credit for securing them
One of the theories about the incumbency advantage is that money brought into the state increases the advantage. This race should tell us if the "I was against it before I was for it" line works too.
****
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to have a little talk with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Geithner has come under renewed criticism this week following concerns that the Federal Reserve instructed AIG not to disclose how billions of taxpayer dollars would be used during the bailout.
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, announced Friday that he would convene a hearing into the matter.
****
I've harped on this before, but it bears repeating. When Congress dithers on important matters, the Executive Branch can step in with its rule making authority. That is exactly what the Environmental Protection Agency is going to do.
The Obama administration’s proposal sets a primary standard for ground-level ozone of no more than 0.060 to 0.070 parts per million, to be phased in over two decades. Regions with the worst smog pollution, including much of the Northeast, Southern and Central California and the Chicago and Houston areas, would have more time than other areas to come into compliance.
The new rule would replace the standard of 0.075 parts per million imposed by the Bush administration over the objection of an E.P.A. scientific panel, which wanted a tighter limit. The previous standard of 0.084 parts per million was set in 1997 by the Clinton administration.
****
James Carville makes a funny:
"What I want is, let me pay for something, give me a safe flyer card, and then y'know, go measure my penis and let me get on the airplane."
****
Finally, in The Most Important News of the Day™ President Obama promises not to preempt the season premier of "Lost."
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, told reporters today that he could “allay fears” of those who watch “Lost.” He said the president’s speech will not be on Feb. 2. “I don’t foresee a scenario in which the millions of people that hope to finally get some conclusion in ‘Lost’ are preempted by the president,” Mr. Gibbs said.
I'm glad that's settled. Have a good weekend.
Last minute update: We have a new Obama Facebook feed.