A good point actually by Kevin Drum on some of these riders that are leading Democrats like Elizabeth Warren to balk. He also gives us the working definition between political activists on the one side and actual working politicians on the other.
"Dylan Matthews, after running down all the obnoxious amendments to the omnibus spending bill currently wending its way through Congress, wonders aloud if it's still worth supporting:
That's politics. The fact that it's happening right now is, in a weird sense, actually good news. It means that, for a few days at least, politics is working normally again."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/heres-ugly-side-bipartisanship
I think that's a very good distinction and it's one I remember they killed Laurence O'Donnell for making all the way back during the debt ceiling debacle of 2011. O'Donnell said there was something different about being a real politician-an actual practitioner and the Firebaggers howled. In their mind the real world of the possible must work like it does in their own minds-they don't like compromise anymore than the Tea Party activists do. Yet there's a real difference: being an activist means you get to demand everything and be responsible for nothing. All you do is take potshots for the 'sellouts' who actually have to make tough choices and come to a real decision. There must be action for government to work and your choices aren't always 10 equally delightful scenarios to causally peruse at your leisure.
I remember when Firebaggers at FDL would accuse me of working for the DNC; I told them it wasn't true though I'm flattered by the mistake. Maybe the reason I understood Laurence is that I'm a natural politician at heart. There are worse things to be in my mind.
Drum is right that this is actually more healthy. What's interesting is that the President has had a new sense of freedom since that bad Dem losses of November and the GOP has actually been forced to actually engage in a little governing.
Now we're hearing the bill may fail. I just hope the Democrats like Elizabeth Warren actually have some endgame in mind their pushing towards. Warren often seems more of an activist-all she knows is that giving banks what they want is wrong-but is she at all concerned about the government shutting down? Maybe the Dems know what they're doing. To me it makes no sense to hold firm and not get a long term spending bill at the end of the bargain. Maybe they do know however, Maybe Nancy Pelosi.
"Nancy Pelosi smells blood, and she’s letting her members know that they may be able to get some concessions if they continue to maximize their leverage over the GOP, which appears to need Dem votes at this point to get the CRomnibus passed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/11/happy-hour-roundup-501/
If the Dems can force Boehner to remove the rollback of a Dodd-Frank provision while passing a long-term bill I'm all for it; I like Dodd-Frank; I like it a lot. If the Dems hand firm and nothing is passed I don't see how this is something to celebrate. My big complaint with the GOP certainly in the Tea Party era is that they act like activists-demand everything, offer nothing. Part of functional government is that you don't get everything you want. Dems should take everything they can get but at the end of the day let's fund the government. Or is that no longer a Democratic position either?
As Paul Waldman points out, the elimination of earmarks has had a deleterious effect on functioning government. If you don't like the riders, the best solution is a return of earmarks.
"There’s an analogy with the elimination of earmarks. Everybody complained about them, but they helped grease the legislative wheels. Now that they’re gone, there’s much less the leadership can do to induce a hesitating member to join in on a big vote and keep everything moving. The difference is that earmarks were usually tiny, while these riders are pretty significant."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/11/happy-hour-roundup-501/
Earmarks were something that the activists railed against for years but they were good for functioning government while their elimination has ground it to a halt,
UPDATE: At this point I must be clear that I feel a certain amount of concern. If the Dems refuse to do this and we get a shorterm spending bill how exactly does it help us? The GOP will have the Senate in February and a bigger House majority. If the Democrats really do let that be the outcome over one particular rider-which I don't like anymore than any other liberal Dem-is this something to be proud of?
"Dylan Matthews, after running down all the obnoxious amendments to the omnibus spending bill currently wending its way through Congress, wonders aloud if it's still worth supporting:
"This is one of those things that demonstrates the chasm between political activists and analysts on the one side, and working politicians on the other. If you take a look at the bill, it does indeed have a bunch of objectionable features. People like me, with nothing really at stake, can bitch and moan about them endlessly. But you know what? For all the interminable whining we do about the death of bipartisanship in Washington, this is what bipartisanship looks like. It always has. It's messy, it's ugly, and it's petty. Little favors get inserted into bills to win votes. Other favors get inserted as payback for the initial favors. Special interests get stroked. Party whips get a workout.If you're Barack Obama, or a liberal Democrat generally, most of these riders are setbacks, in some cases significant ones. Indeed, Obama's condemned the Dodd-Frank and campaign finance provisions. He could, in theory, reject the deal and demand that Congress send him a bill without changes to Dodd-Frank, or one that doesn't meddle in DC's affairs, etc. And yet he has come out in favor of House passage of the bill.Is he making a massive mistake?
That's politics. The fact that it's happening right now is, in a weird sense, actually good news. It means that, for a few days at least, politics is working normally again."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/12/heres-ugly-side-bipartisanship
I think that's a very good distinction and it's one I remember they killed Laurence O'Donnell for making all the way back during the debt ceiling debacle of 2011. O'Donnell said there was something different about being a real politician-an actual practitioner and the Firebaggers howled. In their mind the real world of the possible must work like it does in their own minds-they don't like compromise anymore than the Tea Party activists do. Yet there's a real difference: being an activist means you get to demand everything and be responsible for nothing. All you do is take potshots for the 'sellouts' who actually have to make tough choices and come to a real decision. There must be action for government to work and your choices aren't always 10 equally delightful scenarios to causally peruse at your leisure.
I remember when Firebaggers at FDL would accuse me of working for the DNC; I told them it wasn't true though I'm flattered by the mistake. Maybe the reason I understood Laurence is that I'm a natural politician at heart. There are worse things to be in my mind.
Drum is right that this is actually more healthy. What's interesting is that the President has had a new sense of freedom since that bad Dem losses of November and the GOP has actually been forced to actually engage in a little governing.
Now we're hearing the bill may fail. I just hope the Democrats like Elizabeth Warren actually have some endgame in mind their pushing towards. Warren often seems more of an activist-all she knows is that giving banks what they want is wrong-but is she at all concerned about the government shutting down? Maybe the Dems know what they're doing. To me it makes no sense to hold firm and not get a long term spending bill at the end of the bargain. Maybe they do know however, Maybe Nancy Pelosi.
"Nancy Pelosi smells blood, and she’s letting her members know that they may be able to get some concessions if they continue to maximize their leverage over the GOP, which appears to need Dem votes at this point to get the CRomnibus passed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/11/happy-hour-roundup-501/
If the Dems can force Boehner to remove the rollback of a Dodd-Frank provision while passing a long-term bill I'm all for it; I like Dodd-Frank; I like it a lot. If the Dems hand firm and nothing is passed I don't see how this is something to celebrate. My big complaint with the GOP certainly in the Tea Party era is that they act like activists-demand everything, offer nothing. Part of functional government is that you don't get everything you want. Dems should take everything they can get but at the end of the day let's fund the government. Or is that no longer a Democratic position either?
As Paul Waldman points out, the elimination of earmarks has had a deleterious effect on functioning government. If you don't like the riders, the best solution is a return of earmarks.
"There’s an analogy with the elimination of earmarks. Everybody complained about them, but they helped grease the legislative wheels. Now that they’re gone, there’s much less the leadership can do to induce a hesitating member to join in on a big vote and keep everything moving. The difference is that earmarks were usually tiny, while these riders are pretty significant."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/12/11/happy-hour-roundup-501/
Earmarks were something that the activists railed against for years but they were good for functioning government while their elimination has ground it to a halt,
UPDATE: At this point I must be clear that I feel a certain amount of concern. If the Dems refuse to do this and we get a shorterm spending bill how exactly does it help us? The GOP will have the Senate in February and a bigger House majority. If the Democrats really do let that be the outcome over one particular rider-which I don't like anymore than any other liberal Dem-is this something to be proud of?
No comments:
Post a Comment