Some other recent big political news is that Al Franken was finally declared the winner of the Minnesota Senatorial race with Norm Coleman. This, of course, has led to the Democrats getting 60 votes in the Senate, the magical filibuster proof number. It also led to the National Republican Senatorial Committee releasing this web video, which, when you read and understand what was actually happening, is kind of sad. An an aside, I wonder if the Republican party will ever get back to the point of discussing policy and issues, and trying to win votes on those rather than using fear tactics as displayed in the video.
In any event, the part of these stories surrounding Franken's election that has been annoying me somewhat is the discussion about 60 votes, and while that should allow for the Democrats to pass anything they want, they won't necessarily get to 60 votes all the time, so nothing is a foregone conclusion. Huh? Its like the the news stories portray that you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill on energy or health care reform. You still only need 51, the 60 just allows the ability to overcome a filibuster by the minority party. Ultimately, this is why the 60 is so important. Not because the Democrats will have 60 votes and can now pass their own legislation. Its that they can now, in theory, not be prevented from voting on it. Its very unlikely that all the Democrats are going to agree on a health care reform bill, or other legislation for that matter. But one would also think it unlikely that a Democrat, even if they were not going to vote for a bill, would stand in the way, along with Republicans, and prevent a vote from even taking place. (As another aside, to anyone else does the whole Senate filibuster idea seem to run contrary to the premise of elected government and governance by the majority - it seems to place an inordinate amount of power into the hands of a minority party if that other party never reaches 60, and this is like, what, the first time in 30 years one party has had 60 in the Senate; that party could completely shut down the legislative process if they wanted to...).
Thus, it seems to me that the focus on now having 60 votes to pass health care or whatever is somewhat misplaced and misleading. I would be highly surprised if there was 60 votes to pass such a high publicity and controversial piece of legislation. But, it would seem that at least the 60 votes would indicate that the Senate will be allowed to vote on such legislation if and when it comes, which is a good thing if you like voting.
The other consequence to this, even if the reality may not completely coincide with the political impact, is that the perception is that Democrats are completely in control now. They have the house, they have 60 seats in the Senate, and they have the White House. Thus, even though the realities of politics and the political process isn't this simple, the public perception will be that the Democrats will have no excuses for not getting things done, and if things don't get better, particularly in the mind of the independent voter, the 2010 mid-term elections could be interesting. One need only look back a few years. The Republicans had control of Congress and the White House from 2000-2006, and in particular, seemed strong as ever following the 2004 election and Bush's decision to use his "political capital" gained from the election. The Republicans passed their policies, didn't listen to the sentiment in the country regarding the war in Iraq, and ended up losing control of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms. If the Democrats won't to avoid that, they will do well to remember to not just be close minded and think about their own agenda that they have been waiting to pass for 10 years, but to stay in touch with the electorate, keep focus on public sentiment, and respond accordingly. Don't shove something down the public throat just because its on your agenda if there is not strong public support for it. Otherwise, the swing back may be much sooner than they think.
In any event, the part of these stories surrounding Franken's election that has been annoying me somewhat is the discussion about 60 votes, and while that should allow for the Democrats to pass anything they want, they won't necessarily get to 60 votes all the time, so nothing is a foregone conclusion. Huh? Its like the the news stories portray that you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill on energy or health care reform. You still only need 51, the 60 just allows the ability to overcome a filibuster by the minority party. Ultimately, this is why the 60 is so important. Not because the Democrats will have 60 votes and can now pass their own legislation. Its that they can now, in theory, not be prevented from voting on it. Its very unlikely that all the Democrats are going to agree on a health care reform bill, or other legislation for that matter. But one would also think it unlikely that a Democrat, even if they were not going to vote for a bill, would stand in the way, along with Republicans, and prevent a vote from even taking place. (As another aside, to anyone else does the whole Senate filibuster idea seem to run contrary to the premise of elected government and governance by the majority - it seems to place an inordinate amount of power into the hands of a minority party if that other party never reaches 60, and this is like, what, the first time in 30 years one party has had 60 in the Senate; that party could completely shut down the legislative process if they wanted to...).
Thus, it seems to me that the focus on now having 60 votes to pass health care or whatever is somewhat misplaced and misleading. I would be highly surprised if there was 60 votes to pass such a high publicity and controversial piece of legislation. But, it would seem that at least the 60 votes would indicate that the Senate will be allowed to vote on such legislation if and when it comes, which is a good thing if you like voting.
The other consequence to this, even if the reality may not completely coincide with the political impact, is that the perception is that Democrats are completely in control now. They have the house, they have 60 seats in the Senate, and they have the White House. Thus, even though the realities of politics and the political process isn't this simple, the public perception will be that the Democrats will have no excuses for not getting things done, and if things don't get better, particularly in the mind of the independent voter, the 2010 mid-term elections could be interesting. One need only look back a few years. The Republicans had control of Congress and the White House from 2000-2006, and in particular, seemed strong as ever following the 2004 election and Bush's decision to use his "political capital" gained from the election. The Republicans passed their policies, didn't listen to the sentiment in the country regarding the war in Iraq, and ended up losing control of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms. If the Democrats won't to avoid that, they will do well to remember to not just be close minded and think about their own agenda that they have been waiting to pass for 10 years, but to stay in touch with the electorate, keep focus on public sentiment, and respond accordingly. Don't shove something down the public throat just because its on your agenda if there is not strong public support for it. Otherwise, the swing back may be much sooner than they think.
No comments:
Post a Comment