Thursday, October 29, 2009

Letter From the Editor: For Public Option to Pass, Senate Democrats Must 'Go Nuclear'


With Lieberman Vowing to Join GOP Filibuster to Block the Public Option in Open Defiance of Public Opinion -- and House Democrats Vowing They Won't Pass Health-Care Reform Bill Without It -- Senate Democrats Have No Choice But to Invoke the So-Called 'Nuclear Option' and Force a Vote on the Bill by a Simple Majority



Senate Democrats should have known that Democrat-turned-independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- photographed above with Republican presidential nominee John McCain (left) on the campaign trail last year -- could not always be counted on to support them on important domestic legislation. Now that Lieberman has declared that he will join a Republican filibuster against a government-run health-insurance plan to compete with private insurers -- robbing Democrats of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority -- Senate Democrats have no choice now but to invoke a parliamentary maneuver known as the "nuclear option" -- which Republicans threatened to use in 2005 to stop Democratic filibusters against then-President George W. Bush's judicial nominees -- to force a vote on the bill by a simple majority. (Photo: Matt Rourke/Associated Press)


(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Thursday, October 29, 2009)

===============================
A 'SKEETER BITES REPORT EDITORIAL
===============================

If Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) proved anything, he showed Senate Democrats on Tuesday that he cannot be trusted.

The Democrat-turned-independent infuriated many of his former fellow Democrats last year when he endorsed and campaigned openly for Republican presidential nominee John McCain. And he remains a sharp critic of President Obama's foreign policy -- particularly on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now he's joined the Republicans in an expected filibuster against the health-care reform bill in an effort to block the so-called public option, a government-run health-insurance plan that would compete directly with private insurers.

That Lieberman is openly defying public opinion, in which a solid majority of Americans support a public option, is beside the point. By siding with the GOP in their implacable opposition to a public option, Lieberman has robbed the Democrats of the filibuster-proof 60-vote majority they need to pass the bill.

NO MATTER WHAT, HEALTH-CARE REFORM MUST PASS -- OR ELSE

On any other issue, the Democrats would bow to political reality and concede defeat. But in the case of health-care reform, defeat is not an acceptable option. The demand for health-care reform by the American public is too overwhelming to be denied.

Too many Americans are literally going broke because they cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of health care.

A growing number of businesses -- both large and small -- are being forced to stop offering health-care plans to their employees because they can no longer afford the soaring cost, either.


That threatens to prolong the recession for months -- even years -- by slamming the door on job creation. Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the U.S. economy, cannot and will not grow back to its pre-recession levels as long as 15 to 20 million Americans remain out of work and another five to ten million fear losing their jobs.

And for Americans in potentially life-threatening situations, the increasing unaffordability of health care can literally be a matter of life or death.

The bottom line is that health-care reform must pass -- and it must pass this year -- or else.

Obama has staked his presidency on it. Many House Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have vowed that they won't allow any health-care reform measure without a public option to reach the president's desk -- even though the most aggressive of the three public-option plans most favored by liberals lacks the necessary 218 votes to pass.

Under these circumstances, therefore, Senate Democrats no longer have any choice but to do something that up to now they have been loathe to do -- something that the Republicans, when they controlled the Senate, threatened to impose in 2005.

That something is the so-called "nuclear option" -- a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver whereby the majority votes to change Senate rules and force a vote on a measure by a simple majority.

'NUCLEAR OPTION' BASED ON 1957 NIXON OPINION WHILE VEEP

The "nuclear option" -- so named by then-Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) in 2005 -- is based on a 1957 advisory opinion by then-Vice President Richard Nixon, serving in his capacity as president of the Senate, that no Senate may constitutionally enact a rule that deprives a future Senate of the right to approve its own rules by the vote of a simple majority.

The Constitution specifies that, except for the ratification of treaties and constitutional amendments and the override of presidential vetoes of legislation -- in which case, a two-thirds majority is required -- the Senate is free to establish its own rules for parliamentary procedure.

Although legally nonbinding, Nixon's opinion has been treated by the Senate ever since as a definitive precedent.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1892, in United States v. Ballin, that both houses of Congress are parliamentary bodies, implying that they may make procedural rules by a simple majority vote.

HOW THE 'NUCLEAR OPTION' WORKS

The "nuclear option" is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this.

The presiding officer of the Senate -- usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore -- makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent.

A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue.

If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration.

GOP THREATENED TO 'GO NUCLEAR' TO HALT FILIBUSTERS OF BUSH'S JUDICIAL NOMINEES

The one danger with invoking the "nuclear option" is the fact that it is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the "nuclear option" is a change in the rules of the Senate that would effectively bar future filibusters.

It was fear of the "nuclear option" doing away with filibusters altogether that prompted fourteen moderate senators -- seven from each party -- to join forces in 2005 to block an attempt by then-majority Republicans to invoke the "nuclear option" to force confirmation votes on ten judicial nominations made by then-President George W. Bush who were blocked by filibusters by minority Democrats.

Democrats blocked the confirmation of the ten on the grounds that they were too "out of the mainstream" -- in other words, too far right-wing -- for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. At the beginning of his second term, Bush resubmitted seven of the 10 names.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada), then the Senate minority leader, vowed to fight their confirmation. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), then the majority leader, threatened to use the "nuclear option" to get the nominees confirmed.

The fourteen centrist senators -- who came to be known as the "Gang of 14" -- forged an agreement whereby the seven Democrats among them would no longer vote along with their party on filibustering judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"), and in turn the seven Republicans among them would break with the Republican leadership on voting for the "nuclear option."

The agreement by the "Gang of 14" robbed both parties of their leverage and forced them to back down. As a result, five of the filibustered Bush nominees were confirmed. The other five withdrew after it became clear that their nominations would not be voted on.

FAILURE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE -- HEALTH-CARE REFORM WITH PUBLIC OPTION MUST PASS

For Democrats, failure to pass a health-care reform bill with a public option is simply not acceptable. A solid 57 percent majority of Americans supports it, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll, with senior citizens and independent voters -- two important voting blocs whom Democrats cannot afford to alienate -- favor a public option most strongly.

For Republicans, stopping a health-care reform bill -- with or without a public option -- is not acceptable, either. Nearly two-thirds of Americans strongly disapprove of the GOP's performance in the health-care debate, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll, with nearly four times as many Americans likely to blame Republicans than to blame Democrats if health-care reform fails to pass.

With Lieberman's defection to the GOP on the public option, Senate Democrats have no choice: They must "go nuclear" and force a simple-majority vote. With the "Gang of 14" -- its ranks reduced to 11 since 2006 -- unlikely to intervene, the only way to stop the "nuclear option" is with a quorum call requiring 51 senators to be present. With only 4o senators, the Republicans cannot muster the 51 absent senators required to stop business.

Americans cannot wait another generation for health-care reform. It must pass, with a public option, this year -- or else there will be hell to pay in next year's midterm elections.

Sincerely,
Skeeter Sanders
Editor & Publisher
The 'Skeeter Bites Report

# # #

Volume IV, Number 82
Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.






Google












Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 26, 2009

Biden Is Emerging As Powerful a Veep As Cheney -- Minus Cheney's Arrogant Hubris


Like Cheney Before Him, Biden Is Using His Long Expertise in Washington to Influence Obama on Both Foreign and Domestic Policy and Is Keeping Much of the Power Cheney Amassed, But Unlike His Predecessor -- Who Raised Questions About Who Was Really in Charge of the Bush White House -- Biden Isn't Throwing His Weight Around



When Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate last year, many commentators at the time believed that on many issues -- particularly foreign policy -- Biden's long experience would compensate for Obama's perceived weaknesses. Sure enough, after ten months in office, Biden has emerged as the president's right-hand man on both foreign and domestic policy, while at the same time retaining much of the power that was amassed by his predecessor, Dick Cheney -- without displaying the kind of arrogant hubris that caused many to question who was really in charge of the Bush administration. Biden has even succeeded to a certain extent in curbing his notorious habit of making shoot-from-the-hip public remarks that have gotten him in trouble in the past. But the Obama-Biden partnership faces a real test in the coming days over the war in Afghanistan. (Photo: Reuters)


(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Monday, October 26, 2009)

==============
SPECIAL REPORT
==============

By MATTHEW MOSK
The Washington Times


Shortly after he took office in January, Joe Biden invited a handful of experts on the vice presidency into his newly-occupied official residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory to seek their advice.

"He essentially said, 'Look, previous vice presidents seem to leave office somewhat diminished from when they come in,' " recalled Jody Baumgartner, a professor of American politics at East Carolina University, who flew in for the gathering. "He made it clear, this is not necessarily a thing of protecting my legacy, but more, 'What is the job, and how could I do it better?' "

What has emerged after ten months in office, Baumgartner and others agreed, is a powerful version of the vice presidency by the former Democratic senator from Delaware that bears its most striking -- if unlikely -- resemblance to the one that immediately preceded it, that of Republican Dick Cheney.

In short order, Biden has, like Cheney, turned the office into a central hub for a dizzying array of political and policy decisions, ranging from advising President Obama on Iraq and his Supreme Court pick to helping devise strategy on the economic recovery, on relations with Russia and, most recently, on the approach to war in Afghanistan.

Call it "Cheney Lite" - a vice presidency that has retained much of the power, while so far escaping the role of lightning rod for partisan critics and avoiding any whiff of ambiguity about who is really running the country. Much like the man who came before him, Biden has dipped repeatedly into a deep reserve of Washington experience to help the president push his policies.

"I would say that Dick Cheney and Joe Biden have brought the vice presidency to a new level," said Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a close friend of Biden. "It's unusual for vice presidents to play as big a role as Cheney did for Bush, or that Biden is playing for Obama. It's up a notch from [former Vice President Al] Gore, for example. They're playing bigger roles and gaining much more public exposure."

That exposure was on full display last week, when Biden hustled to Eastern Europe after the administration had botched its announcement of a major shift in the missile-defense installations championed by former President George W. Bush.

BIDEN CAPITALIZES ON HIS LONG EXPERIENCE

Trading on long-standing friendships built during his years as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden -- who'll turn 67 on November 20 -- quickly defused the flap, providing the precise reassurance that Poland and the Czech Republic needed to feel comfortable with the new approach.

Specialists on the region said they can think of few figures in Washington who would have carried into office the trust of so many foreign leaders.

"He's more credible with these countries than anybody," said Daniel Hamilton, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs. "He's it. He's the guy."

It is a byproduct of that experience that has led Obama to rely heavily on his second-in-command. He repeatedly has been dispatched overseas to smooth over sticky situations. He flew to Iraq when local officials began to express concerns that their conflict was being pushed to the back burner. He went to the Ukraine after the president rattled nerves with his outreach to Russia. He went to Lebanon and Bosnia to reassure government officials that they were not going to be forgotten.

Antony J. Blinken, the vice president's top national security adviser, said recently that he has seen Biden assume "a central role" on the foreign-policy team.

"You'll recall that he went to, at the [then-]president-elect's request, went to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq in January before the inaugural. He gave the -- again, at the president's request -- the first major foreign-policy speech of this administration, February at the Munich conference," Blinken said.

"And since then," he continued, "at the president's request, he's been virtually all over the world as a core member of the team, to the Balkans, to Europe, repeatedly to Iraq, where the president has asked him to oversee the Iraq policy, to South and Central America, and now to Central Europe."

BIDEN, OBAMA FORMING A CLOSE 'TAG TEAM'

When in Washington, Biden sees the president almost every day. They attend the same economic and security briefings, dine together often, and appear outwardly to be very much on the same page.

That bond has occasionally been tested by Biden's renowned lack of discipline when speaking publicly. (At the very moment Obama was trying to thaw relations with Russia, Biden told the Wall Street Journal he saw Russia's economy as "withering.") Last week, when Biden tried to pull back a dismissive comment about Cheney he made during an interview with The Washington Times, he insisted he was "getting a little bit better" at holding his tongue.

The relationship could face a much more serious test in coming days.

Biden has emerged on one side of a roiling debate within the president's national security team over how best to proceed in Afghanistan. While the president's top military advisers have been urging the president to adopt a far more aggressive approach to the conflict -- one that would involve sending tens of thousands of additional troops -- Biden has advised a different strategy.

His recommendations have focused more on bulking up the effort in Pakistan, while limiting efforts in Afghanistan to securing urban areas and targeting the limited population of al-Qaida who still operate there.

The vice president's supporters believe it is a sensible approach -- the least bad of a series of unforgiving choices facing the president in Afghanistan. Critics, such as conservative author and blogger Tom Ricks, argue that Biden has been consistently wrong on Iraq, starting with his opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and continuing with his support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and then with the various policy recommendations he made that followed.

"That doesn't mean he certainly is wrong on Afghanistan," Ricks said. "But it means that his track record should be kept in mind."

After five lengthy review sessions and another expected, it remains a fight the vice president very well could lose.

A BREAK FROM CHENEY ON STYLE, IF NOT ON SUBSTANCE

Much as Cheney did when Bush ignored his strong advice against talking to the Iranians and went against his advice in making a deal with the North Koreans, Biden says he will fight his battles privately, not in public. When asked by The Washington Times whether he would consider his role diminished if the president dismisses his advice on the Afghan strategy, Biden said it's not ever something he considered.

"I'd be surprised if he publicly dismissed anything I had to say, number one. Number two, look, I knew when I signed on as vice president that he is the president. The only thing, the only guarantee I got, and that he's kept, is that I get the opportunity on every important decision to be in on the deal, to give him the benefit or lack thereof of my opinion.

"The truth of the matter is," Biden continued, "that he has kept that deal. He has sought my opinion; not generically, but in detail. And if he reaches a different conclusion than I do, that's OK. He's the president."

Baumgartner, the professor who met early on with the vice president about his approach to the job, said he thinks Biden may have attempted to portray himself as someone ready to dial back the profile of a job that had become supercharged under Cheney.

Given Cheney's dismal popularity ratings -- and the former vice president's continuing public sniping at the Obama administration's foreign policy -- that move seemed almost a given.

"He made it sound like he was going to be going back to the traditional vice president," Baumgarten said. "The surprise has been, I think, that he's actually taking a far more active role than anyone expected."

# # #

Volume IV, Number 81
Special Report Copyright 2009, News World Communications, Inc. Re-posted by permission.
The 'Skeeter Bites Report Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. all rights reserved.







Google












Sphere: Related Content