Are Pelosi And Hoyer Just Too Damn Old To Understand Modern Monetary Theory? Is That Why They're Still Whining About PAY-GO?

A Washington Post headline-- The Deficit Hawks Are Dead-- And Few In Washington Muster Any Outrage-- points a finger at Washington's most dedicated Ayn Rand disciple, Speaker Ryan and his GOP zombies "who had, wrote Paul Kane, railed against deficits in the first years of the Obama administration pushed through a massive tax cut despite CBO projections of a surge in federal borrowing." But what the Post isn't counting on is the presumptive next Speaker and her chief Deputy-dog Steny. Their first priority seems to be PAY-GO, the crowning jewel of Deficit Hawkism, the trap the Democrats always fall into when the GOP loses Congress, trap that guarantees the Democrats will never be able to diver on anything the voters went to the polls and supported them-- setting up another GOP take-over. This is in Pelosi's and Hoyer's DNA because of their age. This was ingrained in them from a time when the Republicans really did care about deficits and balanced budgets. But the GOP was smart enough to pay attention to MMT even if Pelosi and Hoyer never even tried.

Given possible high ground on the issue, Democrats have largely fielded a crop of candidates across the nation who have ignored, downplayed or outright rejected the significance of the still-growing deficits.

The Democrats have, across all factions of their party, lambasted the Republican tax-cut legislation of December and the $1.5 trillion shortfall it is estimated to leave in the budget over the next decade. But they have not attacked that as money that should go to the U.S. treasury to pay down the overall $21 trillion debt. Rather, they have almost universally pledged that the money be used for other federal spending, such as infrastructure or an expansion of the Affordable Care Act.

That’s a far cry from 2006, when House Democrats marched toward a decisive midterm victory that thrust them into the majority. Then, their numbers were populated by fiscal conservatives in Southern and rural districts who pledged to cut the deficit, as well as antiwar liberals who wanted to bring troops home from Iraq at a time when the war was costing more than $100 billion a year.

Some Democrats from that era acknowledge that the issue simply does not have as much resonance now, in large part because of the economic collapse that occurred 10 years ago this week and stagnating wages that followed years thereafter.

“When they write the history of this time, the financial collapse and the Great Recession is going to be the defining moment that changed the politics around a lot of these issues, around things like deficits,” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-CT) a member of the 2006 Democratic class.

Rather than worry about surging deficits, Democrats are pushing for ways to boost everyday life for working Americans, Courtney said. “That economic fragility that people felt in the wake of the Great Recession has kind of overtaken the fiscal-hawk sort of priorities,” he said.

With Democrats not focusing on the issue, Republicans have been given a free ride with voters. A June survey by the Pew Research Center found a remarkable data point: Voters trust Republicans over Democrats, 41 percent to 35 percent, to do a better job with deficits.

In April, just 14 percent of Americans cited the deficit as the most important issue, according to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. Deficits trailed the economy (25 percent), health care (24 percent), gun issues (23 percent) and immigration (17 percent).

Ryan, a onetime preacher about the evil of debt, now brushes aside any questions about how annual deficits rocketed under his watch-- from about $430 billion in 2015, when he took the gavel, to almost $1 trillion as he heads for the exits three years later.

“Revenues are up. The problem is a predictable one-- it is spending,” Ryan said in a farewell event with Wisconsin media Wednesday at the Capitol. He pinned the blame on Medicare and Social Security costs.

“It is baby boomers retiring, a country not prepared for it,” Ryan said. “It’s health inflation, and it’s the entitlement programs.

This outrages the deficit hawks, most of whom have long since retired.

“History will show you there’s no country in history that’s been strong and free and bankrupt,” John Tanner (D-TN), a co-founder of the Blue Dog Coalition who retired in 2010, told the Washington Post’s Erica Werner.

If Democrats take back the House in November’s midterms, it will be the first time in more than 70 years the majority has flipped without deficits or government overreach playing some key role in creating the backlash to the party in power.

In 1994, when Republicans won the House majority for the first time in 40 years, Newt Gingrich’s troops campaigned against the emerging Clinton administration health-care plan, panned as “Hillarycare” for first lady Hillary Clinton, even though it never even got a vote in Congress. Once in power, Gingrich (R-GA) led a fiscal standoff over a bid to save $270 billion from Medicare, ending in a government shutdown around the 1995 holidays.

The 2006 switch came as a reaction to the war. Dozens of Blue Dog Democrats, as the fiscal conservatives were known, went on to impose a new House rule known as “PAYGO,” a briefly held statute requiring offsetting cuts to any new spending.

And in 2010, as John Boehner’s House GOP roared back to the majority, Republicans campaigned against the ACA as a pricey government takeover of the health-care system at a time of ballooning deficits. Most of the Democratic losers came from the Blue Dog caucus, drastically shrinking its influence.

Throughout 2011 and 2012, Speaker Boehner (R-OH) staged several fiscal showdowns with President Barack Obama that led to some modest deficit reduction, through spending caps on annual federal agency budgets and higher taxes on families with more than $400,000 in income.

Those deals were essentially scuttled by the December passage of the tax cuts and a subsequent budget blueprint that was a bipartisan binge for the House and Senate appropriations committees, which set defense and domestic agency spending.

If you want to rein in the debt, do not bother the appropriators. “If you want to deal with deficits, you’re going to have to deal with entitlements. That’s where the spending is,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Some lawmakers predict that, eventually, the financial markets will force Congress into action.

“It’s not really just candidates who get to decide whether deficits matter or not,” Courtney said. “I think external forces are going to show up and change that.”

"Deal with entitlements. That’s where the spending is." That's the way Republicans-- and the Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (the New Dems and Blue Dogs)-- talk about weakening and eventually eliminating Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social safety net programs. Imagine all the tax cuts for the wealthy that would produce! So why Nancy Pelosi would identify PAY-GO as one of her top 3 priorities if she wins the speaker's chair again is too frightening to contemplate. I've been defending her as the best of all possible horrible options. But I'm rethinking that now. She's got to stop with the PAYGO bullshit or she's going to lose her whole left flank.

Will The House Democrats Ever Free Themselves Of Their Geriatric Leadership And Move Into The Future?

Would the Democrats win more votes in November if Pelosi announced she was retiring? No one doubts it. Does she care? Nope; she's obsessed. I speak with candidates and members of Congress every day. Almost no one I speak with wants Pelosi leading the party-- including people who admire her. Yesterday, after Pelosi told the Boston Globe she intends to run for Speaker again, Dave Weigel and Paul Kane looked at the numbers for Washington Post readers. And it isn't just progressive candidates who oppose another term for Pelosi, Candidates from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party oppose her as well. Take Blue Dog (and DCCC recruit) Dan McCready of North Carolina. He's quoted by The Post saying "I’ve said since Day One that I wouldn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker. I think we need a whole new generation of people in D.C. That’s part of why I’m running; we need some new blood." Yeah, yeah, but McCready is also saying he opposes Pelosi for political reasons. He doesn't want to see oceans of TV ads running constantly in Myers Park and Lionsgate in south Charlotte down through Matthews, Monroe, Wadeboro and along the border with South Carolina to Lumberton and north into Savoy Heights and Fayettesville, all equating him to Pelosi. "Democrats across the country," posits The Post, "are locked in an awkward dance in which candidates sensing a chance to win GOP-held seats are increasingly distancing themselves from the party’s longtime liberal leader from San Francisco-- at the same time that the 78-year-old congresswoman is boldly holding on to power." (Liberal? She once was, but that was quite some time ago, amigo. She long ago morphed into a centrist.)



They claim only 10 candidates have come out against her. I've counted more than double that just among people I talk to. Among the candidates endorsed by Blue America-- progressives-- I found little support for her, although several are unwilling to say so on the record. One of our best congressional candidates: "Off the record, I'll be frank and say I think we need new leadership, I'm just not sure who." Another great congressional candidate who asked for anonymity told me "Off the record, I do not want Nancy Pelosi anywhere near my campaign. Thanks, but no thanks. She is toxic." I don't know how she expects to get enough Democrats to elect her leader/Speaker.

Last November I reached out to several campaigns to ask candidates and campaign managers what they plan do about the threat from the NRCC to portray them as Pelosi clones. One of the best campaign managers in the country: "I respect Pelosi," he told me back then, "but it's time for her to pack it in-- past time. She's hurting the party's chance to decisively win the midterms and put a check on Trump. I know it's not fair, but the Republicans have succeeded in demonizing her, especially with independent voters... We're going to have to tell our voters that we don't want her or Ryan as Speaker.. We feel bad about equating them both but not even Democrats in [our district] want to see her back with the Speaker's gavel... I agree with you that Hoyer and Crowley would be much worse party leaders but most voters have never heard of either one of them and the Republicans can't use them against candidates... unless they read some obscure blog like yours." Another candidate told me that "She's pretty toxic among the independent voters here. I don't have anything against her but it isn't just Republicans who hate her. Many Democrats want to see her just move on and make room for someone else... Her time is over."

Candidates willing to go on the record back then:

James Thompson, currently running for Congress in a Kansas rematch, has a very different perspective on this than anyone else because he just went through the experience a few months ago. "I ran for Congress in the 4th District of Kansas in the very first Special Election after Trump was inaugurated," he told us. "The DCCC claims they did not help my race because they did not want to 'nationalize it.' Yet, as soon as I received the nomination from the Kansas Democratic Party to run for Congress, the Republican Party 'nationalized' the campaign by immediately tying me to Leader Pelosi, saying she hand-picked me and that I was her puppet. Ron Estes and the Republicans in Kansas, led by the KOCH brothers ultra-conservative political machine, never met a lie they didn’t like. I had never met, nor even spoke with, Nancy Pelosi and yet was being branded like a bull with her unpopularity here in Kansas. She sure never helped my race, and the mere mention of her name hurt my campaign. The same ads used against Ossoff, were used against me by simply switching out his picture for mine. The night of the special election, Leader Pelosi called and offered her condolences for my loss. She was warm, friendly and sympathetic and I greatly appreciated her taking the time out of her busy schedule to call me. While I respect her as a person and her accomplishments as Speaker of the House, her time in leadership needs to end for the good of the Democratic Party. With better leadership from the party, we may have been able to harness the progressive wave sweeping the country and possibly win some of the Special Elections. The Democratic Party needs an infusion of new progressive leadership like Keith Ellison and Ro Khanna. Regardless of whether it is true, Republicans will brand every Democrat with the Pelosi brand in hopes of sinking campaigns in 2018 with the mere mention of her name. New leadership needs to take over and lead the fight for a 50 state strategy. If Leader Pelosi is still in office when I get to Congress, I will vote for new leadership that will ensure the Democratic Party fights in all 50 states."

Tom Guild in Oklahoma City knows he's definitely going to face a barrage of ads conflating him with Pelosi. He doesn't seem worried. "Because of the extreme dysfunction in Congress today, I’m going to wait and see who the candidates for House Democratic Leader/Speaker are before deciding which person to support. It would be hard to do worse than Paul Ryan has done as the leader of House Republicans. I want a progressive who can pass an increase to the minimum wage, single payer health care, a massive infrastructure bill to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure while creating millions of good paying jobs, direct and hasten the transition to renewable energy sources, and invest in America before looking for new overseas military adventures. I will take this decision seriously and am not in anyone’s hip pocket. Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio (or his closest living iteration in Congress)? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you."

Jared Golden is running for the Maine seat held by Trump rubber stamp Bruce Poliquin. He's the Majority Whip of the state legislature and he has a clear understanding about how legislative bodies work. One of his primary opponents happens to be straight out of Pelosi's coterie of super-wealthy elites. And Golden didn't mince any words. "It’s time for a new generation of leaders in Washington. My support will go to the leader that shows me they care about and understand the priorities of working class people-- it’s got to be someone serious about rebuilding an economy that doesn’t leave small rural states like Maine behind. I want to serve with leaders that demonstrate they have the courage to fight for progressive values and the ability to work across the aisle to deliver results. We need service-driven leaders who will do what’s best for this country and I believe that’s to fight for the great majority-- working and middle class people."

Jenny Marshall, the progressive Democrat running for the Piedmont seat Virginia Foxx occupies toked us that "People are looking for a person that can relate to the everyday struggles of average Americans. They need to know that their representative is not bought and paid for by corporate interests. We are separating ourselves from candidates who do not support progressive issues like single payer health care, campaign finance reform including eliminating corporate donations to campaigns. These issues are important for our communities and they need to know that they have a strong choice that supports what they need."

Doug Applegate has a similar perspective-- as well as some creepy Pelosi candidate backed by big money in his primary. When I asked him if the GOP Machine will try to conflate him with Pelosi, he laughed and said, "You’ve got to be kidding me. Since nearly beating Darrell Issa after the DCCC came in late in the race only 67 days before election day 2016, corporate and establishment Democrats have only indicated that the last person they want to join their club is a Marine Colonel. While Dem Hill members insist they won’t endorse until after the primary, multiple conservative Democrat Congressmen endorse Mike Levin whose corporation received an 'undisclosed payment/investment' from Exxon in the summer of 2016. Despite that bump from the biggest carbon fuel producer, Levin still insists that he’s an environmental lawyer.  As a former Clinton aide and Qualcomm heiress, a crowbar couldn’t pry Sara Jacobs away from moneyed corporate Democrats and Pelosi. I’m not a corporate Democrat; I’m not an establishment Democrat. I’m a Marine Colonel who will fight for change, for a new labor movement, for single payer healthcare, for public preschool to public university regardless of parental income, for ending oil subsidies that will free market forces to reach 100% renewable energy by 2027 and for real change. The only label you will ever stick on me is 'he’s a Marine Colonel who will fight like hell for change.'"

John Rogers, the monkey the House Republicans hired to run their version of the DCCC, the NRCC, admits he's counting on benefitting from the years-long attempts to use Nancy Pelosi against Democratic congressional candidates. He admits that the NRCC's main weapon to try to hold onto the House is by making every race about her. "In reality," he said, "next fall is going to come down to whether or not you want to reinstitute Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House."

It's true that the Republicans have become a one-trick pony with that narrative and have every intention of using it again, the way they used it against Jon Ossoff in Georgia last year. Ossoff was an extraordinarily weak and pointless candidate-- a real DCCC special-- and it was predictable that he would be vulnerable to that kind of idiotic attack. The DCCC was never capable of the kind of single-minded aggressiveness it would have taken to turn the tables on the GOP by making Ryan into the kind of villain the Republicans have made Pelosi into. The irony there was that before Randy Bryce chased him off the field of battle, Ryan was already more disliked nationally than Pelosi was-- even after years of Republican slander against her!

In the last poll before he announced he would leave Congress to teach little Sammy and Charlie how to shoot rabbits with bows and arrows, Ryan's unfavorable rating was 49.3%, compared to Pelosi's 48.7%. Luckily for Senate Democrats, Mitch McConnell has a far lower popularity than either of them-- and is the most disliked politician in America. This was from last August:

Note the only leaders from either party with statistically more positive support than negativity are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. People-- as in registered voters-- absolutely hate both Trump and Hillary, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The public rejects these people-- yet they still are managing to control the levers of power in Washington. The whole corrupt, money-fueled system stinks to High Heaven.

The only thing that has kept Pelosi in power this long are the wretched alternatives-- Hoyer and, at one time, Wasserman Schultz, for example-- but Crowley is worse than either Pelosi or Hoyer and just as unpalatable as Wasserman Schultz.

In March Mike Allen pointed out that Pelosi could be in trouble after the Democratic wave sweeps her party back into power in November. He wrote that "Top Democrats" tell him that "if they take back the House in November, a restoration of Speaker Nancy Pelosi is no longer guaranteed."

• In fact, some well-wired House Democrats predict she will be forced aside after the election and replaced by a younger, less divisive Dem.
• Conor Lamb, 33, won his U.S. House race in Pennsylvania this week after saying he wouldn't vote for her for leader-- a new template for moderates.
• Pelosi has hung in through the minority, and remains the party's most consistent fundraiser. As for whether she'll return as Speaker, she has just said that it's up to the members. (Her allies note that she has never lost a leadership vote.)
• But others have their eye on the gavel, and many members want a younger, newer face. Her No. 2 and longtime rival, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, 78, covets the job but is three months older than she is.
• Pelosi is more likely to be the bridge to a younger generation. A possible successor, who works the caucus behind the scenes, is Rep. Joe Crowley of Queens, N.Y., who turns 56 tomorrow.
• Another possible candidate who's getting buzz: Rep. Adam Schiff, a fellow Californian who has a sky-high profile as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, investigating Russia's role in 2016.

One Democratic source told me that Pelosi hears footsteps: “She used to be retributional. Now she’s more inclusive.”

• Pelosi allies see some of the criticism as sexist, and say she has always been inclusive of all parts of the caucus' diversity, including newer members.
• Pelosi told the Congressional Progressive Caucus at a retreat in Baltimore last week: "Every morning, I don a suit of armor, eat nails for breakfast, and go fight inequality."
• President Trump plans to invoke her frequently in midterm speeches, and Republicans already use her image to raise funds. And in campaigns this fall, many Dems challengers will be put on the spot about whether they'd vote for her as Speaker.

One scenario, from a Pelosi ally:

• "She could win the caucus vote [for Speaker] easily but lose the floor vote."
• "[I]f Dems win the majority by, say, a 10-vote majority, and 15 newly elected Dems have committed not to vote for her [like Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania] for leader of the party, ... she could lose the floor vote for Speaker. That would give the House to the head of the Republicans."
• "She would never let that happen, and she would bow out to someone else."
• "[S]he’s the best vote counter this generation has ever seen. So she’ll know this scenario well in advance, and will figure out a way out that will preserve her legacy."

Be smart: If there's a post-election coup against Pelosi, Crowley is the likely winner because Schiff and the others would scramble the field and Joe is acceptable to all factions.

• One knowing Dem says: "My guess is Crowley is the next Dem Speaker/Leader. He’s the fresh face that the majority of the caucus yearns for ... He’s a spring chicken by congressional standards, at 55 years old."

Crowley is the most corrupt Democrat in the House. The Queens County Democrat boss who was handed his seat and never fought a real election in his entire life and the "former" head of the New Dems, is the bagman who launders Wall Street's money into the Democratic House Caucus. He's "acceptable to all factions" because he pays off all factions. Pelosi's corpse would make a better Speaker than Crowley. The thought of Crowley as Speaker is so disgusting that I'm going to go to the bathroom and vomit now. Crowley is even worse than this:



Weigel and Kane assert that Democrats refusing to back Pelosi "are following in the footsteps of newly elected Democratic Rep. Conor Lamb, who scored a stunning upset in March in a Republican Pennsylvania district after saying he would oppose Pelosi" but then go quite a bit further.

This clamor for change at the top underscores the generational tensions within the House Democratic caucus as younger lawmakers look to replace not only Pelosi but also two other septuagenarians-- Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD.), 78, and Assistant Democratic Leader James E. Clyburn (D-SC), 77.

Pelosi stands as the Democratic conundrum, a prolific fundraiser and skilled politician, as well as a deeply polarizing figure used by Republicans as a club against Democrats.

The dynamic sets the stage for a potential showdown-- should Democrats win the majority-- between Pelosi allies, who would relish the historic moment of returning a woman to one of the most influential positions in the country, and her critics, many of whom would have won office by promising a change in leadership.

“We will win. I will run for speaker. I feel confident about it. And my members do, too,” Pelosi told a meeting of Boston Globe reporters and editors on Tuesday. Earlier, at an event in New York City, she introduced several of her fellow House Democrats to the crowd by highlighting which committee they would lead next year, assuming a Democratic majority.

“It’s important that it not be five white guys at the table, no offense,” Pelosi said in Boston, a reference to the top leaders in the House and Senate and President Trump. “I have no intention of walking away from that table.”

There is the question of whether Pelosi would have the votes to win the job. Unlike other leadership posts, which are selected by secret ballot in the respective caucuses, the entire House must vote for the speaker in early January. The minority party never votes for the majority’s speaker-designate, so it would require Pelosi to get at least 218 votes from her side of the aisle.

So, if Democrats ended up with a caucus of 235, Pelosi could afford to lose 17 votes when the speaker vote is held on the floor.

Pelosi’s strength comes from several sources, the first among equals being her fundraising on behalf of candidates and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Her advisers attributed 45 percent of the committee’s $34 million raised in the first quarter of 2018 to Pelosi.

But there are other, beneath-the-radar reasons Pelosi feels confident in her post.

Despite GOP claims, Pelosi is not as unpopular as she was eight years ago when she was speaker. Back then, 58 percent of Americans had an unfavorable view of Pelosi, including 41 percent who held a strongly unfavorable view.

In a Washington Post-ABC News poll last month, just 44 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view, with those strongly disliking her down to 29 percent.

That played out in Lamb’s victory. Outside Republican groups spent more than $6 million on TV ads in southwestern Pennsylvania, the lion’s share of it on commercials trying to tie Lamb to Pelosi. But the 33-year-old Democrat ran an ad making clear he would not support Pelosi, calling for new leadership on both sides of the aisle.

It helped to inoculate him against the Pelosi attack line. GOP operatives now worry that other Democrats will follow Lamb’s lead and that there will be even less potency in the anti-Pelosi campaign that they have been hoping will save their majority in the fall.

Most Democrats have distanced themselves from Pelosi but have tried to avoid taking a hard-and-fast position on how they would vote if she is the Democratic nominee for speaker. Kathy Manning, a Democratic candidate here in western North Carolina, said in an interview that she would like to see an open contest for party leader.

“I would make that decision like I make all my decisions: Get as much information as I can, find out who’s running, find out what their positions are, then vote for the person who’d make the best leader,” Manning said.

This sort of nuanced answer-- she never explicitly says she opposes Pelosi-- is one that Republicans will use to try to turn her into a Pelosi clone. North Carolina Republicans have already begun highlighting Manning’s $500 and $1,000 donations to Pelosi’s political committees in 2002 and 2004.

Pelosi and Hoyer have held the top two spots in leadership for more than a dozen years, while Clyburn has held the No. 3 post since 2011. Clyburn raised eyebrows a few weeks ago when he told Politico that this year’s midterm elections were an up-or-out moment for the trio, that all three would have to step down if Democrats failed to secure the majority.

Democrats are not demanding a loyalty pledge from candidates who might flip the majority their way. McCready and Manning have been added to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” list, denoting them as candidates who can expect party support in their primaries and the general election.

In an interview, Elissa Slotkin, a “red-to-blue” candidate in a GOP-held southwest Michigan district, said she would prefer an alternative to Pelosi.

“I think it’s clear that on both sides of the aisle, people are seeking new leadership, and I’m going to be looking for someone who best represents my district and what we care about here. And I believe that’s a new generation of leaders,” said Slotkin, a former Defense Department official running her first congressional race.

Some House Democrats are openly advising these candidates to oppose Pelosi.

“If Republicans want to do the same thing to Elissa Slotkin that they did to Conor Lamb, all Conor Lamb had to do was point to the front page of the newspaper that said ‘Conor Lamb will not vote for Nancy Pelosi.’ It’s phony. It’s played out,” said Rep. Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), who traveled to Michigan this week to campaign for Slotkin.

GOP political theater comes up empty in the hostage-taking of DHS

What a brain trust! Standing behind Miss Mitch are three of modern legislating's great GOP johns: Senators Barrasso (WY), Thune (SD), and Cornyn (TX).

"The bottom line is they could probably clean this up very quickly."

-- Sen. Joe "If They Don’t Have Me, Where Do They Go?" Manchin
("D"-WV), quoted by the Washington Post's Paul Kane

by Ken

And Senator Joe (who, according to the Washington Post's Paul Kane, "said [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell needs to convince [House Speaker John] Boehner that they have to pass the funding bill without any of the policy conditions and instead send over a discrete piece of legislation that would repeal the presidential orders") would know. As Paul K notes, he's "the Democrat who most frequently partners with Republicans." And as the senator himself says, "If they [meaning the congresional Republicans] don't have me, where do they go?"

Here we were only just talking about "political theater," and the poor substitute it makes for actual governing. What easier segue could there be into talking about the stalemate that has developed over continued funding for the Department of Homeland Security? DHS wasn't a very good idea to begin with, born as it was in a desire among pols to pretend to be serious about, you know, homeland security, with naturally a minimum of consideration for how the fucntions being smooshed into a single government department actually need to function. However, once the thing was created, precisely because of all those functions that got smooshed into it, it's pretty darned important. And now the department is being held hostage to the central tenet of Republican thought in the 21st century: Ooh, that Obama!

As you undoubtedly know, DHS was purposely left out of the slightly-longer-term-than-recently-managed budget dealing recently permitted by congressional R's. The idea was that continued funding of the department could be held hostage to their pique over President Obama's really fairly modest executive action on immigration, the sort of thing that Republican presidents have done on various matters without a "boo!" from the Grand Old Party. The problem with hostage-taking, alas, is that once you take your hostage, you've gotta do what you've gotta do or you didn't actually do anything at all.

Not that congressional Republicans normally mind not actually doing anything at all. It is, after all, the one thing that their misdeveloped brains are naturally suited to. Unfortunately now, as a consequence of their fondness for political theater, they've got DHS shut away in their "Don't Wanna Think About It" closet bawling its innards out, and they've gotta do something.

Speaking just for myself, one position I don't like to see demented R's locked into is when they've gotta do something, because there's never any guarantee, or even reason for optimism, that they'll do something sensible. And here, by no means for the last time, we run into the problem facing Senate Majority Leader "Miss Mitch" McConnell and House Speaker "Sunny John" Boehner: They're sitting atop Replublican caucuses that are disorganized along the lines of Dumb and Dumber -- or perhaps Nuts and Nuttier.

We knew that this would be the case going into the "Crackpot 114th" Congress -- that the Dumber (or Nuttier) factions in both houses would now be the tail wagging the Dumb (or Nuts) dog. And while there was some really small consolation in the knowledge that the split on the Right -- between the Extremists and the Way, Way Extremists -- might prevent them from doing all the damage of which they might otherwise be capable. But that didn't mean there was going to be any way for those on the Less Dumb (or Less Nuts) portion of the political spectrum to take advantage of it. In the end there will, I suppose be a compromise of some sort, but it will, as usual, be a compromise paid for by people to the left of the Dumbs and Dumbers (or Nutses and Nutsiers).

If this were actual theater, as opposed to the political kind, at least we could sneak out to the lobby for some wildly overpriced snacks, or even bolt the premises altogether. Sad to say, when political theater takes to playing gummint, there isn't any such option that I'm aware of.

WaPo political reporter Paul Kane hasn't framed the story in quite my terms, but on the whole he seems to me to have gotten the story as it stands going into the congressional recess (links onsite).

McConnell, after his no-shutdowns pledge, quickly finds himself boxed in

By Paul Kane
Washington Post

Less than six weeks on his powerful Capitol Hill perch, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is on the verge of watching one of his most important promises — to never again shut down the government — go up in smoke.

Lawmakers on Friday began a 10-day hiatus, leaving them just four days when they return to pass funding for the Department of Homeland Security to avoid the shutdown of a key federal agency. The DHS budget fight follows an effort among GOP conservatives to roll back President Obama’s recent executive orders on immigration.

Conservatives are adamant that the security agency should be funded only if the legislation also overrules Obama’s orders, which prevent the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. But Senate Democrats, even the few who oppose Obama’s moves, have blocked the House-passed legislation with repeated filibusters.

That has left McConnell trapped inside a legislative box that he had vowed to avoid — and one that for the previous four years his close ally, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), frequently wandered into without an exit strategy.

McConnell was determined not to repeat those mistakes. [Note: Click on "Read more" to continue reading. -- Ed.]

Read more »

Will Boehner Be The Scapegoat For Republican Nihilism?

Thomas Kean, Sr., the former New Jersey Governor, not the crackpot son ("Jr."), didn't bat an eye last week when he made a point by mentioning that "my party is nuts today." And he was very clear that he was talking about the Republican national party, not the New Jersey state GOP. And it's all about what's happened to the GOP with the back-to-back defeats of mainstream conservatives John McCain and Mitt Romney by [African-American] Barack Hussein Obama. Let's go back-- via Lee Fang's new book, The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right-- to the time right after Obama beat McCain in 2008. "Eric Cantor," he reminds is, "quickly flamed out in his own early attempt to establish an organization of conservative leaders." It was a sign of things to come for a floundering Republican Party.

Dubbed the National Council for a New America, Cantor’s group recruited several GOP governors, like Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, and lawmakers who would supposedly rebrand what it meant to be conservative and drop the “nostalgia” for old, failed policies. Social conservatives, including former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Ohio secretary of state Ken Blackwell, sharply rebuked Cantor for excluding topics like gay marriage or abortion from the National Council website issue page. Conservative leaders involved in their own conservative movement leadership committees, such as Newt Gingrich and Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, were not initially invited to Cantor’s group. Perkins attacked Cantor for “running scared on the claims of the left and the media that social conservatism is a dead-end for the GOP.” But the true death knell for Cantor’s National Council came when Rush Limbaugh called it a “scam” and a backdoor attempt by “people who don’t believe in conservatism” to “leave Reagan behind.” Cantor mustered only a single public event for his group, a town hall session with former governors Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush at a pizza parlor in suburban Virginia. Shortly after Limbaugh’s comments, Cantor quietly abandoned his effort, which only lasted about a month after it began in the early stages of the Obama presidency. Cantor’s effort at moderation was the only organized attempt for the right to move toward the center after Bush. Its quick death sent a signal that conservative power would remain with activists on the far right.

Four years later, Republicans are thrashing around as incoherently as ever trying, unsuccessfully, to find a message that goes beyond, "the Black guy isn't a legitimate president of the United States." This week Paul Kane asserted in the Washington Post that, in fact, House Republicans have now broken unto fight factions. Keane's "my party if nuts" comment doesn't even begin to tell the story of how extremist anti-American Confederates have infiltrated and taken control of one of America's (formerly) mainstream political parties.

On New Year’s Day, in a cramped room in the Capitol basement, House Republican leaders faced an angry caucus. Democrats had negotiated them into a corner-- virtually every American would be hit with a massive tax increase unless the House agreed to block the hikes for everyone but the wealthy.

A freshman lawmaker seized a microphone and demanded to know how the leaders planned to vote. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) was a yes, but his top two lieutenants were opposed.

“If you’re for this and they’re against, we’ve got problems,” Rep. Stephen Lee Fincher (R-Tenn.) shouted at Boehner and more than 200 lawmakers present, according to Republicans who attended the closed-door meeting. Sure enough, they had problems. Hours later, Democrats helped Boehner pass the measure over the opposition of more than 60 percent of GOP lawmakers.

That vote, to avert the “fiscal cliff,” marked a breaking point for House Republicans, who had disintegrated into squabbling factions, no longer able to agree on-- much less execute-- some of the most basic government functions.

Ever since, Boehner has cautiously tried to steer his party away from that bitter moment, with varying success. A short-term strategy, which conservatives called “the Williamsburg Accord,” emerged from a bruising mid-January retreat. It restored enough unity to permit the House to dodge a government shutdown, badger the Senate into passing its first budget in four years and open investigations of the Obama White House.

But beyond those limited efforts, the House has not approved ambitious legislation this year. Lawmakers have instead focused on trying to re-brand the party around kitchen-table issues-- although even some of those bills have run into trouble. And the most momentous policy decisions, including an immigration overhaul and a fresh deadline for raising the federal debt limit, have no coherent strategy to consolidate Republicans, much less take on the Democrats.

...The leaders have come under intense scrutiny. Barely 36 hours after the caustic New Year’s Day vote, Boehner faced a coup attempt from a clutch of renegade conservatives. The cabal quickly fell apart when several Republicans, after a night of prayer, said God told them to spare the speaker. Still, Boehner came within a few votes of failing to secure his speakership on the initial vote, an outcome that would have forced a second ballot for the first time in nearly a century.

The coming battles will test Boehner’s power and, many Republicans privately suggested, potentially reveal whether it’s time for him to go.

“This is a big summer and fall, a test for all concerned,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a close Boehner ally.

At the moment, House leaders have no plan for passing the test.

On a recent Wednesday afternoon, House Republicans filed into the same Capitol basement room, HC5, where they fought on New Year’s Day. They filtered past clearly marked NO SMOKING signs-- which, as always, the Camel-smoking Boehner ignored-- and settled into the same hard plastic chairs that have served as Washington’s toughest ideological fault line of the past 30 months.

The windowless room with two large-screen TVs and a couple of microphones on either side was handed over to rank-and-file Republicans, nearly 40 of whom waited their turn to offer ideas for what the GOP should try to get later this year in return for agreeing to raise the debt ceiling.

Some wanted more energy exploration, some entitlement reform and one lawmaker pushed to attach antiabortion measures to the legislative package, according to Republicans in the room.

This is the price of remaining in charge in today’s House: Boehner must always appear to be working from the bottom up, never seeming to impose his will.

...Many within the party wonder if there’s any approach Republicans will unify behind this time.

Several veteran Republicans, speaking on the condition of anonymity to criticize their colleagues, said they fear there are too many extreme budget hawks to approve a deal with GOP votes alone, further hampering their leverage in negotiations with the Senate.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, is trying to rally support for a broad rewrite of the tax code in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling.

But many conservatives consider that insufficient to meet the Williamsburg agreement, which they hold requires a path to balancing the budget within a decade. At Williamsburg, Republicans also agreed to put off the debt ceiling fight until the fall and agreed to fund the government at sequester levels.

Some conservatives are talking about circulating a petition to impose an internal rule forbidding Boehner from advancing legislation that does not have majority support in the Republican Conference, a restriction that would have torpedoed the fiscal cliff bill.

Boehner has ducked specifics about the fall. “We’ve not made any decisions at this point,” he told reporters recently.

He said that Republicans are in a similar spot on immigration, indicating that the rank and file do not understand the issue.

“We’ve got to educate our members and we’ve got to help educate them about the hundreds of issues that are involved,” he said.

...Late last year, leaders finally tried to assert themselves over the restive caucus. They ejected Schweikert and three others from key committees, moves widely viewed as coming from McCarthy, a rare moment when he cracked the whip.

Also, many members of the 2010 class are still sore about the financial quandary that then-Rep. Jeff Landry (R) was in last fall in Louisiana when facing Rep. Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R) in an election caused by redistricting. Landry’s friends said he was rebuffed by influential corporate donors, who believed leadership favored the four-term Boustany. Landry lost badly, outspent by a 2-to-1 margin.

Then came the chairman’s race for the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservatives. The most influential lawmakers and activists backed Rep. Tom Graves (Ga.), who had rocky relations with leaders. Yet Rep. Steve Scalise (La.) won the secret ballot-- an outcome thought to be orchestrated behind the scenes by Boehner and Cantor.

If leaders got what they wanted, though, some rank and file still did not come around.

Just past noon on Jan. 3, as the 113th Congress was being sworn in, Boehner faced a rare coup attempt. The normally composed McCarthy stood on the House floor screaming at Rep. Raul R. Labrador (R-Idaho) and Fincher, who had been approached Jan. 1 by other conservatives interested in ousting the speaker. Boehner had pulled Fincher into the speaker’s office that morning for a conversation, several GOP sources said.

The conservatives had decided that Boehner was too overbearing, too top-down. The central gripe was freewheeling backroom negotiations with Obama, talking about trading $1 trillion in new taxes for what they considered modest entitlement reforms.

“It seemed like we did a lot of things without collaboration,” said Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), a 47-year-old funeral home operator elected in 2010 whose Capitol Hill townhouse became a regular meeting spot for agitated lawmakers.

About 17 defectors were needed to deny Boehner an outright majority. The hope was that if they could block the speaker on the first ballot, they could convene the GOP conference in HC5 and compel someone else-- maybe Cantor, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) or Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.)-- to challenge Boehner. Even if no one stood up and Boehner won on a second ballot, it would have been a humiliating rebuke.

Southerland, who has previously talked about his role only with the conservative Weekly Standard, said he read the Old Testament the night before the vote. He read the story of Saul and David, as the king of Israel tried to kill the future king. David wins and, with a chance to kill the king, decides to spare Saul.

Southerland woke up convinced that Boehner should be spared. Others, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they, too, prayed before siding with Boehner.

Maybe right-wing sociopaths like Southerland should step away from the Old Testament now and then and try the New one Jesus brought-- the one all conservative loath and fear and only pay lip service to. In any case, Southerland and other teabaggers buckled when the vote came and Boehner was re-elected-- albeit just barely-- by his fractious party.

Corrupt, Corporately-Owned Pols Steve Israel And Joe Crowley Recruit Candidates Who Will Smile And Leave The Politics To Them

The ideal Steve Israel candidate-- against progressives on over 75% of roll calls

The Paul Kane investigative journalism DCCC press release in Sunday's Washington Post, Democrats push problem solvers in House races reflects a meme Steve Israel started massaging in 2011. It might have never crossed Kane's mind but it's how the corporate wing of the Democratic House caucus, the Blue Dogs and New Dems-- keep in mind that Israel is an "ex"-Blue Dog and his sidekick Crowley is an "ex"-New Dem-- have managed to grab power in the House. In 2012 the DCCC put virtually all their recruitment energy and, later, their money behind Blue Dogs and New Dems. The freshman class is significantly further right than the caucus as a whole. In fact most of the freshmen-- 27 of them-- have ProgressivePunch crucial vote scores even lower than the conservative Israel's 72.22: Denny Heck (NV- 66.67), Beto O'Rourke (TX-66.67), Dina Titus (NV- 66.67), Filemon Vela (TX- 66.67), Elizabeth Esty (CT- 64.71), Tulsi Gabbard (HI- 64.71), John Delaney (MD- 61.11), Suzan DelBene (WA- 55.56), Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-55.56), Julia Brownley (CA- 50.0), Pete Gallego (TX- 50.0), Joe Garcia (FL- 50.0), Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA- 47.06), Ami Bera (CA- 44.44), Bill Enyart (IL-44.44), Patrick Murphy (FL- 44.44), Brad Schneider (IL- 44.44), Cheri Bustos (IL- 38.89), Bill Foster (IL- 38.89), Annie Kuster (NH- 38.89), Dan Maffei (NY- 38.89), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY- 38.89), Scott Peters (CA- 38.89), Raul Ruiz (CA- 38.89), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ- 38.89), Ron Barber (AZ- 33.33), and, worst of any Democratic freshman, Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ- 23.53).

There are a couple ways to look at this. Before we take in the scope of the nonsense the DCCC has been pushing out to naive Beltway reporters like the Post's Kane, let's look at the reality, which was summed up over the weekend in a clear-eyed, if painful, OpEd in The Hill by Senator Bernie Sanders, Chained CPI: An economic, moral disaster. Bernie asks how many congressional candidates won last year by running on an Austerity Agenda and specifically, how many backed these three planks:

1. That Social Security cost-of-living adjustments are too generous. Social Security should be cut over the next two decades by more than $1,000 a year for 85-year-old widows living on $1,200 a month.

2. That benefits earned by disabled veterans as a result of losing their arms, legs or eyesight in Iraq and Afghanistan are too generous. Disabled veterans’ benefits should be cut over the next 15 years by more than $1,400 a year.

3. That working families and the middle class don’t pay enough in taxes. We need to enact an across-the-board tax increase that disproportionately hurts workers making between $30,000 and $40,000 a year.

Correctly, he says none did-- not even the single Blue Dog elected, Pete Gallego; not even lifelong Republican Patrick Murphy; not even the most aggressively anti-working family corporate shills like Ann Kirkpatrick, Scott Peters and Bill Foster. And yet these are the Democrats Israel and Crowley are counting on to back the Obama-Boehner "compromise" to begin the great unraveling of Social Security through Obama's catastrophic Chained CPI scheme.

Bernie concludes by reminding them that "There is a reason why every major organization representing senior citizens, working families, veterans and women is strongly opposed to the chained CPI. They understand, as do the vast majority of Americans, that working families have suffered enough during this recession, and that it is time for the large corporations and the wealthy to play a significant role in reducing the deficit." Will these organizations help primary Democrats who back Chained CPI. The Ann Kirpatricks and Annie Kusters of the world are counting on them not doing that.

Meanwhile the DCCC is trying to define this whole struggle in an entirely different way. Their candidates from 2012 and the garbage they're trying to recruit for 2014 are above politics; they're just good citizens, problem-solvers. And they just leave the grubby politics in the capable-- if greasy-- hands of party bosses like Israel, Crowley and Wasserman Schultz, all members of what Etzioni termed America's permanent conservative party and what we at DWT refer to as the Conservative Consensus.

When Kane interviewed one of the DCCC candidates they steered him to, he found the exact same thing I find when I talk with them-- and I talk to all of them-- namely that they don't know anything about anything. These days, when I talk to a candidate I can always tell they were recruited by the DCCC because they have no idea what Chained CPI is and little idea about any of the biggest political issues of the day-- and even less interest in discussing anything substantive outside of memorized generalities. They are pro-Choice and pro-marriage equality this year though. Kane got stuck with the guy defeated Blue Dog Patrick Murphy was hocking for his old PA House seat on twitter last week, Kevin Strouse.

He’s a smart, young former Army Ranger-- good qualities for any aspiring politician. But what party leaders really like is that Strouse doesn’t have particularly strong views on the country’s hottest issues.

Immigration? Tax policy? “Certainly I have a lot of research to do,” Strouse acknowledged in an interview Thursday as he announced his candidacy in a suburban Philadelphia House district.

Strouse’s candidacy reflects an emerging Democratic strategy for taking back the House from Republicans after the tea party takeover of 2010.

The best way to defeat the conservative, ideologically driven GOP, Democrats say, is to field non-ideological “problem solvers” who can profit from the fed-up-with-partisanship mood of some suburban areas. These districts will offer some of the few competitive House campaigns in the country.

“You pick your strategic high ground and force them to fight on it,” said Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), who as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has begun a particularly early effort at traveling the country and working the phones to lure Strouse and others like him into races.

Israel’s approach is a variation on the model used by then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the campaign committee chairman in 2006 when Democrats took over the House in George W. Bush’s “six-year itch” midterm. Emanuel sought out centrists and conservatives to run in rural districts, particularly in the South.

It isn't part of the press outreach from the DCCC to explain that most of Rahm's recruits were quickly defeated after following DCCC advise to vote with the Republicans on key issues. That alienated the Democratic base that had elected them and brought on the Great Blue Dog Apocalypse of 2010. That is looking like the kind of fate that 2010 losers like Kirkpatrick, Maffei, Foster and Titus, who managed to get back into office in 2012, will face again in 2014. And Strouse, who I haven't talked with personally-- and already know there's no need to (thanks Mr. Kane)-- is headed right in that direction.

Strouse introduced himself last week as a candidate who knows how to “solve problems” and who “got the job done” protecting the nation.

“I’ve thrived in situations where there’s a fair amount of chaos,” Strouse, a graduate of Columbia University and Georgetown’s master’s program in security studies, said in a telephone interview.

Strouse only recently became a registered Democrat. “I took with pride that I was working in these nonpartisan organizations,” he said of the Army and CIA. Eventually, he became shocked by “the degree to which the Republican Party moved to the right” on social and fiscal issues.

He does not yet have deeply ingrained policy prescriptions. On gun control, he favors instituting a universal background check, but on taxes he said he is still studying what levels of higher revenue taxation he would support for a broad budget deal.

In his discussions with Democratic leaders, Strouse said they focused on his background. “They’ve just liked the bio,” he said.

...In his pitch to the candidate, Israel gave Strouse encouragement but also delivered some tough-minded warnings: how he would need to raise millions of dollars, how his opponents would come after him, how the father of two children under 3 would lose his privacy.

Israel has been busy finding other candidates with similar problem-solving appeal.

In a district stretching from the New York suburbs up past Albany, Democrats are backing Sean Eldridge, 26, an investor married to Chris Hughes, the co-founder of Facebook. Eldridge runs an investment fund in the Hudson Valley and his political background is limited to advocacy work on issues such as same-sex marriage.

In Tallahassee, Gwen Graham announced her bid this week for a northwest Florida district. The daughter of former senator and governor Bob Graham (D), Gwen Graham’s campaign presents her as a “consensus builder” with the “skills to solve complicated problems.” Her work as legal adviser for the local school board and school superintendent is her best credential in public service.

If you've been following along here at DWT, you may recall I talked with that one last week and came away thinking how perfect she was for Steve Israel. Israel admits his boneheaded strategy is dependent on "liberal mega-donors," most of whom have as little interest in issues like Chained CPI as Israel and his bozo recruits do. That's why Blue America is asking policy-driven candidates exactly where they stand on exactly that issue. Here's what they tell us.

It's only amid the gutless miniature poodles who make up the Senate Democratic caucus that Holy Joe Lieberman can feel like a big man

Holy Joe (I-CT, center) is laughing because he's having the time of his life, and poor old John Warner (R-VA, right) is probably happy just to remember his name. Which leaves John Kerry (D-MA, left) -- why isn't he spitting in Holy Joe's face? Or giving him a wedgie? Or something?

"Granted anonymity, Senate Democrats whisper that Lieberman's day of reckoning could come next year if Obama wins the White House and Democrats expand their majority enough that they could risk his departure. Under that scenario, several suggested, his chairmanship would at least be contested."

--from Paul Kane's report in today's Washington Post, "Lieberman Savoring Life on Both Sides of the Aisle"

In his short time on the Washington Post political beat, Paul Kane has impressed me as a major upgrade from the paper's usual "go along to get along" flacks. So the milquetoast flavor of his update today on Joe Lieberman's standing among Senate Democrats has less to do, I think, with the usual infotainment-media indulgence toward Holy Joe than with the general stoogitude of His Holiness's Democratic colleagues, who should be treating him like the turncoat he is.

I mean, look at the most onerous foreboding the gutless wusses can conjure up, even under shield of anonymity, as quoted above. Why, if the Democrats pick up enough Senate seats in November, "Lieberman's day of reckoning could come next year." Why, "his [committee] chairmanship would at least be contested." Oh horror! Some far-left Democratic meanies might contest Holy Joe's chairmanship! I'll bet that's got the unprincipled turd shaking in his boots.

Otherwise, we learn that "Lieberman's outspoken advocacy for John McCain's GOP presidential candidacy crossed a line this week, prompting Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) to corral the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee into pointed face-to-face discussions." We hear whispers of a "grievance list some party regulars are compiling on Lieberman." There is, of course, the specter of Holy Joe doing a Zell Miller at the Republican National Convention. But mostly the Senate Dems, if they even think ill of the turncoat, stifle themselves.

Not so His Holiness:

"I'm going to do everything I can to help [McCranky] get elected. I'm going to do it my way," Lieberman said of McCain in an interview yesterday. "But there will be times when I'll comment, in fairness, on Senator Obama's positions."

"But"? "But"? What does he mean, "but"?

I'm going to do everything in my power to get McCranky elected, but there will be times when I rip the shit out of Senator Obama? Huh???

Officially, Senate Democrats still profess fear of losing Holy Joe's vote, thereby ceding control of the Senate to the Republicans. As if the Senate isn't already controlled by the Republicans?

The only meaningful change would be turning all those committee chairmanships back to the old gang of Bush rubber stamps. But at this point is there really any hope that any meaningful oversight can be achieved, even by as earnest an overseer as Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy? Is there any opening toward honest and accountable government going on anywhere in the Senate which the Republicans haven't already shut down?

The smug pus pile is clearly having the time of his life, feeling like a big shot.

He said "the post-2006 chapter of my life" has freed him from "tribal partisanship." . . .

"Being elected as an independent has encouraged me to do more what is right, rather than worrying about what it means politically in two years or four years," he said.

That has left him free to move from one end of the political spectrum to another, sometimes within a few minutes, joining conservatives on foreign policy votes and liberals on social issues. . . .

He said he will continue to "do what I think is right on each issue," regardless of the consequences next year within the Democratic caucus.

"I remain a Democrat for reasons of principle," he said. "I've been a lifelong Democrat, so I have no desire to leave the party."

The only bright note in the whole sorry mess -- unless you count Majority Leader Harry Reid saying, "We'll let the future decide what it's going to be, but I'm not about to threaten anybody at this point" (way to go out on a limb, Harry!) -- is the much-publicized skirmish this week between Senators Lieberman and Obama:

Obama took matters into his own hands on Wednesday when he made a rare appearance on the floor to vote for the Democratic budget bill. Lieberman sought out Obama, patted him on the back and shook his hand.

Obama guided Lieberman to a corner of the chamber, where for three minutes they engaged in an animated conversation that had other senators gawking. No voices were raised, but several times Obama gently put his hand on Lieberman's shoulder, and Lieberman more than once pointed his finger back at Obama.

When it ended, realizing that reporters were leaning over the balcony of the Senate press gallery to watch, Obama put his left arm around Lieberman and the two walked away, smiling.

Lieberman recounted that he began the conversation by telling Obama "I'm proud of you," but he declined to go into detail. "The rest was politics. It started warmly and it ended warmly," he said.

Obama declined to address the discussion, telling reporters Wednesday that it was just about "politics." But his most ardent supporters were happy he went straight after Lieberman.

"I think that was the way it should be -- talk it over with him in terms of what he's going to do and what his role's going to be," said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

I'd like to think Senator Obama's conversation may have been a tad more pointed than that, that he may in fact have been pointing out to the little weasel that he may be screwing around with the next president of the United States. And communicating that come January, it will all be remembered, and all taken personally.

#

There IS a dime's worth of difference between Dems and Rs. It's just that that's an AVERAGE. Sometimes it's a quarter, others barely a penny

Sweeties Cokie and Stevie--it's all in the family.

"For professional legislators like Lott, the toxic partisanship poisoning the capital today makes their job very difficult and dispiriting. Ideologues in both parties savage anyone who even hints at working with the rival camp. As Republican Sen. John Thune, Lott’s deputy, explained: 'He’s just sort of reached the end of the line in terms of what he can do here.'"
--America's Sweethearts, Cokie and Stevie Roberts, in their syndicated column today, "Lott's career shaped by willingness to compromise"

Poor Cokie Roberts is really taking it on the chin for this quote, which as far as I can tell appears only in this column written jointly with her sweetie Steve--or, as they're known professionally, "Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts."

Now if that's all America's Sweeties had to say about our Trent, they would be fair game for the ridicule that's been heaped on them, er, her. In fact, it's a highly professional, thoughtful, and balanced column, which says much worse things about the Trentman than most of the ridiculers probably knew, but also gives him his due. And one thing you did hear from Senate insiders when he gave way as Senate majority leader to America's Lifesaver, Doctorbill Frist, is that Trent, unlike Doctorbill, actually believed in getting things done, meaning that he understood the art of political compromise.

Contrary to what the ridiculers would have you believe, the Sweeties' column is actually quite solid; I encourage you to read it. True, it might have been nice if they'd qualified the huzzahs to our Trent's pragmatism with some recognition that his range of compromise narrowed considerably once the cabal of Cheney, Rove, and Bush was installed in the White House. But then, you can't have everything.

The Sweeties do note:

Lott is leaving for many reasons. At age 66, he knows that he has only a few years left to make money in the private sector. His sudden decision to quit, with four years left on his term, seems partly motivated by new ethics rules that make it harder for ex-lawmakers to lobby their former colleagues.

As a matter of fact, already last Wednesday Paul Kane posted this report on his washingtonpost.com blog, "Capitol Briefing":

Lott Courted By Senator-turned-lobbyist

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is a wanted man out on K Street, as he has many lobbying shops seeking to transform Lott into the first modern-era senator to quit midterm to shill for corporate clients.

And the man with the inside track to land Lott appears to be his old friend, former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) [left]. Breaux told Capitol Briefing in an interview today that he is planning a full-court press to bring Lott into his new lobbying shop once Lott retires next month. At that point Lott is officially allowed, under Senate ethics rules, to enter into serious contract talks with lobbying firms.

"I told him I wanted to be one of the first people to talk to him once he officially retires," Breaux said Wednesday afternoon in a telephone interview while he drove around his hometown of New Orleans. "I'd love to have him as part of my small group." . . .


Breaux announced today that he is leaving Patton Boggs, the lobbying firm where his old Cajun friend Tommy Boggs is in charge. Breaux and his son, John Breaux Jr., are forming their own lobby shop. He said he wanted to start such a firm with his son when he retired three years ago, but wasn't sure he knew enough about the private sector.

With his three-year contract at Patton Boggs expiring next month, Breaux is jumping ship and hopes his old friend Lott will join him. Back in 2004, as he prepared for retirement and after Lott had been ousted from GOP leadership, Breaux jokingly (and seriously) tried to coax Lott into starting a firm together then.

"I kept telling him he ought to retire," Breaux said.

Of course Senator Breaux was never what you would call DWT's kind of Democrat. Kane lays out some of the political and personal ties between him and our Trent:

The two started out as aides to House Democrats in the 1960s, and then got elected to the House in their own right in the 1970s. Once they joined the Senate in the 1980s, Lott and Breaux served on the Finance and Commerce committees together. In addition to their mutual southern charm, they both created legislative personas as go-to senators when it was time to cut a deal - which earned them some distrust on the left and right flanks of their caucuses.

But beyond the political ties, they share personal bonds no other lobbying firm or corporate association can match. Breaux and Lott raised their families across the street from each other in Annandale, Va. Lott's wife, Tricia, is the godmother to Breaux's youngest daughter. Their sons served as grooms in each other's weddings.

In fact, Breaux's vision has a family glow: himself and his old pal Trent lobbying together alongside their sons. (Young Chester Trent is currently a-lobbyin' his soul away in Kentucky.) You know, all in the family.

Speaking of sons, the aforementioned Tommy Boggs--of the aforementioned Patton Boggs lobbying firm--is more properly known as Thomas Hale Boggs Jr. (right), the son of onetime Democratic House Majority Leader Hale Boggs and former Rep. Lindy Boggs, who represented their Louisiana district for 18 years after her husband was presumed killed in an airplane crash.

Which makes Tommy the brother of none other than Sweetie Cokie, er, Cokie Boggs Roberts. Like we said, it's all in the family.

#