Beware the lame ducks

[driveby]

Barack Obama’s considerable political capital, earned on Election Day 2008, is spent. Well spent, mind you, on the enactment of a highly ideological agenda of Obamacare, financial reform, and a near trillion-dollar stimulus that will significantly transform the country. But spent nonetheless. There’s nothing left with which to complete his social-democratic ambitions. This would have to await the renewed mandate that would come with a second inaugural.

 

That’s why, as I suggested last week, nothing of major legislative consequence is likely to occur for the next two-and-a-half years. Except, as columnist Irwin Stelzer points out, for one constitutional loophole: a lame-duck Congress called back into session between the elections this November and the swearing-in of the 112th Congress next January.

 

Leading Democrats are already considering this as a way to achieve even more liberal measures that many of their members dare not even talk about, let alone enact, on the eve of an election in which they face widespread backlash to the already enacted elements of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda.

 

That backlash will express itself on Election Day and result, as most Democrats and Republicans currently expect, in major Democratic losses. It is still possible for the gaffe-happy Republicans to blow it. When the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee publicly apologizes to the corporation that unleashed the worst oil spill in American history, you know the Republicans are capable of just about anything.

 

But assuming the elections go as currently projected, Obama’s follow-on reforms are dead. Except for the fact that a lame-duck session, freezing in place the lopsided Democratic majorities of November 2008, would be populated by dozens of Democratic members who had lost reelection (in addition to those retiring). They could then vote for anything — including measures they today shun as the midterms approach and their seats are threatened — because they would have nothing to lose. They would be unemployed. And playing along with Obama might even brighten the prospects for, say, an ambassadorship to a sunny Caribbean isle.

 

As John Fund reports in the Wall Street Journal, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, and Tom Harkin are already looking forward to what they might get passed in a lame-duck session. Among the major items being considered are card check, budget-balancing through major tax hikes, and climate-change legislation involving heavy carbon taxes and regulation.

 

Card check, which effectively abolishes the secret ballot in the workplace, is the fondest wish of a union movement to which Obama is highly beholden. Major tax hikes, possibly including a value-added tax, will undoubtedly be included in the recommendations of the president’s debt commission, which conveniently reports by December 1 — after the election. And carbon taxes would be the newest version of the cap-and-trade legislation that has repeatedly failed to pass the current Congress — but enough dead men walking in a lame-duck session might switch and vote to put it over the top.

 

It’s a target-rich environment. The only thing holding the Democrats back would be shame — a Washington commodity in chronically short supply. To pass in a lame-duck session major legislation so unpopular that Democrats had no chance of passing it in regular session — after major Democratic losses signifying a withdrawal of the mandate implicitly granted in 2008 — would be an egregious violation of elementary democratic norms.

 

Perhaps shame will constrain the Democrats. But that is not to be counted on. It didn’t stop them from pushing through health-care reform the public didn’t want by means of “reconciliation” maneuvers and without a single Republican vote in either chamber — something unprecedented in American history for a reform of such scope and magnitude.

 

How then to prevent a runaway lame-duck Congress? Bring the issue up now — applying the check-and-balance of the people’s will before it disappears the morning after Election Day. Every current member should be publicly asked: In the event you lose in November — a remote and deeply deplorable eventuality, but still not inconceivable — do you pledge to adhere to the will of the electorate and, in any lame-duck session of Congress, refuse to approve anything but the most routine legislation required to keep the government functioning?

 

The Democrats could, of course, make the pledge today and break it tomorrow. Call me naïve, but I can’t believe anyone would be that dishonorable.

 

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010, the Washington Post Writers Group.

[lennykravitz2004]

My Dad always told me to watch out for the Fumb Ducks. Any relation to the lame ones?

[Ursa Majoris]

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist piece of crap. © 2010, the Washington Post Writers Group.

Fixed

[polksalet]

Fixed

 

anti-semite

[Ursa Majoris]

anti-semite

Wouldn't make any difference if he was green with an antenna on his head. He's gone from warmonger under Bush to peacenik under Obama. He's like some of those on here - everything he says is anti-Obama regardless of what it is and whether Krauthammer used to support that position.

[Pope Flick]

Wouldn't make any difference if he was green with an antenna on his head. He's gone from warmonger under Bush to peacenik under Obama. He's like some of those on here - everything he says is anti-Obama regardless of what it is and whether Krauthammer used to support that position.

 

 

 

I especially like the part about 'public didn't want' health insurance from the guy who ran HARD on it and won by nearly 10 points. Great revisionism at work there.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Pope Flick

[polksalet]

White national socialists persecuting a capitalistic Jew. I'm not sure but isn't there some historical precedent for this type of activity?

[Ursa Majoris]

White national socialists persecuting a capitalistic Jew. I'm not sure but isn't there some historical precedent for this type of activity?

You're completely

[Savage Beatings]

Lame Duck? I'm sorry but the mid-term elections have not occurred yet and people are counting way too many chickens before they hatch. Obama still has his enforcers on staff making sure that the right people end up on the right side of the fence on close votes, and the Dems still control the House and the Senate (by a lot). He will definitely try to get a lot more done, and he will be sucessful in some of those pursuits.

[bpwallace49]

"Runaway lame duck"? wow.

 

As if the Republicans havent already decided since day one to not participate in goverance as soon as Obama was elected . . .

[caddyman]

"Runaway lame duck"? wow.

 

As if the Republicans havent already decided since day one to not participate in goverance as soon as Obama was elected . . .

Wow...for a guy who tells everyone how smart he is on a daily basis...you sure say the dumbest things. No wonder you are laughing out loud. Something as stupid as your post can only make you laugh.

[bpwallace49]

Wow...for a guy who tells everyone how smart he is on a daily basis...you sure say the dumbest things. No wonder you are laughing out loud. Something as stupid as your post can only make you laugh.

 

Zeke . . where I do tell people how smart I am? Here is an apt article that explains it. Try to pay extra close attention to the bolded parts.

 

The costs and benefits of the Republican strategy on health-care reform

 

 

David Frum's post lambasting the Republicans for their unyielding obstructionism has been getting linked around, and for good reason. Whether you think it's right in the sense that Republicans should indeed have done something different, it's undoubtedly right in the sense that this was one of the central dynamics in the health-care debate:

 

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

 

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

 

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

 

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

 

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

 

 

But you have to balance that against something Mitch McConnell has said: "What I tried to do and what John [boehner] did very skillfully, as well, was to unify our members in opposition to it. Had we not done that, I don't think the public would have been as appalled as they became over the fact that the government was now running banks, insurance companies, car companies, taking over the student-loan business, which they're going to try to do in this health care bill, and taking over one-sixth of the economy. Public opinion can change, but it is affected by what elected officials do."

 

Put simply, if Republicans had worked with Democrats on health-care reform, the bill would not have been as unpopular. There was a zero-sum game between the politics and the policy. The strategy to make a moderate bill look like an extreme document relied on the optics of total Republican opposition coloring perceptions of the underlying legislation. Any move to exchange Republican votes for legislative concessions would have undercut the political case against the bill.

 

The normal way Republicans square that circle is that they're successful in blocking the legislation. Then it doesn't matter if the bill didn't include their ideas. But that strategy was disrupted by the 60 votes Democrats temporarily wielded. Happily for them, that didn't mean the bill became a more liberal document: As it turned out, conservative Democrats were willing to do a lot of the Republicans' policy work for them: They removed the public option and cut down the subsidies and killed the employer mandate. And the administration began with a proposal that was broadly centrist anyway. So though Republicans convinced themselves they hated this bill, most of their specific concerns were addressed. Their remaining arguments were largely wrong (it's a government takeover!) or disingenuous (it makes modest cuts in Medicare!).

 

Going forward, though, I doubt you'll see much cooperation on issue so long the odds remain on the side of obstructionism and inaction. For the minority party, opposing and killing the majority's initiatives is always the first-best political outcome. If the rules that make that a likely outcome are dismantled, then they're left with ineffective obstructionism, and I wonder how long their constituents and interest group supporters will tolerate that strategy.

[caddyman]

Zeke . . where I do tell people how smart I am? Here is an apt article that explains it. Try to pay extra close attention to the bolded parts.

You tell us every day how smart you think you are with your comments. I should not even have responded to that, because you know what an arrogant person you are. You did not need me to tell you that.

[bpwallace49]

You tell us every day how smart you think you are with your comments. I should not even have responded to that, because you know what an arrogant person you are. You did not need me to tell you that.

 

Thanks for checking in Zeke . . .

[caddyman]

Thanks for checking in Zeke . . .

See what I mean...you crack me up. As for your article, for every David Frum article you post, I can show you ten Dick Morris articles that say the opposite.

[bpwallace49]

See what I mean...you crack me up. As for your article, for every David Frum article you post, I can show you ten Dick Morris articles that say the opposite.

 

Including quotes from the Republicans themselves that allude to that political strategy?

 

That is what I dont think you get here Zeke . . it is a strategy they (and the Dems) have used before. Attempting to make every move seem hyper partisan by complete and total opposition to what the majority does, cause they care more about the next election cycle than the actual legislative outcome.

 

And it it is proof you have reading issues as it ISNT a Frum article, it just quotes him , , , , again . . thanks for checking in!

[caddyman]

Including quotes from the Republicans themselves that allude to that political strategy?

 

That is what I dont think you get here Zeke . . it is a strategy they (and the Dems) have used before. Attempting to make every move seem hyper partisan by complete and total opposition to what the majority does, cause they care more about the next election cycle than the actual legislative outcome.

 

And it it is proof you have reading issues as it ISNT a Frum article, it just quotes him , , , , again . . thanks for checking in!

You are hilarious. First, why did you not post the sorce of the article. Maybe because it was from a liberal blogger? Ezra freaking Klein? Second David Frum does not in any way speak for the republican party just as Dick Morris does not speak for the dems.

[tosberg34]

Including quotes from the Republicans themselves that allude to that political strategy?

 

That is what I dont think you get here Zeke . . it is a strategy they (and the Dems) have used before. Attempting to make every move seem hyper partisan by complete and total opposition to what the majority does, cause they care more about the next election cycle than the actual legislative outcome.

 

And it it is proof you have reading issues as it ISNT a Frum article, it just quotes him , , , , again . . thanks for checking in!

 

Okay, so what's your point? That everyone should just cave in to Obama? Because he's got your best interests in mind? Why always ripping on conservatives? I rarely see you ever go after dems.

Edited July 24, 2010 by tosberg34

[bpwallace49]

Okay, so what's your point? That everyone should just cave in to Obama? Because he's got your best interests in mind? Why always ripping on conservatives? I rarely see you ever go after dems.

 

Did you even read the message that you quoted? It goes BOTH ways and has been used by BOTH parties to slow any legislative process down to try and stall until the next election cycle. Nothing partisan here, just the usual American politics . . . why are you so sensitive about this? The Republicans have ADMITTED to using this political strategy! Are you denying what they have said on the record, or just dont want to come to terms that it is happening?

 

Why does every Republican simply refuse to acknowledge that is is happening? Is is THAT difficult to examine your party objectively? (conservatives are different, and can separate parties from issues, Republicans (and Democrats) just toe the party line no matter what tossbergcaddyman)

 

Just business as usual in scummy American politics . . .

[tazinib1]

Just business as usual in scummy American politics . . .

 

[bpwallace49]

You are hilarious. First, why did you not post the sorce of the article. Maybe because it was from a liberal blogger? Ezra freaking Klein? Second David Frum does not in any way speak for the republican party just as Dick Morris does not speak for the dems.

 

Mitch McConnell has said: "What I tried to do and what John [boehner] did very skillfully, as well, was to unify our members in opposition to it. Had we not done that, I don't think the public would have been as appalled as they became over the fact that the government was now running banks, insurance companies, car companies, taking over the student-loan business, which they're going to try to do in this health care bill, and taking over one-sixth of the economy. Public opinion can change, but it is affected by what elected officials do."

 

Exact quote from Mitch McConnell . . does he speak for the Republicans Zeke?

 

Dont be so sensitive . . it is, and has been going on for some time. It is playing on public perception and preparing for the next election cycle.

[caddyman]

Did you even read the message that you quoted? It goes BOTH ways and has been used by BOTH parties to slow any legislative process down to try and stall until the next election cycle. Nothing partisan here, just the usual American politics . . . why are you so sensitive about this? The Republicans have ADMITTED to using this political strategy! Are you denying what they have said on the record, or just dont want to come to terms that it is happening?

 

Why does every Republican simply refuse to acknowledge that is is happening? Is is THAT difficult to examine your party objectively? (conservatives are different, and can separate parties from issues, Republicans (and Democrats) just toe the party line no matter what tossbergcaddyman)

 

Just business as usual in scummy American politics . . .

"Runaway lame duck"? wow.

 

As if the Republicans havent already decided since day one to not participate in goverance as soon as Obama was elected . . .

Above is your original post...please point out to me where you are saying that both parties do this. Let me save you some time there bus boy...you did not. Every time you get backed into a corner about your hatred for the right, you try and say that both sides do it. The only probelm with this is that you NEVER start threads or reply to threads supporting the right. It is only when you are cold busted for being the limp wristed lib puke that you are that you start to try and chnge the argument to...they both do it. Weak bus boy...weak.

[bpwallace49]

"Runaway lame duck"? wow.

 

As if the Republicans havent already decided since day one to not participate in goverance as soon as Obama was elected . . .

Above is your original post...please point out to me where you are saying that both parties do this. Let me save you some time there bus boy...you did not. Every time you get backed into a corner about your hatred for the right, you try and say that both sides do it. The only probelm with this is that you NEVER start threads or reply to threads supporting the right. It is only when you are cold busted for being the limp wristed lib puke that you are that you start to try and chnge the argument to...they both do it. Weak bus boy...weak.

 

The first quote is FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE zeke . . .

 

I should know better to try and get in an arguemnt with an idiot like yourself. You are a prime example of why poltical threads get gunned . . .

 

maybe you should try a new alias . . what was the first one where you got called out for lying about the military again?

[caddyman]

The first quote is FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE zeke . . .

 

I should know better to try and get in an arguemnt with an idiot like yourself. You are a prime example of why poltical threads get gunned . . .

 

maybe you should try a new alias . . what was the first one where you got called out for lying about the military again?

Nice try loser....whatever I did does not change the fact that you are a punk liberal. Have a nice day busing tables BPHOMO!

[bpwallace49]

Nice try loser....whatever I did does not change the fact that you are a punk liberal. Have a nice day busing tables BPHOMO!

 

Kiddo you are hilarious . . . .