Kitzhaber resigns!

This morning, Governor John Kitzhaber, just a month into an historic fourth term, announced his intention to resign the governorship effective Wednesday, February 18th. The governor will be succeeded by Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown.

The resignation comes as allegations of misuse of state resources and influence plague the governor's office. Allegedly, Kitzhaber's fiancee, Cylvia Hayes, used state resources to promote her own private consulting firm. Ms. Hayes is also under federal investigation for under-reporting her income on federal tax returns. The governor himself may have directed state employees to implement policies that directly benefited Ms. Hayes' interests.

Yesterday, Willamette Week reported that the governor's office attempted to destroy private emails on a state server, raising suspicion of a cover up and perhaps even violating state law.

As political scandals go, this one is pretty innocuous, especially when compared to some of the scandals that have brought down governors of some of our sister states. (Rob Blagojevich, anyone?)

But in Oregon our politics are clean. And we like it that way.

So, today, the governor raised the white flag.

This is a sad day for Oregon and a major disappointment for me, personally.

To say I've been a supporter is to state the obvious. I first voted for John Kitzhaber when he ran against Denny Smith for the governorship in 1994. I voted for him again, when he ran for reelection in 1998.

When he ran for an unprecedented third (non-consecutive) term in 2008, not only did I vote for him, but I volunteered for his campaign and worked hard to help get him elected. And just last fall, I cast a final vote for him, even as the allegations that would become his undoing first surfaced.

Well, here we are.

Responsibility, of course, falls squarely on Kitzhaber's shoulders. At the very least, the allegations reveal a lack of judgment unbecoming for the governor of this great state. Well, he certainly isn't the first leader to fall victim to hubris.

I wonder... could some of this been avoided, or at least mitigated, if the Republican party in Oregon were not in such a sorry state?  Oregon's GOP is a laughing stock. The last four Republican gubernatorial candidates included two Tea Party radicals, a retired professional basketball player, and Kevin Mannix, a man with his own special brand of crazy. Responsible, civic-minded citizens simply could not vote for any of them.

When the opposition party is that weak, it's bad for everyone. For legitimate, sane conservatives there is no one to represent their interests. And it allows Democrats to operate under the illusion that they are invulnerable.

(It wasn't always this way. The GOP dominated Oregon state politics in the 70s and 80s. I actually voted for a few. I voted for Governor Vic Atiyeh when he ran for reelection in 1982. In 1986, I voted for Norma Paulus in her losing effort against Neil Goldschmidt.)

Well, Oregonians, let's try to find the silver lining in this mess. As a Democrat, I can take relief in the fact that Democrats still control both houses of the state legislature, and soon-to-be governor Kate Brown is a Democrat as well.

But what would be best for Oregon would be for the Republicans to use this opportunity to rebrand themselves, to make themselves into a responsible party. You know? A party that people like me might actually be able to vote for?

Let it go, Anthony

Congressman Weiner, do you mind if I call you "Anthony?"

Never mind.  I'm gonna call you "Anthony."

This is all you, Anthony.  You blew it, buddy.  You got no one to blame but yourself. 

Dude!  There's no such thing as privacy nowadays.  Any fool knows that. 

Don't think I'm getting all holier-than-thou, either.  So you posted some naughty pictures and engaged in some saucy talk with some women who weren't your wife.  It's sleazy.  It's juvenile.

But sometimes men do sleazy, juvenile things.  Sometimes we do stupid things that we know are stupid even when we do them.  Sometimes we tell ourselves "This is not going to end well," and then we do something stupid anyway.  Don't ask me why, dude!  It's what we do.  I don't know why.

But part of the deal, part of the bargain we make with fate, is that when we do stupid things, we're willing to accept the consequences if it all goes to sh*t.

Well, Anthony, my friend, it's all gone to sh*t.  I think you should resign.

Don't get me wrong.  I'd  miss you, Anthony.  I really like your feistiness and your bombast.  I love the way you let the Republicans have it.  Like this time when you told fear-monger Peter King to sit down.



But, buddy, when it's time, it's time.

You got no friends, Anthony.  Nancy Pelosi is calling for an Ethics Committee investigation.  She has no choice.  You know that. And, buddy, I know it burns like fire that it's that Breitbart assh*le who got you. Part of the price of doing stupid things, buddy.

Look at the bright side.  If you can save your marriage (which, by the way, I'd advise should be your first priority) you can still come out of this alright.  A media-savvy guy like you can make a mint working the cable talkie circuit.  Look at Eliott Spitzer!  He's doin' alright.  I know it's not the same as being a congressman or the Mayor of New York City but, Anthony, you did that stupid thing you did. 

And even though you got caught with your pants down, at least you weren't a "family values" hypocrite like Vitter the Sh*tter, or Larry Craig, or John Ensign.  You got that goin' for you.

You know, your constituents probably would have forgiven you for the naughty pictures.  But the lying, Anthony... the lying.  People don't like it when you look them in the eye and lie to them.

Think about this:  every day you spend twisting in the wind provides a smokescreen for Republicans who are even now working their black magic in the debt ceiling negotiations.  You don't want to help them, do you?

Do me a favor and go now, will you, Anthony?  I promise I'll watch your show.

Pete DeFazio calls bullsh*t on Obama's tax deal

Someone tell me why I didn't vote for Pete DeFazio when he ran against Ron Wyden to be the Democratic nominee for US Senate back in 1996.  What a mistake that turned out to be!  If Pete DeFazio were in the US Senate right now, President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would be up sh*t creek.

But Pete DeFazio isn't in the Senate.  He's in the House.  And they don't have a filibuster in the House.  So, even though DeFazio led a revolt in the House of Representatives against the Obama-McConnell tax deal, it doesn't make any difference that nearly the entire Democratic caucus joined him.  (You can read about it here.) 

This was, as DeFazio himself knows, a symbolic vote.  The tax deal is destined for passage no matter what DeFazio or Barney Frank (MA) or Anthony Wiener (NY) or Chris Van Hollen (MD) want.  Nancy Pelosi, legendary vote-getter that she is, will get the bill through the House.

That's the sad fact of the matter.   

But I salute Representative DeFazio.  He is, by far, the most respected of Oregon's Congressional delegation among the people I know.  And most of the people I hang out with are true-hearted Oregonians.

Democrats and Republicans share the doghouse

Professional pundits and casual political observers all agree:  this is a bad year to be an incumbent.  Pollsters predict a "wave" election, sweeping out establishment candidates, bringing in a new slate of congresspersons. 

Ostensibly, this is bad news for Democrats.  After all, with their vast majorities in both houses of Congress, they have more seats to defend and are therefore more likely to bear the brunt of voter anger in November.

But, at this point, the only certainty is that the Republican establishment is discredited and despised.  It is true that voters despise Democrats, who have a pathetic approval rating of  30% according to a CBS News/NYT Poll.  However, the same poll indicates that Republicans, with their 20% approval rating, are even more despised.

The elections this year have certainly made clear that Republican primary voters (which, presumably consist of a good number of tea-baggers) detest so-called "establishment" Republicans.  This year, "mainstream" Republican have been crushed.  Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, Trey Grayson of Kentucky, Governor Charlie Crist of Florida, and other Republicans have been rejected by angry tea-baggers.  So, while it is clear that, although the tea-baggers certainly hate Democrats and President Obama, it is also clear that they hate Republicans.  Or, at least, they hate incumbent Republicans.  (But, then again, so do I.)

So, while the tea-baggers have succeeded in weakening the structure of the Republican party by discrediting some of its long-bearded panjandrums, they have yet to prove themselves capable of winning in general elections. 

Odds are that a number of the tea-bag candidates will win in November, in this year of voter discontent, with unemployment near 10%. I'm almost resigned to it.  And, in spite of it, I'm relatively buoyant about the future.

Here's why:  If this does turn out to be a "wave" election, it will be the third such consecutive election, dating back to 2006. In that year, Democrats swept the Junior Bush Republicans out of office.  Then, in 2008, voters again punished Republicans, smothering them in the Obama coattails and affording the Democrats with huge majorities in both houses of Congress.

My prediction is that, if Republicans are swept into majorities this year, 2012 will be another "wave" election.  The candidates that Republicans are selecting in the primaries are ideological purists, who will be unable to compromise with the Obama administration and with Democrats.  This will result in paralysis of the federal government, which the president, with his bully pulpit can exploit to discredit them.

So-called "swing" voters are fed up and they will generally vote to oust incumbents.  Their votes will not be for tea-bagger candidates so much as they will be against the status quo.  But when the insanity and ignorance of the tea-bag movement is on display in the national venue, people will very quickly wake up.

Six weeks from now, Democrats may well take a drubbing.  They've earned it.  But the real losers, in the long run, will be Republicans.

Dead duck Democrats

All the punditry and pollsters seem to agree that Democrats are going to be slaughtered in the coming mid-term elections. I can't say I would be surprised to see it happen.

Further, in spite of their huge legislative successes (Federal stimulus, national health care, credit card reforms, financial reform), the Democrats deserve to lose. From my perspective, the Democrats lacked the courage to do what was really necessary. They didn't do enough to satisfy the true-believers (like me), but did more than enough (in spite of a cowardly attempt at appeasement) to infuriate the Glenn Beck-tormented tea-baggers. Some things may be forgiven when you consider that Democrats have the burden of being a coalition of different interests: diverse, often at odds with each other. But, whatever may happen this November, the Democrats have definitely earned a comeuppance.

However, if the Democrats deserve to lose, it does not follow that the Republicans deserve to win. The one meager virtue Democrats have is that they are not Republicans. Despite Minority Leader Boehner's feeble grab at the helm, the Republican party is coming apart. Any gains they make in November will, I believe, prove to be short-lived. And with long term demographic trends very much against them, I believe they are doomed. I've said it before, and I say it now: The Confederacy may, at long last, have succeeded in destroying the party of their archenemy, Abraham Lincoln.

If Democrats have been cowardly (and they certainly have), Republicans have been even worse:  going along with the bigoted ravings of the only demographic that still believes in them.  (There are a few notable exceptions.  I about lost my cookies when I heard the other day that Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) defended the right of Muslims in New York City to build their cultural center.  Really?  Orrin Hatch?)

Well, I'm still holding out hope, however meager, that Republican gains will be less than expected.  It is hard to imagine that President Obama would view  a Republican-controlled House of Representatives as a positive development.  But if President Obama, with his cool, detached demeanor wants to stay above the fray, feels it is safer to stand back and let it all come down, in spite of the zeal with which the political Left supported him in 2008, so be it.

In summary, my lefty comrades, if Obama isn't going to fight for us, perhaps we need to swallow hard, and start all over.

Let us see what November will reveal.

Senators in the doghouse

 You guys suck!

In the old days, the pagan priests would kill a goat or a pig or a fatted calf and study its entrails.  From the pattern of the blood spattered on the altar, or from the contents of the intestines, or from the condition of some other of the grizzly components, they would proclaim omens, would forecast good or bad times.  Did they really have some channel to the supernatural that allowed them to see the future?  Or was it a lot of hooey?

Who knows?  Who cares?

The media punditry are all obsessing over the results of yesterday's primary election results in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Arkansas.

Lots of things happened yesterday.  In Arkansas, incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln, a "conservative" Democrat, failed to win 50% of the vote and so faces a run-off with her primary challenger, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter.  In Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter was defeated in that primary election by Representative Joe Sestak, a retired admiral of the US Navy.  Then, in Kentucky, Republican primary voters nominated tea-bagger favorite, Rand Paul, passing over Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

The punditry has not yet developed a conventional wisdom about the portentive significance of these results.  Some say it is a rebuke of President Obama, who supported Senators Lincoln and Specter.  Some say it is a rebuke of national Republicans, since Rand Paul defeated the hand-picked golden boy of everybody's favorite cadaver, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Well, as I take a gander at the election results, I see something different.  Incumbent senators and their hand-picked drones are being rejected at the polls.  Don't forget that Utah Republicans also rejected Senator Robert Bennett a week earlier.  Don't forget that Mad Johnny McCain is having to actually break a sweat in his primary.  In Nevada, Senator Harry Reid is fighting for his own political life!

Hearken back to the interminable, agonizing health care reform debate that recently concluded with the passage of (supposedly) landmark legislation.  That debate highlighted the workings of the US Senate in all their obscene detail:  filibusters, sweetheart deals, threats and bullying, betrayal, false promises.  Every prima donna senator had his or her moment to shine, offering or threatening to withhold support for the legislation, exacting as much power, leverage, and pork as possible.  It was a disgusting display.

Or consider the nomination process currently underway for Elena Kagan in her quest to replace Justice John Paul Stevens.  She is even now dutifully paying homage to those senators who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Why?  Her confirmation is a foregone conclusion.  Her confirmation hearings will merely provide national attention for the preening, self-important clowns who love nothing so much as to hear themselves talk.  Shameless grandstanding, people.  Shameless grandstanding.

I think people are expressing disgust, not specifically at Democrats, nor Republicans, nor President Obama, but at the US Senate!  Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter were challenged from the political left.  Grayson, Bennett, and McCain were (and are) being challenged from the political right.  I think the behavior of the US Senate may have forged a national unity of sorts!

On the other hand, maybe I'm full of sh*t.  It wouldn't be the first time.  But, what the hell?  I'm just as likely to guess correctly as any of those schmoes on the cable news channels. 

(Oregon, looks like we're being slighted again.  Nobody seems to care the we had a primary yesterday.  I guess all those pundits need their sleep, and covering Oregon would require that they stay up past their bedtimes.  We're better off for it, in my opinion.)

Dennis Kucinich: the Man of the Hour

Well, well, well...

Ain't it funny how things change?  With the fate of President Obama's health care reform efforts (and, in fact, the fate of his presidency) hanging in the balance, guess who is all of a sudden back on the political radar.  That's right:  the champion of progressives nationwide, a man of integrity, and my first choice for president in the 2008 election, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich.

Yesterday, the President graciously invited Representative Kucinich aboard Air Force One for a short hop up to Cleveland where the President held a rally in support of the health care reform package now before the House of Representatives.  One must imagine that there was some rather vigorous arm-twisting during that flight.  After all, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi need every single vote they can get if they're going to pass the bill through the House and onto the President's desk.  And Representative Kucinich voted against a version of the bill that passed the House late last year, protesting that it didn't go far enough. 

But whatever carrot-and-stick combination President Obama employed, it didn't work.  Representative Kucinich who, in addition to representing Ohio's 10th Congressional District, is the nominal head of the progressive (or liberal, if you prefer) wing of the Democratic Party has announced that he will vote "nay" on the legislation.

As a progressive, I find this moment delicious.  After getting the back-of-the-hand treatment from the President and from Stinky Joe and Ben and from the Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress, progressives find them all creeping back, hats in hands, because they need something.  All of a sudden, progressives matter again.

So, Mr. President, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, as you flounder around and try to salvage your political careers, I'd just like to remind you about how flippant and dismissive you were when progressives raised their concerns early on in the debate.  Remember how you took a single-payer solution off the table right at the start?  Remember how Rahm Emanuel referred to us as "f*cking retarded?"  Remember how you, Mr. President, couldn't even muster lukewarm support for the public option, which you claimed to support during the 2008 presidential campaign?

I can't say I hope you fail.  I hate the Grand Old Party so much that anything that is perceived as a victory for them is bad, by definition.  So, go ahead and continue your arm-twisting and groveling.  But, maybe you should go suck up to all those Blue Dogs and conservative Democrats that you treated so royally.  Get them to do your bidding.

Representative Kucinich is doing an admirable job of representing me in this debate.  If he says "nay," well, I say "nay" as well.

Good luck, Mr. President.  If you get through this, maybe you'll remember next time.

Update:  Apparently, President Obama is a better arm-twister than I imagined.  Representative Kucinich announced on Wednesday morning that he will, in fact, vote "yea" on the health care bill.  Well, since I do trust Representative Kucinich, I am willing to extend my support as well.  So, let's get this health care bill passed, and then improve it with reconciliation.  If the Senate betrays us... well, at least the masks will be removed.

P*ssed off Democrat

Phone rings.

Dade:  Hello.

DCCC rep:  Dade?

Dade:  This is he.

DCCC rep:  Hi, Dade.  My name is [name withheld] and I'm calling on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.  May I continue?

Dade:  Sure.

DCCC rep:  Well, Dade, as you know, this is an election year and we've got a fight on our hands.  The Republicans are hoping to make substantial gains in their caucuses this year and with the recent Supreme Court decision that will open the floodgates to private funding of elections they'll have a lot of resources at their disposal.  And, as you also know, if the Republicans do succeed in winning a majority in either house of Congress, President Obama will become a lame duck president.  And that will put him at a disadvantage for the 2012 national election.

Dade:  Yes, I'm aware of all that.

DCCC rep:  Well, here at the DCCC we're trying to educate people about the stakes of this year's election through the use of the internet, phone banking, and grass-roots organizing.  We know these methods are effective, but they're costly.  So we're asking supporters to help us, if they can.  Right now, we're suggesting a donation of $100.  Your money would be used to...

Dade:  My turn to talk.

DCCC rep:  Alright, go ahead.

Dade:  First off, I'm not holding this against you, personally.  But you can tell your office organizer that I'm pissed off.  (Pardon my language.)  I'm pissed off that the Democrats took the single-payer health care plan off the table before the debate even started.  I'm pissed off that there have been no investigations into the crimes of the Bush administration.  I'm pissed off that Dick Cheney is not facing a special prosecutor.  I gave money to the DCCC in 2008 and we won huge majorities in both houses.  And I got nothing for it.  These guys do nothing but make excuses about why they can't do anything, and yet they rolled over for every piece of garbage that the Republicans rammed down our throats when Junior was in charge.

DCCC rep:  Hey, listen, I'm pissed off, too.  In fact, I'm not even a Democrat.  I'm an independent.

Dade:  Then you know where I'm coming from.  Listen, you can tell Mr. Van Hollen that he is free to call me between now and the election, 'cause I sure as hell don't want the Republicans taking over.  But I'm going to need to see some results before I send any money.

DCCC rep (chuckling): Well, I can't say I disagree.  Alright, Dade.  Thanks for your time, anyway.

Dade:  Take care, my friend.

Evan Bayh bites the Big One

What a loser!

Yesterday, out of the blue, Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, from Indiana announced that he will not seek reelection this year. Quoth he:  "I love working for the people of Indiana. I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress."

Sniff.  Poor guy.

But the announcement is a big shocker, certainly.  Bayh was heavily favored to whack his Republican challengers, even in Indiana which, apart from the anomaly of the 2008 presidential election, is generally considered a red state.  Bayh had a 13 million dollar war chest, the power of incumbency, and good approval ratings.

Speculation about his motives has the punditry all atwitter.  Some, like my conservative friend, Kate, over at blatheringsblog, have suggested that Bayh's move may have come about because of some issues around the  high-priced lobbying career of the Senator's wife, Susan.  Others have keyed off Senator Bayh's use of the word "executive" in one of his recent remarks.  Specifically, he said, "I'm an executive at heart."  This has led to speculation that the Senator may be eying his old job as governor of Indiana.  Or, perhaps even, planning a run for president, planning a primary challenge against President Obama!

Time will tell.  But my own postulate is that Senator Bayh got frozen out of the political leadership in the Senate.  Recall that Bayh made a bid to elbow his way into the Senate leadership by announcing a coalition of "moderate" Democrats back in March of last year.  Well, we haven't heard much about that so-called Moderate Dems Working Group since that time, even with all the wrangling that has occurred during the health care debate.  That, to me, means that Bayh failed in his bid to become a power player in the Senate.

If current trends hold, the Democrats will probably lose that Senate seat.  Bayh made his announcement with only two days to go before the filing deadline for candidates, leaving Indiana Democrats scrambling.  Interesting timing that seems to point to petulance on a scale heretofore reserved for Stinky Joe Lieberman. 

Republicans should certainly be happy about this development.  And, of course, they'll over-play it.  That's what they do.  Democrats will undoubtedly add this to their long list of reasons they can't do anything.

Meanwhile, the country continues its general drift toward the sh*tter.  Thanks very much, to all of you:  Democrats and Republicans alike!

Bustin' the Democrats in the chops

You get what you deserve, Democrats!

The political set is all aflutter today at what some are terming a potential "Upset of the Century."  I'm speaking of the voter rejection of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in her bid to fill the state's US Senate seat brought about by the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy late last year.  As of this writing, the polls in Massachusetts are still open, but the speculation is that Republican Scott Brown will win in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3 to 1 margin!

Personally, I take grim satisfaction from the prospect.  As I survey the performance of the 111th Congress under the control of the Democrats, and most especially the pompous and politically-tone deaf US Senate, it seems clear as day that Democrats interpreted their historic victories in 2006 and 2008 in the traditional way:  as a routine changing of the guard.  Republicans out.  Democrats in.  Back to business as usual.

Well, here's your wake-up call, dumb asses!  Democrats had better figure out that people outside the Washington Beltway are pissed off.

If Coakley loses, the Democrats will be served a harsh lesson with the death of their big-acorns-small-oaks health care legislation.  Candidate Brown has already vowed to vote against cloture, making the bill susceptible to Republican filibuster.  I won't shed too many tears over this one.  The half-assed health care reform proposal put forth by the Senate is an open-mouthed kiss to health care insurance providers.  The ideal, cost-saving solution, which the voting public supports by an overwhelming margin is a single-payer health care plan.  But Mopey Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson simply could not abide it.  (Is it just coincidence that they also represent the two states whose primary industry is the legalized extortion we call "insurance?")

Coakley, herself, typifies the insufferable attitude of Democrats in their assumption of entitlement.  Reports are that she disdained the idea of braving Massachusetts cold weather to shake hands with voters at Fenway Park.  She apparently deluded herself into assuming that Senator Kennedy's seat was hers by right.  So, if she loses, it serves her right.

And President Obama, who flew to Massachusetts on Sunday to rally Democrats in a last ditch attempt to save the seat, gets dealt a stern and important lesson, too.  I speculate that, had the President spent the last year aggressively pushing for a progressive health care solution, with a real public option, this Senate seat would be locked up for Coakley or whichever Democrat may have run.  This is Massachusetts, after all.  But instead, he chose to play it nonchalant.  Let the Senate work things out for itself.  Well, Mr. President, that's not why I voted for you.  Whatever happened to "Change has come to America?"

Tea-baggers will be crowing to beat the band if Brown wins.  And that's fine.  I still don't believe that most Americans espouse the vision that these demented reactionaries offer.  But we'll see.

The main achievement in this election is that Democrats have been sent a strong, harsh message.  Do they have the good sense to interpret it correctly?  I'm not overly confident on that score.

But, just last night, a canvasser came to my house to tell me about a new idea called "fusion voting" that is being proposed for Oregon elections.  Her organization is called the Working Families Party.  My disgust at the Democrats is such that I changed my voter registration on the spot.  I'm now a member of the Working Families Party.

I'll post about this new movement in the near future.  But in the meantime, Democrats, this is what you get for your tin-eared ignorance and for your pathetic sense of entitlement.  Eat heartily from your plate of woe!  Relish every bite!  You dumb asses.

Health care reform: It all comes down to reconciliation

There is a scene in "The Godfather" (arguably Francis Ford Coppola's masterwork) wherein Don Vito Corleone reveals what he has learned from a meeting of the Five Families.  Up to that point, the Corleone family had thought the rival Tattaglia family was behind the gangster aggression that had killed Vito's eldest son, Santino.  But at the meeting, Don Corleone learned the truth.  On the ride home, he tells his consigliere, Tom Hagan:  "Tattaglia is a pimp.  He could never have out-fought Santino.  I should have known that it was Barzini all along."

As the health care debate in the US Senate lurches toward its ugly conclusion, the progressives among us are left feeling much as Don Corleone must have felt during that car ride.  All this time we had thought the Republicans were the prime enemies of real health care reform.  But it turns out that, like Bruno Tattaglia, Senate Republicans are just pimps.  (I'm being charitable).  The real enemies have been  Stinky Joe Lieberman (CT) and Ben Nelson (NE) all along.

Both of these "esteemed" senators have used the precarious balance of power in the Senate to pursue their own agendas, have leveraged their positions to the utmost.  Well, after all, this is the US Senate, and senators will do that.  But Lieberman, in particular, has been crass and overt about it:  changing his position on the so-called Medicare expansion, which he supported as recently as September, in order to extract the most benefit he can from the process.

The news came down last weekend that Harry Reid now believes he has the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on the debate and pass a health care reform bill.  But the bill that he will pass does not include a public option, nor does it include an expansion of Medicare, the two most attractive provisions of reform (from a progressive point of view).  Some progressives, including former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean, have gone so far as to call for liberal senators to kill the bill.  (Dean has since backed off on that.) 

I believe that, without a public option, or some kind of expansion of a publicly-run health care system, any so-called health care reform will be nothing more than another sop to health insurance providers.  And, indeed, stocks for health insurance companies hit a 52 week high last Friday on the news that an agreement may have been reached that did not include a public option nor an expansion of Medicare.  The bill that is proposed would mandate that individuals buy health insurance from private companies.  Get it?  We would all be required to pay money to health insurance companies so that they can continue to deny our health care claims.  Salad days ahead for insurance company executives!

The Obama administration has been pathetic and detrimental to the progressive cause.  I grant that President Obama sees himself as a facilitator and a shepherd, but after all, a well-placed word or two would be enormously beneficial.   I ask again, "What's it gonna be, Barack?"

But don't despair yet, progressives.  Remember that the bill passed by the US House of Representatives includes a strong public option.  (Thank you, Nancy Pelosi.)  After the Senate passes its monstrosity, the two bills will go to conference and undergo reconciliation.

I don't understand all the parliamentary procedures involved, but I believe that the reconciliation process provides alternatives that would allow for the bill to be presented to the two legislative bodies such that it can be passed by simple majority, rather than require that it overcome a Republican filibuster.  So, if my understanding is correct, we could still come out of this with either a real public option, or with an expansion of Medicare.

This entire process has been educational, certainly.  We've all heard pundits liken the legislative process to sausage-making:  the result might be good, but the procedure is ugly.  Well, this nightmare debate has proven the truth of that analogy.  But I'm still holding my breath, hoping that real reform that diminishes the power of the insurance companies and the corporate plutocrats will emerge.

If that happens, we're on our way.  If not, it is hard to imagine that we can ever again wrest power from them through political means.

Harry Reid comes through

Nicely played, Harry

On Saturday, every non-Republican senator in the United States Senate voted to bring the proposed health care reform bill to the floor for debate, overcoming a Republican filibuster to do so.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came through.

In the long lead up to last weekend's vote, knowledgeable senators like Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had predicted that Reid would win.  "Harry Reid is the best vote counter and vote getter that I have ever seen in my 35 years as a legislator," he said, way back in October. 

Or, as Reid himself said, "I don't bring anything to the floor unless I think I have the votes."

Well, any doubts I may have had about Senator Reid's ability to count have been laid to rest.  It was a masterful performance.  In the end, he won over Senators Mary Landrieu (LA), Ben Nelson (NE), and Blanche Lincoln (AR), as well as stinky Joe Lieberman (CT).  (Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Reid dropped the hammer on Lieberman!  To the extent that I can stomach the sight of him, I'll be closely examining Lieberman's face to look for the tire tracks.)

Although the bill is now up for debate, where every senator will propose his or her amendments and pontificate and expound ad nauseum, the process is set in motion.  And, ultimately, a bill will pass the Senate with at least 60 votes.

(And I'm still asserting that, once passage is assured, some Republican senators will break ranks and vote in favor. Cowards that they are, they will ultimately judge that voting against the bill will hurt them in future elections.  Hark back to how GOP governors caved in on their so-called "principles" and gobbled up stimulus funds:  in the end, they always fold.)

From the perspective of the inside game within the Senate, Harry Reid came out a big winner, of course.  But progressive and liberal senators who support a public option, including Oregon's own Johnny-Come-Lately, Senator Ron Wyden also fared well. The losers, aside from each and every Republican senator, are Joe Lieberman, who comes across as petulant rather than principled, and Senator Evan Bayh (IN) who seems to be failing at forming an effective "moderate" coalition within the Democratic caucus.   

Although Reid has disgusted me with his lack of spine regarding the Iraq war and the abuses of the Bush administration, he has clearly demonstrated that he knows how to work the Senate.  Last weekend's vote was a decisive victory.  Now, it's a matter of plodding through the rigmarole.  As Reid said, "The end is in sight.  But we're not there yet."

The US Senate is an arcane, enigmatic body.  The health care debate has demonstrated that fact.  But Senator Reid has shown that he knows how to negotiate those murky, treacherous waters.  Well done, Senator Reid!

Question of the day: Can Harry Reid count?

"I'm all in."

Well, well, well...

Turns out I may have been all wrong about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  In the big poker game that is the health care debate, Senator Reid has pushed all his chips into the pot. 

Yesterday, Reid announced that the health care reform bill that will be submitted to the floor of the Senate will include the so-called public option.  Oh, my!  How must this cause the defenders of the status quo to chafe at their collars!  The public option has been pronounced dead by the punditry, by various congresspersons, by nearly everyone.  At times, even the Obama administration has expressed skepticism.

And then Reid goes and does this...

According to the all-wise punditry, Reid's plan works like this:

1. In order to pass a bill that includes a public option, supporters must first overcome a Republican filibuster.  That takes 60 votes.  But, as we all know, if you count the two democratic-leaning independent senators, Bernie Sanders (Vermont) and icky Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), the Democrats have the magic number. 
   
   That means that Reid has to hold together his entire caucus, which is no mean feat.  God knows, every single senator has an ego that cannot be comfortably confined within a given state's geographical borders.  And some of the more conservative members of the caucus (for example Ben Nelson (Nebraska) and Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)) are on record against a public option. 
   
   But the fact that Reid has made this announcement indicates that he is confident he can hold his caucus together.
   
   
2. Provided he can achieve cloture, Reid can then bring the bill to the floor, where it will require only a simple majority to pass:  a minimum of fifty votes, plus Vice-President Biden's tie-breaker.  But according to Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, there is a "comfortable margin" in favor of the public option.
   
   That gives conservative Democratic senators an "out."  They vote for cloture, then they vote against the bill.  That way, Mary Landrieu (for example) can say:  "Although I did not support a government-run health care plan, I felt that the American people deserved an up-or-down vote, yadda, yadda, yadda."
   

 A couple of points to mention:

•  There is still the possibility that, when the Republicans realize they cannot stop the bill, they will start defecting from their party's position and vote in favor of passage.  Senator Reid left the door open, in particular for Maine's two senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. 
  
  
• The proposed public option is likely to be less than perfect from a progressive point of view.  It is likely that there will be an "opt out" provision for states.  That is, individual states can decide not to participate in the public option.  (There will be another battle over how that decision can be made.  Is it up to a state's governor and legislature?  Or is it a public referendum?)  Also, of course, the public option is itself a compromise from the Medicare-for-all, single payer solution that progressives advocate.
  
  Personally, I don't think the "opt out" provision is a big problem.  Once a public plan is in place, states will clamber over each other to get into it.  It's going to save money for everyone, and no neo-confederate state governor is going to put much into fighting it.  Remember how the supposedly principled GOP governors all gobbled up the stimulus money that they so vociferously opposed?
  
  
• The Obama administration is (infuriatingly) staying out of the fray.  Call it pragmatism; call it good politics; I call bullsh*t.  The President has an amazing capacity to resist pressure from his base.  But he needs a health care bill, any health care bill.  The rumor is that the administration was pulling for a so-called "trigger" that would stipulate that a public option be implemented only if health insurance providers failed to meet certain criteria after a given amount of time.  The "trigger" might have brought Snowe on board, giving the bill a sheen of bipartisanship.  But progressives objected, stating the obvious:  health insurance providers would do the bare minimum required to avoid the "trigger," all the while jacking health care consumers.  Same old game.  (And, besides, Mr. President, you can't bargain with a rattlesnake.)
  
  
• If this all plays out, and a health care reform bill that includes a public option becomes law, it is a huge victory for progressives.  Just yesterday, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Illinois) admitted that progressive Democratic senators forced Reid's hand, by threatening to sink any bill that did not include a public option. 
  

In the Senate, counting votes is an important skill.  One would presume that, in order to attain leadership status in that body, one would need to hone that skill to a fine point.  Harry Reid thinks he's counted to sixty.

So, returning to the poker analogy, Harry Reid is all in.  Now let's see how the other players respond.

Nancy's got stones!

Bare knuckle politics

Oh my goodness! What a development!

The US House of Representatives is about to pass its health care bill with a "robust public option" as described by the office of the Speaker. Hats off to Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Whip James Clyburn for an excellent whip operation! Madam Speaker, I take back almost every word I spoke of you in anger. Almost.

The fact that the submitted bill includes a public option suggests that Pelosi is confident she has the required 218 votes. The question soon will become this: What will happen in the Senate?

There are two possibilities that I can see: 1) Pelosi is gambling that the Senate can pass a bill that includes a public option; 2) She got the word from the Senate Leadership that they can surmount a Republican filibuster and get the bill to the floor of the Senate. I think its the latter.

The Republicans are about to get railroaded. There are already rumors that their own caucus is starting to fracture around the health care issue.

The insurance companies tried to mount a last ditch resistance effort with their bought-and-paid for study, released last week, that warned that health insurance premiums would go up drastically if the Senate Finance Committee's version of the bill were implemented. But President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders defanged them by raising questions about the wisdom of continuing the health insurance exemption from federal anti-trust laws. That's bare knuckle.

If I'm right about all of this (and I could very well be wrong), it is a stark indication that this country's political environment has changed. Karl Rove has called this a "center-right" country, which I always thought was wishful thinking on his part. If a health care bill that includes a public option actually becomes law, it will certainly prove him wrong.

Pundits and politicians have been pronouncing the public option dead-on-arrival since early summer. And yet, here we are, after all the procedural obstacles, tea-bagger hot air, and mulish political prima donnas, on the verge of getting it passed.

Things have changed. Oh yes, they have changed, haven't they?

Let 'em have it, Alan!

US Rep. Alan Grayson

Night before last, US Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL), took to the floor of the House and let fly with some tough rhetoric aimed at Republican obstructionists in the health care debate. Quoth he:

It’s my duty and pride tonight to be able to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America… It’s a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republican health care plan for America: “don’t get sick.” If you have insurance don’t get sick, if you don’t have insurance, don’t get sick; if you’re sick, don’t get sick. Just don’t get sick. … If you do get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: “die quickly.” --Rep. Alan Grayson, Sept.29, 2009 (Watch it here.)

The Republicans, as usual, were quick to beat their breasts and wail at how they had been wronged. Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) called on Nancy Pelosi to officially rebuke Grayson. I've got a feeling that that ain't going anywhere. (Could there be any more perfect example of Republican mimicry than the name "McHenry?"It sounds like the McDonald's version of the name of the original Confederate, Patrick Henry.)

I'm not in the least surprised at their hypocrisy, but for those of you who have actual lives, who aren't obsessed with the ins and outs of partisan drama, I'll show you just a few examples of the rhetoric that the Republicans have been throwing around in the last couple months:

Last week Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: Drop dead. --Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), 7/21/09

They’re going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom, and Europe. People die when they’re in line. --Rep. Steve King (R-IA), 7/15/09

[The Republican plan will] make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government. --Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), 7/28/09

That’s exactly what’s going on in Canada and Great Britain today…and a lot of people are going to die. --Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), 7/10/09

One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine! … I would hate to think that among five women, one of ‘em is gonna die because we go to socialized care. --Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), 7/15/09

(You can see a video compilation here.)

I've come to expect hypocrisy like this from Republicans. Haven't you?

Well, I think it's about damn time that Democrats start fighting back with some tough rhetoric of their own. Good for the goose, good for the gander, and all that. And a little stridency might just stiffen the spines of some of the mealy-mouthed cowards in the Democratic caucuses.

When you consider Alan Grayson's remarks, along with those recently made by Representative Barney Frank, and President Jimmy Carter, it looks like there are others who feel the same way I do. The tea-baggers are a loud minority... but they are a minority, as evidenced by the last national election. If they want to rant and scream, let them rant and scream. But we can serve them the same sauce.

So, continuing in that vein: Ann Coulter was on CNN recently. She admitted to being "a little bit jealous" of Glenn Beck. And why not? He's more of a woman than she'll ever be!

Adieu, Senator Kennedy

Adieu, Monsieur

Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, the Liberal Lion, died last night of complications surrounding a tumor in his brain. He was 77 years old.

I remember first becoming aware of the Kennedy name in the late 60's. I remember when Senator Kennedy's older brother, Bobby, was assassinated during the presidential campaign of 1968. I remember how my parents, even my mostly apolitical father, and my grandparents, even the life-long Republican Metzgers, admired the Kennedy family, how they always spoke the Kennedy name with reverence. I have always associated that name, Kennedy, with high-minded idealism and altruism. It is the very epitome of noblesse oblige.

Senator Kennedy was the first candidate to receive my vote for President of the United States. I voted for him in the 1980 primary when he ran against President Carter. Even then, living in blood-red Klamath Falls, Oregon, I had that liberal bent, and I largely credit the Kennedy family for helping me to get there.

Some might say that such sentiments are naive, but childhood truths die hard. And, in the end, we all need something to cling to.

Senator Kennedy, you will be missed. Thank you, sir, and bon voyage.

Thank you, Barney Frank!

Barney Frank: my hero!

Wimpy Democrats, take note!

Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) encountered one of those freaked-out tea-baggers that have been providing such great entertainment (in an appalled, disbelieving kind of way) for all of us following the health care debate.

This tea-bagger threw out one of those confused conflations that are so hopelessly ignorant that they defy rational response. Specifically, the tea-bagger referred to health care reform as a "Nazi program," and wanted to know why Congressman Frank supported it.

Barney Frank, of course, is a Jewish homosexual man and so the tea-bagger's assertion was particularly offensive. But, rather than equivocate and placate as so many other Democrats, including the administration, have been doing, Congressman Frank let her have it.

Here's the vid:



You go, Barney!

There is no debating these people. Their arguments are not rational; they are not based on facts. It's all emotion (mostly fear) and identity politics. As I've stated before, I believe the tea-baggers don't have any real objection to health care reform. I mean, really! Are we to believe that the tea-baggers actually imagine health insurance providers are honest heroes working for the common good?

The tea-baggers are afraid and, through some deft public relations and demagoguery, they have been fooled into directing their fearful anger toward President Obama and Democrats.

Well, Barney Frank is not going to put up with it, apparently.

When I saw the exchange, my heart soared.

President Obama hasn't been near tough enough on the scurrilous behavior, the distortions, and the outright lies that have been perpetrated by monied interests trying to kill real health care reform. I suppose it is good (and certainly, refreshing) to have a president that looks to accommodate. At least to an extent.

But I'm sick of progressives being on the receiving end of ridiculous, self-evidently absurd accusations, delivered by dim-witted nobodies that we have to pretend to respect.

Maybe President Obama feels obliged to maintain a certain decorum, even if it is unreciprocated.

I'm just glad that Barney Frank does not feel so constrained.

Al Franken gives Senate Democrats the magic 60

Al Franken: Magic Number 60

Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected all counts of the legal case that former Senator Norm Coleman brought to contest the results of the election last November to determine the Senator from Minnesota. Coleman finally conceded the race and congratulated Minnesota's soon-to-be junior Senator, Al Franken. Mr. Franken will be the 60th Democrat in the US Senate. And, in the Senate, 60 is a magic number.

The right wing base is crying foul, of course. In their minds, this election was stolen. After the initial tally, Norm Coleman was ahead by 206 votes. But after the recount, including all the legal maneuverings over the validity of various ballots, Al Franken's tally surpassed Coleman's total by 225 votes (out of some 3 million cast).

But the differences between this election and the travesty that occurred in Florida in 2000 are significant. First of all, in Minnesota, Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty did not direct his Secretary of State to "cast as wide a net as possible" when purging voters (mostly black, Democratic voters) from the voter rolls as did Junior's brother, Jeb. Secondly, Minnesota's Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, was not a campaign chairman for Al Franken. In 2000, Florida's Secretary of State was the infamous Katherine Harris who, in addition to her duties overseeing the state election, was serving as Junior's state campaign chairwoman.

None of that will satisfy them. They'll believe what they believe. As long as the rest of us continue to reject their version of reality, things will be alright.

But, going back to the subject of Al Franken being the magic number 60, there is good news, and there is bad news.

Here's the good news: Republicans have their power in the US Senate significantly diminished. Their most potent legislative weapon, up to this point, has been the filibuster. This procedural tool allows for Senators to keep debate open on a particular piece of legislation unless 60 senators vote for cloture. Therefore, Franken's election means Republicans cannot sustain a filibuster without some crossover votes.

Here's the bad news: Instead of Republicans, we now have Democrats. No one should expect that the Democrats, in their new position of dominance, will stay above the ethical morass that has been the home of Republicans ever since Newt Gingrich and gang won congressional majorities back in 1994.

(For the record, I am a registered Democrat. But that is more the result of revulsion toward Republicans than support for Democrats.)

Anyway, in the short term, I think, this is good for the country. President Obama was elected because he advocated a change of direction from that set by Junior and the neo-conservatives. With a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and a dominant majority in the House and with Rahm Emmanuel twisting arms, the President can probably get nearly all of his agenda passed. After all, that's what the voters wanted.

This might be good for the GOP, too. The Republican party, with their obstructionist tactics, seemed not to have understood how utterly their views were rejected by voters. When they begin to fully comprehend how repulsive they are to the majority of Americans, moderate elements in their party can start to pry the reactionary forces (those I call the neo-Confederates) from the levers of power within their own party.

As Al Franken might say: Good luck with that, you schmucks!

Harry Reid gets tough with Arlen Specter

"You f**ked up, Arlen. You trusted us!"

Earlier this week, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter got a rough welcome from his new Democratic teammates in the Senate. Arlen had only just switched parties, infuriating Republicans, casting them into despair, than the Democrats voted to strip him of his seniority thereby effectively demoting him in the Senate hierarchy.

Not exactly a warm welcome. But then again...

In the wake of Arlen's announcement about the switch, he had gone out of his way to make clear that he would not be "an automatic 60th vote" for the Obama agenda. He made great mention of his independence and stressed that he never told President Obama that he would be a loyal Democrat.

Arlen then went on to defy his new party by voting against President Obama's proposed budget, and against a bill sponsored by Majority Whip Dick Durban (D-IL) that would have rewritten bankruptcy laws.

For a senator in Specter's precarious position, that's getting to be a little big for the britches.

The straw that may have broken the camel's back came when Arlen took the extraordinary step of calling on the Minnesota courts to "do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner."

(Remember that Norm Coleman, the incumbent Republican senator from Minnesota is in a court battle with Al Franken to determine who will occupy the seat after an extremely close election. Currently, Franken is ahead in the vote count, and represents the magic 60th Democratic senator.)

I'm not a big fan of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); he's generally kind of wimpy. But I'm frankly astonished at his moxie in this instance. Very soon after Senator Specter's ill-advised comment, he was forced to publicly backpedal, saying something about misspeaking in the "swirl" of changing caucuses. One can only imagine the conversation that must have occurred between Specter and Reid in the interim.

Although Reid had assured Specter that he would keep his seniority should he choose to join the Democrats, the Majority Leader apparently had second thoughts. Even though Specter had been on Meet the Press talking about his Senate seniority as an "entitlement" the Democrats in the Senate voted to strip him.

Senator Reid then showed admirable (and ruthless) political deftness by remarking later that the matter would be revisited in the new congress. That is, in the congress that is elected in 2010.

That puts Arlen Specter in a very tight spot.

If he continues to buck the Democrats' agenda, he could face a primary challenge from another Pennsylvania Democrat, US Representative Joe Sestak, a former 3-star admiral in the US Navy, and a popular congressman. And then, should he fend off that challenge, he'll have to face the Republican nominee, likely to be Pat Toomey, the arch-conservative meathead whom Specter barely defeated in the primary the last time he was up for reelection. Should Specter manage to win in the general election, he will still need his new Democratic colleagues to vote him back into his seniority in the next Congress.

Now Specter's best move would seem to be to fall into line with whatever the Democratic leadership proposes and hope for the best. It's his only real chance at getting back what he has lost.

Just yesterday, apparently satisfied that Specter had received the message, the Democratic leadership relented, just a bit. Senator Durban agreed to step aside as the chairmen of the Crime and Drug Subcommittee Chairman and give the gavel to Specter.

First the stick, then the carrot.

Reid and the Democrats have Specter right where they want him. And, when you are a US Senator, whenever you are right where someone wants you, that is never a good place to be.

Senator Bayh wants to be a player, too!

Evan Bayh: Sure, he's a schmuck. But at least he knows it.

Will Rogers, the political satirist, once quipped: " I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat." Well, this week, we were once again reminded of the wisdom of that remark.

On Wednesday, March 18, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) announced that he had formed a coalition of "moderate" Democrats in the Senate which he named the "Moderate Dems Working Group." This group of senators is 14 Democrats plus icky Joe Lieberman (I-CT). The list of constituent members of this group is a veritable Who's Who* of Democrats who were always among the very first to bow to the Karl Rove lash back in the bad ol' days of Junior Bush, plus some incoming freshmen.

Senator Bayh's motivation, hidden, of course, behind expressions of a desire to promote "fiscally sustainable policies" is to get as much leverage as possible out of the Democratic majority in the Senate.

Here's how it works: For President Obama to get anything at all passed, he will need 60 votes. The Republicans have already demonstrated that, robbed of everything else, they will readily wield the once-obscure filibuster to block the President's agenda, if they can. That means, in addition to finding a Republican crossover vote, Obama will need to hold together all 58 (or 59, if Al Franken finally gets seated) Democrats/Independents in order to invoke cloture and end debate.

Unless factions are organized, the administration and the Democratic leadership in the Senate (Senator Harry Reid, Senator Dick Durbin, et alia) can work on senators independently to get their 60 votes. They can approach each senator independently and apply pressure in the time-honored manner: making promises, cutting deals, whatever.

By organizing his so-called "Moderate Dems Working Group," Senator Bayh establishes himself as a leader of a faction within the Senate. Now, Harry Reid or Rahm Emanuel will have to come to Bayh, as the spokesman of this faction, to make their deals.

There are a couple things here to consider.

• Firstly, this is good news in the sense that it further isolates the Republicans. Now, any incentive the administration had to deal with the GOP as a voting block is lessened. Instead of trying to win over a block of GOP votes, the administration can continue to pick off those one to three GOP senators it needs to get the agenda passed.
  
  
• Secondly, Bayh is gambling. If he can hold his group together and force alterations to the President's or the Democratic Leadership's agenda, he will have raised his influence in the Senate. If, however, his group lacks discipline and does not vote as a solid block, he comes out looking like a jack-ass.
  
  
• Lastly, President Obama has put forth an ambitious agenda. He's going to need every single one of the Democrats to get it passed. In a sense, Bayh has made the President's job a little easier. Dealing with a bloc of 15 senators (a bloc of 15 senators, mind you, that will always want to appear to be cooperative --at least, in public) will be much easier than trying to get 15 individuals on board. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Rahm Emanuel is, even now, working on Bayh, tempting him with some deal to make Emanuel's job a little easier. Bayh could, in effect, become another Democratic whip.
  

Hardball politics, people.

Well, it's the Senate, after all. You better be able to stand in there even when the pitch comes chin-high and inside.

Some liberal bloggers are positively sputtering with rage over what they perceive as a lack of solidarity within the Democratic caucus. But I don't see it that way. To me, Bayh's move reveals a new reality in the Senate. And that is this: it belongs to the Democratic Party now. The Republicans are as close to irrelevant as is possible.

Bayh's move shows a confidence, not only in the Democrats current grip on the Senate, but in their prospects of holding on to it in the future.

Politics in the US Senate is a fascinating game of cut-throat. I'll enjoy watching it all play out.

Just like the old days...

* Besides Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, the other senators in the group are:

Tom Carper - Delaware
Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas
Mark Udall and Michael Bennet - Colorado
Mark Begich - Alaska
Kay Hagan - North Carolina
Herb Kohl - Wisconsin
Mary Landrieu - Louisiana
Claire McCaskill - Missouri
Ben Nelson - Nebraska
Bill Nelson - Florida
Jeanne Shaheen - New Hampshire
Mark Warner - Virginia