Dems Already Ceding Power To GOP in Senate – JDS

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Dems Already Ceding Power To GOP in Senate – JDS

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • Author
    Posts
    • #396717
      ThouArtThat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,544

      “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
      - John F. Kennedy

      "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
      - George Orwell

      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
      - Jiddu Krishnamurti

      "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
      - Idries Shah

      "A riot is the language of the unheard."
      - Martin Luther King

    • #396818
      Jim Lane
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 883

      The longstanding Senate practice – a fair practice, IMO – is that committee seats are divided between the parties in proportion to their relative numbers in the Senate. That way, every Senator, even the right-wingers that Jimmy and I don’t like, has an equal opportunity for committee service.

      With a 50-50 Senate (the VP doesn’t serve on committees), that means an equal number of members from each party, as per this agreement.

      There were rumors that Schumer and McConnell would agree to divide the chairships 50-50 as well. Happily, that didn’t happen. All committee chairs will be Democrats, and Schumer will be Majority Leader. No power-sharing there.

      The only significant departure from prior practice is a new agreement that, if the committee vote on a bill is evenly divided, the bill can nevertheless be reported to the full Senate. It used to be that a tie vote killed the bill. (There was a discharge procedure but it was cumbersome and seldom used.) This change actually works against the Republicans. Even if every Republican on a committee votes against a bill, it can still be reported out. There will be some issues that divide exactly on party lines. In those instances, the committee will split evenly, the bill will be reported out, and it will pass the Senate by 51-50 with Harris breaking the tie.

      IOW, this “power-sharing” agreement will reduce the ability of the 50 Republicans to block legislation.

      Jimmy Dore can’t be bothered to explain what he thinks Schumer should have done. Maybe a rule that says conservative Senators, elected by the conservative voters in conservative states, can’t serve on committees? With “conservative” defined as anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren? Oh, wait, I forgot, he doesn’t like Elizabeth Warren, either. No reason she and her voters should be treated fairly. After all, recognizing the reality of election results is just making excuses.

      • #396896
        ThouArtThat
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,544

        @jimlane

        Hi jl,

        It is not Dore’s responsibility to provide options.

        TAT

        “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
        - John F. Kennedy

        "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
        - George Orwell

        "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
        - Jiddu Krishnamurti

        "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
        - Idries Shah

        "A riot is the language of the unheard."
        - Martin Luther King

        • #396920
          Jim Lane
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 883

          @thouartthat

          Dore contends that Schumer made a bad decision.  That criticism is vacuous unless there is some alternative that was within Schumer’s power — as per Kant, ought implies can (link) — and that was better.  I personally can’t think of any such alternative.

          My conclusion is that Dore was seizing a chance for another of his knee-jerk attacks on anyone who disagrees with him.  Schumer is not completely on board with the Dore agenda, therefore Schumer is evil, therefore anything negative about him passes muster with Dore, facts and logic be damned.  I’ve seen the same thing from some posters on DU about people like Susan Sarandon.

          • #396926
            ThouArtThat
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 4,544

            @jimlane

            Hi jl,

            Likewise, your disgust for Dore is well known.  Consequently there is  no reason to comment on video posted for the benefit of others.

            TAT

            “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
            - John F. Kennedy

            "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
            - George Orwell

            "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
            - Jiddu Krishnamurti

            "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
            - Idries Shah

            "A riot is the language of the unheard."
            - Martin Luther King

            • #396960
              Jim Lane
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 883

              @thouartthat

              You write:

              Consequently there is  no reason to comment on video posted for the benefit of others.

              This is a political discussion board.  Members can post their thoughts; other members who disagree can post facts or analysis supporting their disagreement; and we can hope that the dialectic will advance everyone’s understanding, even if no one is brought to a change of mind.

              That’s my view.  The other view is that the purpose is to cater to members’ preconceptions, by providing posts that they will enjoy, undisturbed by facts or analysis that might suggest a different conclusion.

              You might want to consider asking the admins to implement an Ignore function.  I’m sure you aren’t the only JPR member who would prefer not to see my posts, because I cannot be counted on to automatically endorse every criticism of Obama, Biden, Schumer, the DNC, and anyone named Clinton.

              • #397027
                ThouArtThat
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 4,544

                @jimlane

                Hi jl,

                I merely note that a pattern has emerged regarding Jimmy Dore.

                TAT

                “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
                - John F. Kennedy

                "The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it."
                - George Orwell

                "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
                - Jiddu Krishnamurti

                "Sometimes a pessimist is only an optimist with extra information."
                - Idries Shah

                "A riot is the language of the unheard."
                - Martin Luther King

                • #397074
                  Jim Lane
                  Participant
                  • Total Posts: 883

                  @thouartthat

                  I merely note that a pattern has emerged regarding Jimmy Dore.

                  Yes, there is a pattern, in that I have posted more than once to point out some intellectual dishonesty on his part.

                  A pattern also emerged in the media regarding Trump’s lies, listed in the thousands by fact-checkers.  Trump’s acolytes see this pattern as evidence that the mass media are biased.  Some go further and say that the media are controlled by the Democrats/the socialists/the Communists (they tend to use these terms interchangeably).  Those of us who believe that the corporate media are not promoting socialism — I assume you agree with me on that point as well — see a different explanation.

                  BTW, this is only an analogy.  Dore is not remotely close to Trump when it comes to the latter’s pervasive mendacity.

      • #396929
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 21,888

        You know perfectly well that Republicans would have had a majority on every Senate committee. Not only that, but the Republicans, in lock step, would have voted to kill the filibuster to give themselves as much power as possible.

        The key takeaway here is that Schumer did have a choice, and offered this “compromise” because he wanted to. And he wanted to because he agrees with the Republicans on most important things, especially on economic ones and on corporate power. Most of the Democrats in Congress, and the one now in the White House, do as well.

        Again, it doesn’t matter what they say, only what they do, and don’t do.

        America doesn’t have two political parties, only one, with two right wings.–Gore Vidal

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

        • #396957
          Jim Lane
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 883

          @ohiobarbarian

          For a while in 2001, the Senate was 50-50 with Cheney as VP.  The agreement was for an even split of committee memberships, Republicans filling all the chairships, and Majority/Minority positions as per the 51-50 split (i.e., favoring the GOP).

          You are of course entitled to speculate that, with increased partisanship, that would no longer hold.  You are entitled to speculate that McConnell would have broken with long tradition and forced through a rule that the partisan division on each committee would no longer reflect the overall division.  Heck, you’re entitled to speculate that McConnell would simply have forced through a new Senate rule that members of the minority could no longer serve on any committees.

          The beauty of such speculation is that no one can prove you wrong.  It’s right up there with that nuclear war that President Hillary Clinton would have started.

          The filibuster is a more complicated case.  In 2013, the Democrats, having the Presidency and a slim majority in the Senate, used that majority to eliminate the filibuster for presidential nominations, except those to the Supreme Court.  (Hey, wait, I thought the Democrats never fought for anything?)  In 2017, the Republicans, being in that same commanding position, eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.

          When it comes to legislation, however, each caucus has some traditionalists who are hesitant.  The Republicans of 2017 (who also had a majority in the House) could have eliminated the filibuster to get all their bills through, but didn’t.  The Trump tax cuts were passed through the reconciliation process.  That’s a way to get around the filibuster, and Bernie has already announced his intention, as Budget Committee Chair, to use reconciliation for some progressive policies.  But, just as the Republicans didn’t have the votes to eliminate the filibuster when they had the trifecta, the Democrats probably don’t have the votes now.  You and Jimmy Dore can inveigh against Schumer all you want.  The hard fact is that Joe Manchin has consistently defended the filibuster (link).  He’s probably not the only one among the 50 Democrats who would vote against a change.

          • #396978
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 21,888

            The hard fact is that Joe Manchin has consistently defended the filibuster (link).  He’s probably not the only one among the 50 Democrats who would vote against a change

            Exactly why I see no hope of progressives ever taking over the Democratic Party. Exactly why Jimmy Dore accurately observes that the Justice Democrats, the Squad, and Bernie’s runs were all demonstrably failed experiments. Exactly why I believe it is futile for anyone who is a social democrat or further to the left to have anything to do with the Democrats, except to oppose them.

            There is, IMO, no point in joining with a political party that tolerates people like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden, much less a Joe Manchin.

             

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

            • #396979
              djean111
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 6,558

              “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

              America is not a country, it's just a business. (Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly)

              Everything I post is just my opinion, and, honestly, I would love to be wrong.

            • #397106
              Jim Lane
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 883

              @ohiobarbarian

              The election of someone like Joe Manchin shows there is “no hope of progressives ever taking over the Democratic Party.”

              IOW, there are only two possibilities:

              • Either there will be a complete progressive takeover of the Democratic Party, with takeover meaning the purity resulting when everyone like Manchin is somehow purged — presumably by the DNC overriding the results of the Democratic primary in West Virginia, a course of action that I hope you would not advocate;
              • or the efforts of progressives within the party are utterly futile, a failed experiment.

              As so often happens, I can see more than two possibilities.  In this case, the reality is that the Democratic Party covers a wide ideological range.  That will continue for the foreseeable future.  Progressives will not be able to purge Manchin.  Conservatives will not be able to purge AOC.

              In areas less conservative than West Virginia but less progressive than NY-14, there will continue to be hard-fought battles.  For example, in 2018, Our Revolution endorsed Marie Newman, who primaried the most conservative Democrat in the House, Dan Lipinski, in IL-3.  Lipinski won the primary by two percentage points.  In the rematch in 2020, Newman won by a similar narrow margin.  She won the general election and was sworn in this month.

              You write:

              I believe it is futile for anyone who is a social democrat or further to the left to have anything to do with the Democrats, except to oppose them.

              Marie Newman and her volunteers and donors disagree.  We (I contributed) were willing to have something to do with the Democrats, despite their imperfections, and the result was to move one House seat significantly to the left.  Some people may consider that futile because moving one seat is not enough to enact Medicare for All immediately.  People who see nothing between futility and instant total success would see no point to any kind of electoral work.  Some of your posts suggest that you think all electoral politics is futile, but maybe the Nina Turner campaign will lure you into a Democratic primary.

              • #397236
                Ohio Barbarian
                Moderator
                • Total Posts: 21,888

                I do believe that any attempt by progressives to take over the Democratic Party by electoral means is doomed to failure. Even if a progressive wins the primary and general elections, once they get into Congress the Party changes them. The time varies from politician to politician, but when push comes to shove, they nearly always back the party line. I won’t bother to name any examples here, because they are legion, and many are recent.

                Nina Turner is in my district, so naturally my wife and I signed up on her Facebook page and for text messages. She was evasive about holding Pelosi’s feet to the fire on a Medicare for All vote, jumped on the Trump Must Be Impeached bandwagon and the whole Our Democracy is in Peril business, and proclaimed she stood with the Squad, which my wife and I both now call the Fraud Squad. Judging by the responses, she lost quite a bit of support over that from leftists in this district, of whom there are a significant number, no matter what that privileged idiot on SV who says he lives here says.

                I will not register as a Democrat to vote in the primary for that. Period. I’d feel dirty. I may vote for her in the general if she wins the primary, but it depends on what she says and does between then and now. After Bernie Sanders and AOC, progressive Democrats get no slack from us, no benefit of the doubt.

                It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

Viewing 1 reply thread
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.