Welcome to the Carnival of Divided Government Excessum et Renatum - Special 56th and Final 2014 New Year Edition.
As noted before, the whole "Blog Carnival" concept is well past its "Sell By" date, eclipsed by Facebook, Twitter, and other social network aggregation schemes. Blog Carnivals were popular when the Dividist started this blog in 2006. The idea was to solicit and compile posts and articles contributed to the carnival on a particular subject then periodically share the content and links on the blog. Social media fulfills that function now.
We've not received much relevant content contributed to the carnival for a few years. This feature morphed into a simple compilation of topical posts and articles that caught the Dividist's attention as he wandered about the 'sphere. The format was as comfortable as a old shoe, so we just kept it going.
As we return from an extended sabbatical, kick off an election year, and attempt to insinuate this blog into social media platforms, the time has come to put this obsolete format to bed. This last effort will help the Dividist "prime the pump" after the long layoff, but the Oblogocare Death Panel has spoken. Without further ado, here the Carnival of Divided Government swan song....
Someone on my twitter feed described Rand Paul's epic 13 hour filibuster as "libertarian porn". Not sure if I would go that far, but given we are talking about a CSPAN feed of a man talking at a podium for 13 hours, it was far more engrossing and entertaining than it had any right to be. I watched much of it live. Really. I actually did. I reluctantly tore myself away at the nine hour mark to keep an evening engagement, and was sorely disappointed to learn it was over when I returned.
Rand Paul was ostensibly using the filibuster to block a vote on John Brennan's nomination to run the CIA, but he made it clear the nomination confirmation was not his primary reason for the filibuster. Rather it was administration evasion on a simple question - Does the President think he legally has unilateral authority to launch a drone strike on an American citizen in America? During the filibuster Rand Paul referenced several articles and read them into record. They encapsulate the issue that prompted the filibuster better than I can:
"Any thinking person can see that Holder's letter is non-responsive, evasive, and deliberately manipulative in its sly reassurances, right down to the rhetorically powerful but substantively nonsensical invocation of 9/11. (Being more subtle about it than Rudy Giuliani doesn't make it right.) To credulously accept this sort of response, on an issue as important as this one, is behavior unfit for any citizen of a free country, where safeguarding the rule of law is a civic responsibility. Rand Paul deserves tremendous credit for eliciting this response. In its wake, he needs help from his colleagues and his countrymen. The time to discuss the appropriate scope of the president's authority is now, not in the aftermath of a catastrophic attack on the nation, as Holder suggests. The fact that he disagrees speaks volumes about Team Obama's reckless shortsightedness."
"Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who sent three letters to CIA director nominee John Brennan requesting an answer on “whether the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil,” finally received an answer from Attorney General Eric Holder. The answer indicates the administration of President Barack Obama does, in fact, believe it has the power to assassinate US citizens on US soil with lethal force.... There may never be a targeted killing of a US citizen on US soil and the question of whether a US citizen could be targeted and killed on US soil may remain a hypothetical question for some time, but the fact that the Obama administration has told a US senator there is a circumstance where the government could target and kill someone, who is a citizen, on US soil without charge or trial is a stark example of the imperial presidency. It is an example of how there is, for the most part, no power to violate civil liberties or human rights the president won’t claim in order to respond to “threats” however it chooses."
As interesting as the filibuster itself, was the reaction from the punditocracy. Rand Paul received positive commentary on the filibuster from across the political spectrum. The most withering criticism came from his fellow Republicans.
Rachel Maddow has been waxing eloquent of late about what she considers "abuse" of the filibuster rule in the Senate by Republicans "obstructing" the legislative process. She ignores the simple fact that there is a 60 vote filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate, making it mathematically impossible for the Republicans to maintain a filibuster on anything. At worst, they can be accused of enabling Democratic party obstruction on any given bill. That said, she and Ezra Klein make some interesting points in Monday's show about the history and evolution of the filibuster rule in the Senate.
As any good partisan, Rachel complains loud and long about the GOP "abuse" of the filibuster, while glossing over the Democratic "abuse" of the same procedural tool. To be fair, she does make a perfunctory mention of the Democrats use of the filibuster to block George W Bush judicial nominations. The Republicans had a smaller majority in the Senate at the time, so the Democrats then (unlike Republicans now) actually could filibuster anything.
That 2005 episode famously prompted a Republican leadership threat invoking the "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules and limit the use of filibusters. The showdown was averted by the bipartisan "Gang of Fourteen" led by John McCain, effectively saving the filibuster and earning him the enmity and derision of the right. Those same partisans on the right should be on their knees right now thanking John McCain for allowing Republicans to retain what little relevance they have in the Senate today. At least they can attempt to cobble together bipartisan filibuster efforts (which is the only kind that can succeed in this particular Senate). Run of the mill partisan hypocrisy aside, it was this exchange that caught my attention:
MADDOW: "Well, this has been a subject of frustration to people in both parties at different times and at different, more or less, convenient intervals... How hard is it to get rid of the filibuster? I feel like I‘ve read a lot of different analysis about how many votes it would take and what process you‘d need to kill it if you wanted to. KLEIN: "People disagree on this... What you‘d basically, I think, need to have is Congress will need to remember that it is supposed to be an independent branch of government that is supposed to act on major, going concerns. And so, you‘d have the two parties get together and decide, “We don‘t want it to be the case that when we‘re in the majority, we can‘t do any of the things we promised the American people we‘d do.”And so, six years from today, when we don‘t know who will be in power the filibuster phases out. But for that to happen, you need Congress to begin acting like a branch of government and not just an attachment or an accessory of the president—which hasn‘t been the case for sometime now."
Somebody once said something about the consequences of failing to learn the lessons of history. You might think Ezra and Rachel would learn something from the Republicans who were once so exercised by Senate filibusters, and who are now - less so. But, let's go with Ezra's six year proposition. Contrary to his assertion, we can make an educated guess at what the Senate will look like six years hence.
I'm already on the record about the likely composition of the Senate over the next two election cycles. On Tuesday, Chris Matthews took a closer look at the "Top 5 Endangered Senators" in 2010 cycle:
Interestingly, the top 5 endangered Senators are all Democrats. This clip is worth watching just to see Matthew's ham-handed shilling for all five, including the pithy observation that only stupid voters in Connecticut would try to unseat incumbent Chris Dodd. More to the point, the 2010 Senate election will be played out on a structurally even playing field, with each party defending an equal number of seats. Losing five seats would have to be considered a rout and unlikely under those circumstance, but nevertheless, Ron Brownstein and Charlie Cook invoke that very possibility (at the 6:20 mark).:
Chris Mathews: "Who is the most vulnerable Democrat?"
Ron Brownstein: "I would say Dodd. One thing to keep in mind though Chris... In big years, in wave years, in 1980, 1986, 1994, 2002, 2006 all the close Senate races went the same way. In many ways, these guys are not entirely the captain of their fate...
Chris Matthews: "Can a Republican lose this year coming up? Can a Republican incumbent lose any race anywhere next year?
Charlie Cook: "I would not be surprised to see no Republican incumbent House or Senate lose."
Even if there was a five seat shift, the Democrats would retain a majority with Joe Biden breaking the partisan tie. I am sticking with my forecast of a net gain of 3 seats for Republicans. Regardless whether it is 3 or 5 in 2010, it gets more interesting in 2012, when the field tilts dramatically in favor of Republicans. Of the 33 seats contested, the Democrats will be defending 24 seats, and the Republicans only 9. Even if they win 2 seats in 2010, it is virtually a fait accompli that the GOP will retake the Senate majority in 2012. In 2014, 21 of the 33 seats are defended by Democrats and 12 defended by Republicans. Again - advantage GOP.
Which brings us back to Ezra Klein's plan for phasing out the filibuster. "And so, six years from today, when we don‘t know who will be in power the filibuster phases out...". Uh Huh. Should Klein's plan actually find support on the Senate floor, it raises the specter of a simple majority of Republicans in 2015 undoing the Health Care plan that required a 60 vote Democratic plurality in 2009. Definitely in the "be careful what you wish for" category.
