« Impeachment Matters--Even More | Main | On Executive Orderizing And Badgers Green and Blue »
July 21, 2007
Against Procrastination
Mitch McConnell isn't feeling very optimistic about 2008.
“The numbers are against us,” he told reporters at a Capitol news conference, noting that 22 Republicans and just 12 Democrats are up for re-election this cycle. “It would take an extraordinarily good day to get back up to 50. So our goal is to stay roughly where we are."
With so many Republicans up for re-election, McConnell's goal isn't even to hold his 49. It's to stay roughly where he is. We're treated to the sweet spectacle of a GOP Senate leader so close to a majority, and still unable to raise donors' hopes of Republican control.
And that's why nobody should smile on Hillary's comment that "I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term." Her hypothetical second term happens after the 2012 elections, when Democrats will have to defend a whopping 24 seats while attacking only 9, an even worse schedule than McConnell faces today. How will waiting win us more Senate votes than we're likely to lose then? (And what if she doesn't win a second term?) I don't know whether to doubt Hillary's strategic grasp on how to pass universal coverage, or her desire to do so.
July 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
it's the later.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 21, 2007 10:02:58 AM
Hillary Clinton is a politician who has been involved in some very nasty battles, and has lost. In addition to that, she has on her payroll and among her friends a group of consultants who make their living telling Democrats that everything Republicans say about them is true, that Americans are more conservative than Trent Lott and the only way to win an election is to wait until a Republican says something and then say, "me too!"
Her rhetoric on Iraq is a good example of this, coming as it does after so many GOP politicians have voiced their own concerns with the way it's going.
This is not who we need in 2009, with what looks to be an even stronger Democratic Congressional majority. As you say, that majority may not last for long.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 21, 2007 11:55:58 AM
Come on, Stephen. Be hopeful (or accept the inevitable). Mighty Oaks and little acorns, and so forth. FDR did not start out a recognizable liberal.
I will allow that Hillary wants to be President more than she wants to get some things (in particular) done. Isn't that often/usually the case?
If she wins, a big if, she'll appoint good people - most importantly to SCOTUS, and she'd surely sign progressive legislation from a more liberal Congress. So would Edwards and Obama though, I admit.
Before a single vote is cast, there is the aura of inevitability about Hillary - like Bush in 1999. The planets are aligned, the money flows, the endorsements from 'serious people' come forth.... happy days are here again.
I'm actually more worried what Rove will spring on the voters to prevent a Dem. win, than I am about whether one of the Dem. top three would be better for progressivism or for actually winning.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 21, 2007 1:22:05 PM
Stephen, here's Andy Sullivan's sort-of agreement with you on Hillary.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 21, 2007 1:40:06 PM
This appears to be consistent with her plan to end the Iraq war. I heard on NPR that she will not have a full draw down in Iraq until the end of her second term. So there you have it, elect Hillary if want to wait another 8 miserable years for the implementation of a few progressive issues. I'm certain that corporations will not need to wait until the end of her second term to have their needs met.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 21, 2007 1:40:57 PM
Come on, Stephen. Be hopeful (or accept the inevitable). Mighty Oaks and little acorns, and so forth. FDR did not start out a recognizable liberal.
True, but FDR didn't have James Carville running around. I hardly think that Hillary is inevitable.
It's not that I can't stand Hillary, it's that she's my least favorite of the top 3 Democratic candidates. I have reasons to not be happy with her getting the nomination. However, I can honestly say that I won't need to hold my nose next year to vote for her, if it comes to that.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 21, 2007 1:52:59 PM
In addition to everything else that has been pointed out, I vociferously object to this business where Hillary assumes the entitlement to a second term. No, Hillary, you EARN a second term by DOING GOOD THINGS for the country. (I am not saying that undeserving Presidents never get reelected-- see Bush, G.W.-- but simply that no President is ENTITLED to assume an 8 year presidency.)
If Hillary's strategy is to coast for the first 4 years and not spend any political capital, she won't deserve reelection and won't get reelected. Every President should come into office wanting to get whatever they need to get passed in the first 4 years. That may be all that President gets.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Jul 21, 2007 2:05:39 PM
"If Hillary's strategy is to coast for the first 4 years and not spend any political capital, she won't deserve reelection and won't get reelected."
I agree. She appears to have been infected by the royal attitude syndrome that W. has. I live in a safe blue state so I will not vote for her if she wins the nomination. Voting for her will only put in power the worst elements of the Bill Clinton's presidency. I submit Mark Penn (A.K.A baby dick morris) as evidence #1.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 21, 2007 2:33:49 PM
Look, Neil doesn't like Hilary Clinton to begin with, so pretty much anything she says is suspect, right? I think what shes doing is fairly canny - she is, as Dilan pints out making an assumption about Democratic control extending well into the next 8 years, with her at the helm, giving us/her plenty of time to reverse various bad policies of the current guy (who, after all, has had 8 years to mess things up pretty thoroughly).
Just to touch on Iraq, accepting the reality of how bad things are means, I think, acknowledging that whatever our strategy is, however we want to get out, that we have a responsibility to see not see things devolve into absolute chaos (more than now); that implies that some sort of presence could be there for a good number of years to come. I'm no fan of military occupation (indeed, really, the military as a concept), but I like the ideas of societal breakdown and ethnic cleansing a lot less.
Second, on health care, any solution, again will take years to implement if it is indeed meant to be comprehensive, substantial and long term. There's no magic wand, no instant single payer plan in a jar waiting to be opened. And just to be confident about this, I happen to think that handled in the right order, where benefits can be seen on early changes uo front, there's no need to assume that by the time we reahc 2012, defending 24 seats, that we won't also be looking at a real turnaround in attitudes towards Democrats. I happen to subscribe to a firm belief - as McConnell suggests - that this last election showed a trendline that's all about Democrats making substantial gains while the GOP flounders.
However, to make that a firm reality, I think Democrats need to continue to step up and really set the policy agenda, and no, I don't se a lot of that just yet, whether we're talking healthcare or Iraq or issues that haven't even made it into the forefront of discussion like affordable housing and the needs of the poor and the working class. We've got some interesting starts from our candidates, but it's not all fully baked yet. At least not that I've seen. But I think we can get there, and whoever the Democrat is who wins 2008, I do think they will continue on pat 2012. I'm confident like that.
Posted by: weboy | Jul 21, 2007 2:37:14 PM
Weboy,
First, the Iraqis have asked us to leave. It is arrogant to assume we know what is best for them. That is how this whole thing got started. Anyhow, we don't seem to be preventing the violence with our occupation. I suggest we try the opposite. Face it, Hillary will keep W.'s imperial strategy in place so that we extract the oil from Iraq at any human toll. A U.S. Senator admitted as much this past week. Sick!
Second, since the Democrats rely on the Mark Penns and Bob Shrums, there is a decent chance they will manage to loose. All of this timid triangulation may lead to another disaster.
Third, it is fundamentally anti-democratic to promote the idea that a second term in guaranteed once you win a first term. Hillary and her team should stop with this nonsense.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 21, 2007 2:56:20 PM
jncam, I don't begin to suggest I know what's best for Iraq or for Iraqis; I do think that reasonable assessments of the situation have it getting worse, and we do have an obligation, as the people who invaded the country, to make our retreat orderly, and not to simply stand by after we go and watch the place deteriorate further. There are not good answers for any of this, and I think "we should just leave as soon as possible" is every bit as irresponsible as suggesting we should stay ad ininitum in the way Bush and his administration seem to be planning for. Drawing our troops down, trnasitioning Iraq into some next phase, will take time. We should be honest about that. I want us to go, I just want us to do it in a way that makes sense.
Second, I think far too much energy has been expended by some progressives over people like Mark Penn and Bob Shrum. They're consultancies are not the be-all and end-all of Democratic politics, and it simply infuses them with that much more perceived power to treat them as if they have it already. If Hillary Clinton fails, it will be over more than Mark Penn or anyone else. I'd just assoon have someone other than her, but that alternative isn't going to be found by making Mark Penn, or anyone else, the issue.
Third, it is reasonable to continue the post-Roosevelt expectation that almost all Presidents will be able to win reelection to a second term - the power of incumbency, and American reluctance to change horses mid-stream tend to work in that direction, along with other forces. I expect whatever Democrat wins will be able to do that, and I wouldn't think it "arrogant" of any candidate to suggest thy are it in for the eight year haul.
Finally, I don't know what it is in the natre of Democrats to be morose even when things look as objectively positive as they do right now. Mitch McConnell - Mitch "dollar signs for eyes" McConnell - thinks his team is a losing prospect. Why can't we even just have the calm confidence to agree with him? :)
Posted by: weboy | Jul 21, 2007 3:14:11 PM
First, the Iraqis have asked us to leave.
No they haven't.
Your complaint about her talking about her second term makes no more sense than complaining about a candidate talking about their first term. They aren't entitled to either, but talking about about what they would do doesn't imply they think they are, obviously.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 3:34:21 PM
Sanpete
From ThinkProgress:
"Maliki: American troops can ‘leave any time they want.’
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said on Saturday, “We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want.” One of al-Maliki’s close advisers, Shiite lawmaker Hassan al-Suneid, bristled over the American pressure, telling The Associated Press that “the situation looks as if it is an experiment in an American laboratory (judging) whether we succeed or fail.""
From AlterNet.org
"More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected for the first time on Tuesday the continuing occupation of their country. The U.S. media ignored the story."
Very little makes sense to Sanpete. I agree.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 21, 2007 3:49:42 PM
JNCam, it's obvious from your own source that Maliki didn't ask us to leave. The bit you quote from your second source fails to note what you probably know, that the "rejection" by a majority of the Iraqi parliamentarians wasn't in the form of a vote or any other official act; it was a letter stating their opposition to the occupation, something easy to do and not the same as requesting that we leave. Again, the Iraqis haven't asked us to leave, which they certainly could do anytime if they wished to by an official act representing the country. The Iraqi ambassador has been here begging us to stay and warning of disaster if we leave soon.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 4:08:56 PM
On Neil's point about Clinton, her position may be a middle way between Obama's and Edwards'. Obama promises universal access to affordable coverage, but not universal coverage (no mandate). Hillary may start without a mandate, which would be easier to gather support for initially, and then work up to the mandate as the public accepts the voluntary version as workable and not frightening. But that won't be clear until she announces the rest of her plan.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 4:25:37 PM
And please let's invoke the Nuclear Option to deprive them of the the filibuster, as they effectively did to us on judicial nominations.
Posted by: bob h | Jul 21, 2007 4:46:48 PM
Except, in the end, they didn't. And we opposed that option, remember? On the high ground of principle.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 4:58:41 PM
sanpete,
The Iraqi Ambassador receives his talking points from Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: jncam | Jul 21, 2007 5:12:27 PM
He represents the government of the officials you referred to in your previous post. If you think they're puppets of Bush/Cheney, then why refer to them in the first place?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 5:42:59 PM
Except, in the end, they didn't.
They got a bunch of nominees they wanted by threatening a nuclear option. They got to have their cake and eat it too--taking what they wanted without actually pulling the trigger.
Should the situation ever be reversed, we'd better resolve this once and for all--is the nuclear option valid or not? Right now it seems to be only valid when Republicans do it. This is the worst of all possible worlds--either the Senate should be strictly majoritarian or it should have protections for minorities, but it sure as hell shouldn't just have protections for Republican minorities. I either want Republicans to go on record saying that the nuclear option is not a valid response to judicial filibusters (thus repudiating their threats during the 109th Congress), or I want it to be used against their judicial filibusters in the 111th.
Posted by: Consumatopia | Jul 21, 2007 5:58:37 PM
Should the situation ever be reversed, we'd better resolve this once and for all--is the nuclear option valid or not?
That was settled at the time. The Democratic position was clear as a bell, that the nuclear option is illegitimate. If the Republicans filibuster a nominee, that will be a repudiation of their previous position, so I don't think there would be much advantage to getting them to go on record in a way they could repudiate just as easily later.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 6:32:00 PM
I think, acknowledging that whatever our strategy is, however we want to get out, that we have a responsibility to see not see things devolve into absolute chaos (more than now); that implies that some sort of presence could be there for a good number of years to come.
... given the major premise that our presence helps push things toward chaos, it is hard to see how the stated minor premise leads to the conclusion. I just can't make the syllogism work.
Its like saying if someone careens off the road at high speed and ends up with their SUV on my porch, they have a moral obligation to keep the thing going until its in my living room.
Sure, withdrawal now is as likely as not to be followed by utter chaos, but that is in part a consequence of our continued occupation. Deferring the withdrawal increases the damage done.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Jul 21, 2007 7:27:09 PM
Its like saying if someone careens off the road at high speed and ends up with their SUV on my porch, they have a moral obligation to keep the thing going until its in my living room.
Sure, withdrawal now is as likely as not to be followed by utter chaos, but that is in part a consequence of our continued occupation. Deferring the withdrawal increases the damage done.
I explain often enough why I think this is plain avoidance of reality, so I won't repeat it here. It was discussed a few days ago here.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 7:46:12 PM
That was settled at the time.
The Gang of 14 settlement was basically Republicans don't go nuclear, Democrats cave in and give Republicans no reason to go nuclear.
That sure as hell better not be once and for all. Fortunately, the agreement explicitly expired at the end of the 109th.
The Democratic position was clear as a bell, that the nuclear option is illegitimate.
That's not a categorical sort of thing. If they don't follow the rules of the Senate, we shouldn't either--if the majority does whatever they want when they're in charge, it should do whatever it wants when we're in charge. There's no outside body to appeal to in enforcing Senate rules, the only method is tit-for-tat: we'll play nice when we're in the majority if and only if you play nice when you're in the majority.
If the Republicans filibuster a nominee, that will be a repudiation of their previous position, so I don't think there would be much advantage to getting them to go on record in a way they could repudiate just as easily later.
Good point. In which case, if the Republicans filibuster nominees, we've gotta go nuclear--or at least extract huge concessions from them like they did with the Gang of 14.
Posted by: Consumatopia | Jul 21, 2007 7:47:56 PM
"If she wins, a big if, she'll appoint good people - most importantly to SCOTUS"
One of the number of reasons the country is where it is at the moment is the Dems turned away from legislation and toward the judiciary as the primary means of advancing their issues. A Democratic president would get to replace Stevens and Ginsburg (and perhaps Breyer and Souter) but Scalia and Thomas could hold out for 8 years and we are stuck with Alito and Roberts for 20 years. Replacing Kennedy with a moderate won't advance the progressive cause.
Posted by: primacy of legislation | Jul 21, 2007 8:24:11 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
