PBS: Video: NewsHour: Lisa Dejardins: What Will Happen in the Next Senate

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

What will happen in the next Congress a united Republican Congress as far as Republicans controlling both the House of Representatives and Senate, will be based on what Speaker John Boehner and Leader Mitch McConnell actually want to get done and get passed out of Congress and signed into law. And what they want to try to pass by themselves with mostly if not all Republican votes in both the House and Senate and try to force Senate Democrats who will be brand new to the minority, to try to block, or force President Obama to veto partisan legislation.

President Obama is smart to invite Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell down to the White House this week to try to see where they may be able to work together in the next Congress. But the fact is Republicans are in charge of Congress and Congressional Democrats and the President will be on the defensive at least in the early going of the next Congress. And Democrats will react to Republicans based on what Republicans want to and try to do. The next Congress will be as effective and popular as Republicans are effective at running it.

Incoming Senate Leader Mitch McConnell & House Speaker John Boehner

Read Full Post »

The McLaughlin Group: Video: U.S. Senate Elections on Election Night

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Just to sort of follow-up on what I was talking about yesterday and the U.S. Senate elections. Senate Republicans should win back the Senate on Tuesday, probably six or seven seats. Or maybe they only win five, but somehow Larry Pressler who is an Independent in North Dakota, wins that Senate election and decides to caucus with Republicans. Giving Senate Republicans a 50-48 and 2 majority. Or similar scenario but Independent Senator Angus King decides to caucus with the Republicans instead of the Democrats.

But as The McLaughlin Group pointed out which is why I’m leaving some hope for Senate Democrats, there are still a couple of critical factors that could save the Senate for Democrats. Michelle Nunn wins the Senate seat in Georgia, Gregg Orman wins in Kansas. Mary Landrieu doesn’t win Louisiana, but Representative Bill Cassidy doesn’t win a majority, forcing the election into a December runoff. Kay Hagan holds the steady lead she’s had for over a year over Tom Tillis in North Carolina and the same thing with Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire over Scott Brown.

Under the reasonable scenarios I just put out, Senate Democrats could lose every other seat that is in play for Republican pickups and still retain the Senate with a 50-50 plus Vice President Joe Biden majority. Keep in mind, only Mary Landrieu is either down barley or tied with her opponent. And she is a great campaigner and has a great campaign machine and Democrats have a great get out the vote operation. And Senator Landrieu has already won a runoff back in 2002 in a big Republican year where Democrats lost the Senate that gave Republicans a united Congress.

Under any other election year and scenario with an unpopular President in Barack Obama that I voted twice for and don’t regret those votes or would change for anything, we should not only be talking about Republicans winning the Senate, but are they going to win 8 or 10 seats. Not 5-7 and giving Democrats life in the Senate. Along with House Republicans picking up twenty or more seats and padding their majority. That is not happening because of the unpopularity of the Republican Party with their candidates and that they have weak incumbents as well.

U.S. Democratic Senatorial Committee

Read Full Post »

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on the MidTerm Mood

.
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Most likely and for me that means the best guess and best educated guess, Senate Republicans win back the Senate on Tuesday and perhaps add five seats to their House majority as well. I don’t see a wave for 2014 where Republicans win 8-10 seats in the Senate and twenty or more in the House. But things are so bad for Democrats right now that Republicans despite their own problems with voters, do not need a wave to do well in Congress on Tuesday.

Democrats still have hope even in the Senate. They win Georgia and Kansas where they are currently ahead with Michelle Nunn over David Perdue in Georgia and Greg Orman over Republican Senator Pat Roberts has been in Congress since 1981 and maybe Democrats hold Republican gains to four or five and barely hold the Senate having to rely on a couple of new Independents to hold their majority. But they would also need to hold North Carolina and New Hampshire with Kay Hagen respectfully to pull that off. Also may need to hold Arkansas or Louisiana as well.

What may be the only victories for Democrats on Tuesday night could at the state level and not in Congress. But governor’s races and legislature races where Democrats have real pickup opportunities in both areas. Pennsylvania, Florida, perhaps even Georgia, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan. If they win those states or just a few of them and not lose any big states where they currently are in power, we could see better redistricting that could favor House Democrats in the future.

Read Full Post »

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority Status in Flux?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority In Flux?

What if, what if, what if, what question is more fun to ask and even ask yourself than what if? But the reason why it is such a fun question to ask, is because it gives people who chance to imagine and throw out countless hypotheticals and imagine all sorts of interesting things. But to speak about Norm Ornstein’s what if, he may be on to something right now because of how partisan and divided America is politically right now. With an unpopular President, but an unpopular Republican opposition that Americans aren’t crazy about having complete control of Congress, both the House and Senate.

This is where the centrists, or as I prefer the more independently minded Senators and Senate candidates come into play. Because let’s say we do have a 50-50 Senate in the next Congress with Democrats still in control of the Senate because of Vice President Joe Biden, or a 51-49 Senate in the next Congress that goes either way, without either party having enough of a partisan advantage to run the chamber by themselves, that is where the Independents come into play. Especially if they don’t caucus with either party, or are not in lockstep with the political or governing agenda that their leadership wants to push.

In a divided Senate like that, that is where the Independents have the power, Assuming the Leader and Minority Leader are actually interested in governing and passing legislation in that Congress. And not simply looking for the next partisan advantage that will give them a clear majority in the next Congress. When the leadership’s in both parties aren’t interested in governing and simply looking for partisan advantage, as we’ve seen a lot in the Congress from both parties in both chambers, Independents do not mean a hell of a lot.

Whoever the next Senate Leader and Minority Leader is, they will still set the tone as far as what that Senate can pass in the next Congress. And if you are like me, you are looking for new leadership at the top in both parties without Harry Reid Mitch McConnell leading their respective caucus’. And hopefully new blood will come in and decide to work with the other party. Because whoever holds the next Senate majority, it will be paper-thin, perhaps 52-48 at best for one side. And if they decide to govern, the Independents will come into power and a lot legislation could get passed.
.

Read Full Post »

PBS: Robert MacNeil & Jim Lehrer: Introducing the Watergate Hearings

Source:PBS NewsHour– Senator Sam Ervin (Democrat, North Carolina) Chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee (93rd Congress)

“How high did the scandals reach and was President Nixon himself involved?”

That was what Robert MacNeil, then co-anchoring with Jim Lehrer, dubbed “the ultimate question” as public broadcasting began its gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Watergate hearings on May 17, 1973.

MacNeil said the hearings were intended “to bear the truth about the wide range of illegal, unethical or improper activities established … surrounding the re-election President Nixon last year.”

Lehrer also detailed the scandal. Though little action had taken place as the hearings began, the committee’s “basic job remains the same,” he said.”

From the PBS NewsHour

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and non-commercial,[7][8][9] free-to-air television network[10][11][12][13] based in Arlington, Virginia. PBS is a publicly funded[14] nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing shows such as Frontline, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Sesame Street, and This Old House.[15]

PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[16] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.”

From Wikipedia

If you are familiar with C-SPAN or the Cable Special Public Affairs Network, well the PBS coverage of the 1973 U.S. Senate Watergate hearings is basically the early days of C-SPAN. Gavel to gavel coverage of a major invent in Congress which this was and what they did like what C-SPAN does. Is just show what happened and let the people decide for themselves what it meant and so forth.

Which is exactly what PBS was doing without breaking in to have an analyst explain what the people were watching. But would have the people be able to make those decisions for themselves. Which was basically the early days of what I call PBS News: the news operation over at PBS that produces shows like the NewsHour, Frontline, Washington Week, and so-forth.

PBS News allowed Americans to be able to see for themselves what Watergate was and what it meant for themselves. With a lot of the key actors in the whole Watergate affair and is a great example of what journalism should be rather than talk down to the audience with so-called experts allow for them to see for themselves what is happening.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

Read Full Post »

PBS: NewsHour- David Brooks & EJ Dionne on Ground Troops Debate

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

When was the last time that Congress had big bipartisan votes on anything? Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly voting in favor of President Obama getting America involved in Syria and Iraq to defeat ISIS or ISIL, depending on how you define what Secretary of State John Kerry calls, “The Enemy of Islam”. The so-called Islamic group that wants to occupy the Levantine region of Arabia that includes both Iraq and Syria.

As far as Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I think it is pretty likely that Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2016 and perhaps will announce by the spring of 2015. Otherwise she doesn’t have much business being at Senator Tom Harkin’s political event last weekend. But as David Brooks and EJ Dionne pointed out, she won’t have an easy ride to the Democratic nomination. She’ll get pushed by both center and further Left Democrats to take hard stands on key issues in order to win the nomination.

As far as the battle for the U.S. Senate. Yeah Kansas is good news for Democrats this week. Because it means a popular Center-Left leaning Independent will be the main challenger to a very unpopular Republican Senator Pat Roberts in November. But as I’ve been talking about for months now, Kansas is not the only problem and thing that could keep Republicans from winning back the Senate in November. They are still defending Georgia and Kentucky where the Democratic challengers are running very strong. Tied in Kentucky against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senate Republicans will may have to hold all three of these states in order to win back the Senate.

PBS: NewsHour- Brooks & Dionne On The Ground Troop Debate

Read Full Post »

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on President Obama as a Reluctant Warrior and Congress

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

President Obama gave a very good speech on why America should act against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Now its time for Congress to do their job and hold a debate and vote on action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. As Representative Peter King said a Republican from New York City, “President Obama should use military force against ISIS and Congress should approve of it”. Time for the House and Senate to step up here and do their job and hold a debate and vote on American military action against Syria and Iraq.

As far as the Senate elections. The jury is still out on who will control the Senate in the next Congress. I see it still at 50-50 either way because of vulnerable Senate Democrats running for reelection in red states. But again Georgia, Kentucky and now Kansas are all in play for Senate Democrats as well. Which means even if Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia fall to Senate Republicans, that is only a net plus of two seats for them if they don’t hold Georgia, Kentucky and Kansas which are all in play for Democrats. If that is the scenario, North Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska will decide with party controls the Senate in the next Congress.

Read Full Post »

PBS: The MacNeil/Lehrer Report 11/9/1982

Robert MacNeil

The MacNeil/Lehrer Report I guess as it was called back then, now known as the PBS NewsHour was talking about the influence of political pacs, or political action committees on Congressional elections during the 1982 Congressional mid-term elections in the U.S. House and Senate. Pacs are private third-party committees that special interest groups on both the Right and Left set up in order to influence Congressional elections, presidential elections and state elections as well.

Apparently the 1982 Congressional mid-terms were very expensive at least for 1982. And what the Robin MacNeil and Jim Lehrer were looking at was what influence these pacs may of had on Congressional elections. And they interviewed Representative Phil Gramm who received a lot of pac money for his 1982 House reelection campaign. And Senator Bill Proxmire who apparently also received a lot of pac money in 1982.

Read Full Post »

Discerning History: Video: History of the Filibuster: The Right for Senators to Make Assholes Out of Themselves

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

You want to know why there’s so much hot air in Washington? For one its in an area that gets about five months of summer. Sometimes more, hot humid endless summers at times, where people pray for rain. Which only makes the area hotter and more humid but these summer showers all five- minutes of them do give us some temporary relief. Another reason for hot air is we are the seat of power for not only the United States but North America and the rest of the world.

We are an area of six-million people where people from all over the world come to express their five- minutes worth. And get to tell Congress exactly what they are thinking in order to get their help. And when they talk to senators, senators get to speak until they decide to shut up. Or there are sixty votes to tell Sen. Hot Air and their allies, to “shut the hell up! Or there’s a Blizzard in South Florida, you know whatever comes first, it used to be worst.

Up until 1975 it took 67 votes to kill a filibuster, which meant that 34 Senators could defeat 66. If you’re a sports fan that probably makes as much sense as the team with twenty-one points beating the team with forty-two in a football game. I don’t have a problem with the current sixty vote rule. I do believe in things like minority rights. So there’s some type of check and balance in Congress both in the House and Senate. And that the Minority Leader the Leader of the Minority Caucus and Ranking Members the Leaders of the minority memberships of Committees, should be more than just their caucus’s Chief Spokesperson’s but that they shouldn’t be able to rule the Senate like they are in charge.

Two problems with the Senate and there are problems with the House as well, but since this blog is about the filibuster, which only happens in the Senate (Thank God!) I’m just going to focus on the Senate. Can you imagine a filibuster in the House, with 435 Representatives being able to talk until they run out of breath, or 261 votes are gathered to get them to, shut the hell up! “You’re not the only one with nonsense to say!” You think there’s already too much hot air in Congress now, have a filibuster rule both in the Senate and House.

There would be so much hot air in the House, people could do their sun tanning on the House floor. No more weekend getaways to Florida or Southern California paid for by lobbyists because they could do that on the House floor. But the two main problems with the Senate have to do with two rules, one of them needs to be replaced. The other needs to be thrown away like the piece of trash that it is. The trash is the Motion to Proceed Rule, get this it currently takes 60 votes just to move to a bill in order to debate a bill.

Which makes the Leader of the Senate as weak as what the Vice President use to be, before the President gave them a real job. The Leader should just be able to call up any bill that they put on the Senate agenda. Thats passed out of committee or that the Leader and Minority Leader call up together under Emergency Rule. And this way the Senate would look more like a PTA meeting, or the United Nations. Because things would actually get accomplished in the Senate.

The Senate Rule that should be replaced is the is the Cloture Rule better known as the filibuster. I would replace that with a Motion to Table, that could only be made by the Leader or Minority Leader. After a Senate Debate has concluded, no more blocking amendments, just have those need 60 votes to pass anyway. So controversial amendments would have to pass an extra level to pass, as well as forcing them to be relevant to the legislation.

Reforms like this an establishing a real Rules Committee in the Senate and make that bipartisan. And then we would actually see something strange in the Senate, senators working and producing. Instead of just showing up and getting a great tan from all of their own Hot Air.

Right to Hot Air

Read Full Post »

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields & Brooks: Islamic State in Syria & Iraq

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Of course Congress has to and needs to not only approve any new war America gets involved in Syria and Iraq. Because what President Obama and the National Security Council are considering is a new war and new operations as they involve Syria and Iraq. Air strikes in Syria for the first time in Syria at least from this President. And perhaps the possibility of us putting ground troops on the ground in Iraq especially Kurdistan to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group there. This should be the first debate that the House and Senate deals with when they come back in September.

Read Full Post »