20 thoughts on “Twitter: Notion of lame-duck, …”

  4. Alasdair

    Brendan – “gahrie – what is 2 + 2 ?”

    David K – “Glenn Beck is not a valid source”

    Has that become David K’s mantra ?

  6. Alasdair

    gahrie – there you go again, responding to their questions with corroborated factual responses … and citing one of their own propaganda organs to do so ? You are a mean one, Mr gahrinch !

    You *know* they cannot handle the truth, silly gahrie !

    (grin)

  9. David K.

    @gahrie – An article by a right wing columnist, referencing an article by another right wing columnist, with quotes that talk about what a couple members of congress would LIKE to do or would consider bringing up in a hypothetical lame duck session is hardly what I would call a widespread movement by democrats threatening to push through these measures you are so afraid of.

    That would be like saying that quotes by a few Republican congressmen who believes we should consider military action against Iran is equivalent to saying that Republicans are threatening to invade Iran if elected.

  10. Brendan Loy

    Did I miss the memo where Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad and Tom Harkin became the top Democratic leaders who will decide whether such items come to the floor? Did I miss the part of the article where it says they reasonably expect to have majority & filibuster-proof support for their plans?

    Look, I have zero doubt that some liberal activists, and a handful of liberal and/or retiring and/or just-defeated congresscritters, like the cited trio, will introduce such legislation. Similarly I have zero doubt that it will fail. It’s inconceivable that the Dems would be able to muster a majority amid the post-election mayhem. Absolutely absurd. We’ll be lucky if they can manage to pass a FY2011 budget.

  14. Joe Mama

    And if a few Republican congressmen openly considered military action against Iran, how would Democrats react in the run up to an election? They surely would make broad brushed charges of bellicosity without the slightest care as to the number of Republican congressman in question or whether such military reaction was at all likely, and rightly so.

    Politicians are entitled to rely on the statements of their opponents. This is especially true in a campaign, particularly when those statements are indisputably true. As gahrie correctly pointed out in response to Brendan’s obtuse query, there is no question that Democratic senators “congresscritters” are on record supporting a potential lame-duck agenda that includes card check, tax hikes, and climate-change legislation. Whether they are ultimately successful or not is beside the point. If you think passage of such legislation is a “wolf-crazy dystopian fantasy” then shouldn’t you be taking issue with the politicians wasting everyone’s time by supporting it rather than their opponents who erroneously take them seriously?

  15. Brendan Loy

    I confess, when I made the original “dystopian fantasy” comment, I didn’t realize Democrats as senior as Rockefeller, Conrad and Harkin were possibly on record about this. If that’s really the case, then I would tone down my rhetoric a bit — though I’m still 100% certain the legislation in question will not pass in a lame-duck session after a Republican landslide.

    However, note I said “if that’s really the case.” I just went back and finally skimmed the John Fund article in question. Here’s what it actually says about each of the referenced senators:

    “I’ve got lots of things I want to do” in a lame duck [session], Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June.

    North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama’s deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. “It could be a huge deal,” he told Roll Call last month. “We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path.” By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

    Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that “to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again.” He told Mr. Press “we’re still trying to maneuver” a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

    So… assuming Fund isn’t hiding any additional, more pertinent information from us: Rockefeller said nothing at all about the legislation in question. Harkin made some vague comments about trying to pass card-check without actually saying anything about doing it in a lame-duck session. And Conrad talked about addressing deficit issues, which Fund asserts “undoubtedly means” the Bush tax cuts. Number one, that’s a leap — the deficit commission will endorse many things — and number two, the Bush tax cuts aren’t one of the pieces of legislation we were talking about. It’s a given that they’ll come up in the lame-duck session. We were talking about card check, immigration and cap & trade, three agenda items the Dems have made basically no effort to pass this year, but would supposedly bring up with renewed ferocity in a lame-duck session in the immediate aftermath of an electoral massacre?!? No. And none of these leaders are saying that. Not one. Krauthammer is being deliberately misleading with his phrasing.

    Now… who IS saying it? Well:

    In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like “card check”—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—”the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future.”

    House Progressive Caucus co-chairman Raul Grijalva is precisely the sort of person I’d expect to be pushing this sort of thing. He will fail. And while Republicans are within their rights to pretend that Grijalva’s agenda somehow speaks for the Democrats as a whole, just as Democrats are within their rights to take something that Ron Paul (R-TX) says as Republican gospel, it’s dishonest and incorrect to do so.

    The runaway lame-duck session WILL. NOT. HAPPEN. The legislation will probably be proposed, it might even be voted on (thought I doubt that), but it absolutely will not pass — it won’t even be close. I eagerly await any offers of friendly bets from those who believe it will pass. This falls into the “Christine O’Donnell will not win” level of certainty.

  16. Joe Mama

    Well I don’t read Harkin’s comments about chard check that way at all. True, Fund doesn’t quote him as actually using the words “lame-duck”, but what do you think passing some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in means? I realize those are the Fund’s words and not a direct quote from Harkin, but if you know anything about the man then you know there is absolutely no reason to question his desire to pass card check by whatever means he can. And it turns out Fund was in fact hiding some additional information from us, because Harkin in fact said that “a lot of things can happen in a lame-duck session, too,” in reference to card check. So let’s stop pretending that Harkin isn’t (or wasnt’) talking about trying to pass card check during a lame-duck session.

    Now, I agree that, this Congress’ record notwithstanding, controversial legislation isn’t likely to pass in a lame-duck session, but as I said above, that is beside the point. The fact remains that at least one Democratic senator has hinted that he intends to bring up a controversial agenda item (or at least parts of it) in a lame-duck session, which is reason enough for Republicans to take that agenda seriously in the run up to Nov. 2.

  18. Brendan Loy

    Ha! I was wondering if you’d go back and comment on this old thread.

    Technically, none of the items I mentioned in the original tweet (“Cap & Trade, Amnesty, Card Check”) either happened or even almost happened, since — whatever its merits or demerits — the DREAM Act is not a broad-based “Amnesty” as that term is generally used and as I was using it here. And certainly there was absolutely no effort to bring back Cap & Trade or Card Check, as it was always pretty obvious there wouldn’t be.

    Having said that, I agree with you, I’d call it a draw, because the “dystopian fantasy” clearly was at least slightly less absurd than I thought. The Dems showed a lot more gusto/cojones in pushing legislation during the lame duck than I thought they were capable of after a “shellacking.” I was ultimately right in my bottom-line prediction, but my reasoning was flawed and my confidence was too great.

  19. gahrie

    There was an announcement the other day that the EPA is going to effectively institute cap and trade through regulation.

Comments are closed.