Not in practice, mind you, but as a codeword sop to the masses as justification for defending the status quo.

The end result of bipartisanship is paring down a bill until it changes next to nothing of import.  And then selling it as if it were the greatest thing since the last bucket of lukewarm spit to pass this way.

This is nothing new in politics. The money has always been on the side of the status quo, since change can be costly to one’s bottom line. 

And the status quo has perennially been about "I’ve got mine.  Screw you," now hasn’t it? 

One only need watch the FDR Fala speech (Youtube above) to get that. Or read a little history, you can pretty much pick any era.

What is new? That there is no real voice for change and the little guy capitalizing on this moment in our nation’s history.

And it shows.

Jean Edward Smith has a fantastic op-ed in the NYTimes today talking about FDR, the false sop of bipartisanship and the real value of a little more backbone:

. . .this fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead.

Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process. It is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices.

He cites numorous examples of Roosevelt New Deal reforms which were enacted in spite of entrenched interests, and not because they’d been pared down to mere windowdressing to win their support.

Was Glass-Steagall passed in a bi-partisan fashion with entrenched interests on Wall Street given a seat at the negotiating table? Hell no. Social security?  Are you kidding me?!?

Were there membes of Congress consorting with moneyed interests trying to block the bill, much like Max Baucus’ lobbyist-filed anteroom? Undoubtedly.  Although, as Krugman points out, there’s a lot more of that lobbyist payola floating around these days.

But the real difference between then and now?

FDR sold the need for change at the grassroots by making that change actually happen.  And without selling the public’s interest down the river in the process.  Which made his grassroots support all the stronger, and enabled him to fend off opposition by painting them as being against the public, fueling more public support in the process. 

FDR drew his power for change from the people, not just from the people around him inside the Beltway.

Better political leadership in the Democratic party would help.  So would those leaders actually believing in the need for change instead of giving it political lip service and then undercutting it with their actions.

Can the Obama administration still make needed changes? Absolutely.

Will they? Well, that’s the big question, isn’t it?

Storytime via aye_shamus. Love this!

Listen my children and you shall hear, of the continued obstruction and gooberish fear…

The Grand Obstruction Party and weak-kneed Democratic leadership. Still at it:

Still unconfirmed are three circuit court nominees and four nominees for assistant attorney general positions, including Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel. Democrats need Republican agreement in order to move the nominees forward, unless they want to use days of time on the Senate floor.

And there it is, in a nutshell. 

What I’ve been hearing all along is that Johnsen does have the votes to get past cloture — with both Nelson and Specter intending to vote for cloture, regardless of their ultimate nomination vote.  So, what’s the hold-up in bringing this vote to the floor?

The lack of leadership willpower to expend political capital and Senate floor time to force it through.

In other words, the Democratic leadership will not go to the mattresses for these nominees and the GOP knows they are too weak to do it.

As David Waldman has patiently explained, time and time again, the mere threat of a filibuster-esque thought on a particular nominee or legislative whimsy is enough to send the Democratic leadership in the Senate off with a case of the immobilized vapors:

So do Republicans intend to filibuster the bill? Probably not in the sense that they want to see it killed, which means they’ll deny that they’re engaged in a filibuster, or even threatening one. But make no mistake, there is no reason why anything in the Senate requires 60 votes except to end a filibuster, whether one materializes out in the open or not. If the threat is that the bill’s opponents will force a 60 vote threshold unless they get an opportunity to change the bill, the threat is nothing other than a threat to filibuster.

Will a filibuster materialize? Probably not, at least not one seriously aimed at killing the bill. Instead, concessions will be made that should guarantee forward progress on some amended form of the bill. . . . expect a deal to be struck that should eliminate the possibility of a successful filibuster that would actually prevent the bill from coming to a vote. And that’s what will matter to the Senate leadership.

That was David on the stimulus package showboating.  But the same applies to nearly every other stoppage in the Senate before and since. (more…)

Empty bench via [ r ♥ c e y t ♥ y ] {I br♥ke for bokeh}.

Digby points to a Catherine Rampel piece at NYTimes.  In it, Rampel underscores a universal political truth:

According to two recent polls from The New York Times/CBS News and The Wall Street Journal/NBC News, Americans appear very worried about controlling the federal deficit.

…that most Americans put a higher priority on keeping the budget deficit down than on spending more money to stimulate the economy.

Creation of perception makes your political reality come to life, including through carefully Luntzian-crafted questions and manipulation of the after-messaging, regardless of the underlying facts and hard numbers.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

But only if we let it, as Digby aptly points out:

The fiscal scolds don’t stop when the numbers turn around. They keep up the fear mongering because it isn’t really about balanced budgets or paying down debt. It’s about keeping government from bringing positive results to the people. As long as they can keep people focused on debt, whether it exists or not, they always have the rationale to stop any sort of government action that could empower average citizens.

And thus we come back to the question I find myself asking over and over again when mouths yap up and down about the "good of the country" and "too big to fail" and "the market will sort it out" — what’s in it for the person whose gums are flapping?

What skin do they have in the game? What promotional interest or PR ploy or electoral backscratch is involved on the down low?

Krugman has a piece on the health-care-palooza traveling carnival show we’ve all been watching. And Paul asks the question I keep asking myself:

If I had to guess, I’d say that what’s really going on is that relatively conservative Democrats still cling to the old dream of becoming kingmakers, of recreating the bipartisan center that used to run America.

Bipartisan zombies must go.

At what point does the public’s interest get put back into the policy?  As Yglesias says, the public option still has overwhelming support from the…public. 

From the Blue Dogs, the well-heeled lobbyists, the suits and well-bonused fatcats….the elected officials who seem more interested in "what’s in it for me" and whether the public gets the shaft?  That’s pretty much an empty bench when it comes to the public’s interest these days, isn’t it? (more…)

Oh, good lord. Save me from this idiocy and self-inflicted wound licking from the bipartisan zombie crew.

First, via Joe Sudbay’s rapier sharp analysis, we have this example of gen-u-whine genius from Sen. Max Baucus:Now, if I was a Republican, I’d be laughing my ass off right now. Max Baucus is basically writing the t.v.

Political pundits, electoral operatives and former elected officials are like the undead: just when you think they’ve been buried, they rise up again from the political graveyard. No matter how craptastic their myriad sins may be — stealing from public coffers, ethical lapses out the wazoo, being a race-baiting bigot, whatever — they continue on your teevee and in print.

Joe Klein continues to eat his Wheaties:

Obama should now understand that the Republicans are not reliable partners–at least, not for the moment. Most are stuck in the contentious past, rutted in Reaganism, intent on taking a Hooverist course on the economy…