That's because Harry Reid's the worst senate leader I can think of.
He could have just stripped the filibuster rule and they could have swept through all kinds of changes without obstructionists keeping things in control.
New Developments III
Americans like to boast that they are the biggest Democracy (or Republic?) in the world. But IMHO their system is a recipe for disaster and stalemate.
There can be no functioning democracy when the majority is unable to enact it's rule and that's exactly what happens in the US Senate. A recalcitrant minority can block everything without paying even a symbolic price.
There can be no functioning democracy when the majority is unable to enact it's rule and that's exactly what happens in the US Senate. A recalcitrant minority can block everything without paying even a symbolic price.
It has certainly been an interesting week in American politics.
The Democratic Party has a strong tradition of blaming failed candidates after a lost election (it would perhaps be more accurate to blame a failed electoral campaign, in this case), but obviously the party is taking this as a wake-up call.
It is easy to say now that it was a mistake for the Democratic Party to try draft a bill that would get all sixty non-Republican votes in the Senate. If the Republicans and Lieberman would have filibustered a Democratic-sponsored bill, it would have been much better than not having a Democratic-sponsored bill at all.
It is properly said that the Democrats should understand that they have a mandate to govern; when people elect a political party to the type of a majority that the Democrats have now, the least that they expect is the party is able to overcome its internal differences and present a clear agenda. If the leaders of the Democratic Party can't govern even their own party, how can they be expected to govern the whole country? It is inexcusable that at this point, Democrats don't have any proposal that could pass even simple majorities. Very few will blame the Republicans for "obstructing" health care reform if there are so many Democrats who oppose their own bill as well.
But I don't believe that this was the Democrats' only mistake. It appears to me that they entered the legislative process unprepared. It doesn't matter that the legislative process takes a long time, but it now looks like the Democrats advanced without any clear idea about what type of a bill they wanted to pass, or what type of a bill they realistically could pass. In fact, it seems that they still do not have a clear idea about either one of these things.
However, the Democrats should keep in mind that the situation is still far from a disaster, and that they should not push the panic button. Apparently some Democrats would now like to pass a watered-down health care bill and then move on. They should consider carefully if this is what they really want to do.
First of all, passing a watered-down bill may not be politically any better than passing no bill at all. Secondly, doing so would inevitably shift the political focus to the present economic situation; this would be very risky, if the economy does not improve.
Edited By Heksagon on 1264599713
The Democratic Party has a strong tradition of blaming failed candidates after a lost election (it would perhaps be more accurate to blame a failed electoral campaign, in this case), but obviously the party is taking this as a wake-up call.
It is easy to say now that it was a mistake for the Democratic Party to try draft a bill that would get all sixty non-Republican votes in the Senate. If the Republicans and Lieberman would have filibustered a Democratic-sponsored bill, it would have been much better than not having a Democratic-sponsored bill at all.
It is properly said that the Democrats should understand that they have a mandate to govern; when people elect a political party to the type of a majority that the Democrats have now, the least that they expect is the party is able to overcome its internal differences and present a clear agenda. If the leaders of the Democratic Party can't govern even their own party, how can they be expected to govern the whole country? It is inexcusable that at this point, Democrats don't have any proposal that could pass even simple majorities. Very few will blame the Republicans for "obstructing" health care reform if there are so many Democrats who oppose their own bill as well.
But I don't believe that this was the Democrats' only mistake. It appears to me that they entered the legislative process unprepared. It doesn't matter that the legislative process takes a long time, but it now looks like the Democrats advanced without any clear idea about what type of a bill they wanted to pass, or what type of a bill they realistically could pass. In fact, it seems that they still do not have a clear idea about either one of these things.
However, the Democrats should keep in mind that the situation is still far from a disaster, and that they should not push the panic button. Apparently some Democrats would now like to pass a watered-down health care bill and then move on. They should consider carefully if this is what they really want to do.
First of all, passing a watered-down bill may not be politically any better than passing no bill at all. Secondly, doing so would inevitably shift the political focus to the present economic situation; this would be very risky, if the economy does not improve.
Edited By Heksagon on 1264599713
Obama Liquidates Himself
A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?
It’s appalling on every level.
It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)
It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.
And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”
Now, I still cling to a fantasy: maybe, just possibly, Obama is going to tie his spending freeze to something that would actually help the economy, like an employment tax credit. (No, trivial tax breaks don’t count). There has, however, been no hint of anything like that in the reports so far. Right now, this looks like pure disaster.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/
A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?
It’s appalling on every level.
It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)
It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead.
And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view — and more specifically, he has embraced the policy ideas of the man he defeated in 2008. A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”
Now, I still cling to a fantasy: maybe, just possibly, Obama is going to tie his spending freeze to something that would actually help the economy, like an employment tax credit. (No, trivial tax breaks don’t count). There has, however, been no hint of anything like that in the reports so far. Right now, this looks like pure disaster.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
The problem with that Greg, is that Harry Reid's a weak-willed leader. He should have long ago stripped Lieberman of his chairmanship for betraying the Democratic caucus and flaunting sportsmanship rules. Had they not tried to molly-coddle every member of the caucus, maybe we'd have more to show for it.
Obama needs to read up on presidential history and become Johnson or let Rahm Emanuel off his leash and let him crack a few heads...there needs to be more aggression on the part of this administration.
Obama needs to read up on presidential history and become Johnson or let Rahm Emanuel off his leash and let him crack a few heads...there needs to be more aggression on the part of this administration.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Explain to them that if they don't vote for the nuclear option, the Republicans will block any legislation from passing; voters will turn on the "do nothing Democrats;" and, they will lose their committee/subcommittee chairs and maybe even their seats.Mister Tee wrote:Greg, you're assuming you could get small state Dems (Conrad, Nelson et al.) to sign on to a diminution of their power...
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
To back up my sense of how low-info voters viewed the race:
"41% of Massachusetts voters either think that Brown is a liberal or moderate and with them he holds a 79-18 lead. 59% think he’s a conservative and with them Martha Coakley has a 63-32 lead.”
Greg, you're assuming you could get small state Dems (Conrad, Nelson et al.) to sign on to a diminution of their power...not to mention risk Bob Byrd's keeling over at anyone altering the Majestic Rules of the Senate.
And of course the press, who egged on the GOP to make such a rule change during the Bush era, would cover it as the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch if Dems attempted it.
"41% of Massachusetts voters either think that Brown is a liberal or moderate and with them he holds a 79-18 lead. 59% think he’s a conservative and with them Martha Coakley has a 63-32 lead.”
Greg, you're assuming you could get small state Dems (Conrad, Nelson et al.) to sign on to a diminution of their power...not to mention risk Bob Byrd's keeling over at anyone altering the Majestic Rules of the Senate.
And of course the press, who egged on the GOP to make such a rule change during the Bush era, would cover it as the equivalent of the Beer Hall Putsch if Dems attempted it.
Mister Tee wrote:Let me just say, I think the idea that Dems should just use majority rule, as if Harry Reid had that option and simply chose tio give himself the handicap of getting 60 votes, is blind to reality.
From what I've read, if the Democrats use the "nuclear option," they could end the filibuster forever with only a simple majority.
Here's the wikipedia link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
The best comment on this race was written two days ago by the blogger Atrios -- "Whatever happens, it proves what I've been saying all along". People across the spectrum from Limbaugh to Huffington (with the odious Evan Bayh in between) have been validating his take.
In that vein, I'll throw in my own thoughts.
Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate. She evoked no passion, had no taste for the touchy-feely part of politics, and acted as if the seat were hers once the primary was past. She let her opponent define not only her but himself. I'll bet half to two-thirds of the people of the people who voted for Brown yesterday believe he's a pleasant, moderate Repuiblican in the Bill Weld vein. His record, and his statements at rallies, suggest something far different. But by the time Coakley started to air all this, it was ten days before election, at which point most charges are viewed as desperation.
You also have to wonder if MA, liberal as it supposedly is, has difficulty with women. Whenever Dems have a woman in the race, a GOPer seems to win -- first in 1990, when a female candidate lost the primary to a cranky, right-leaning John Silber, who was defeated by the more liberal Republican Weld; then in '98, when Shannon O'Brien won the primary but lost the general to Mitt Romney; and now. Like the country, MA has found it easier to elect a black man than a white women. I realize three doesn't necessarily a trend make, but it's odd.
Beyond the candidates, running in a special election when your party holds the White House with unemployment at 10% is always going to be difficult. At least difficult enough that you don't go on vacation till two weeks prior to voting.
But that, of course, is not the view of DC conventional wisdom. This dependably right-leaning crew, who watched Dems take 16 Senate seats and advised them not to "over-interpret their mandate" will now proclaim this single result the end of Obama-ism, and urge Dems to "cooperate" with Republicans (translation: cut taxes and social programs). And those Democrats on the edge -- the half dozen or so in the Senate who've been draining the juice out of anything the House passes -- will happily go along.
So, Sonic, you'd be dreaming to think anyone outside of the left will take this as a repudiation of Dem timidity. The loud call will be for Dems to "move to the center" -- as if Lieberman hadn't already pushed them there or past, with results that failed to mollify the right but dispirited the left. It's going to be much harder for Obama to get anything through the Senate now, as all the blue dogs will be shouting "1994!" -- failing to note that the lack of accomplishment, the retreat to do-nothing-ness of that year did the Dems far more harm than taking on health care. Letting this health care bill die will, I believe, create the impression that Dems have no interest in actually governing, and big losses in November would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't believe the Obama team believes this, and it remains to be seen how many in the Senate they can persuade to go their way. That, and of course whether the economy improves at least a bit by November, will determine the outcome of the vote this Fall.
Let me just say, I think the idea that Dems should just use majority rule, as if Harry Reid had that option and simply chose tio give himself the handicap of getting 60 votes, is blind to reality. Yes, Bush got things through under that system -- because enough Democrats believe the government has to continue to run. Even Ted Kennedy (who's rolling in his grave this morning) worked in good faith with Bush on No Child Left Behind, before being betrayed. This Republican Congress has been operating in a nihilistic fashion unprecedented in American history -- Arlen Specter has confirmed, that they decided on day one they'd simply negate Obama's agenda and presume he'd be blamed for all failures. Sadly, this first serious test vote suggests their vile strategy works for enough voters. How that can give anyone a satisfied feeling is beyond me.
Oh, the silver lining, if you look hard enough: unless Brown utterly disappoints his tea-party supporters and behaves like a sensible Senator, his chances of re-election in '12 are sub-zero.
In that vein, I'll throw in my own thoughts.
Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate. She evoked no passion, had no taste for the touchy-feely part of politics, and acted as if the seat were hers once the primary was past. She let her opponent define not only her but himself. I'll bet half to two-thirds of the people of the people who voted for Brown yesterday believe he's a pleasant, moderate Repuiblican in the Bill Weld vein. His record, and his statements at rallies, suggest something far different. But by the time Coakley started to air all this, it was ten days before election, at which point most charges are viewed as desperation.
You also have to wonder if MA, liberal as it supposedly is, has difficulty with women. Whenever Dems have a woman in the race, a GOPer seems to win -- first in 1990, when a female candidate lost the primary to a cranky, right-leaning John Silber, who was defeated by the more liberal Republican Weld; then in '98, when Shannon O'Brien won the primary but lost the general to Mitt Romney; and now. Like the country, MA has found it easier to elect a black man than a white women. I realize three doesn't necessarily a trend make, but it's odd.
Beyond the candidates, running in a special election when your party holds the White House with unemployment at 10% is always going to be difficult. At least difficult enough that you don't go on vacation till two weeks prior to voting.
But that, of course, is not the view of DC conventional wisdom. This dependably right-leaning crew, who watched Dems take 16 Senate seats and advised them not to "over-interpret their mandate" will now proclaim this single result the end of Obama-ism, and urge Dems to "cooperate" with Republicans (translation: cut taxes and social programs). And those Democrats on the edge -- the half dozen or so in the Senate who've been draining the juice out of anything the House passes -- will happily go along.
So, Sonic, you'd be dreaming to think anyone outside of the left will take this as a repudiation of Dem timidity. The loud call will be for Dems to "move to the center" -- as if Lieberman hadn't already pushed them there or past, with results that failed to mollify the right but dispirited the left. It's going to be much harder for Obama to get anything through the Senate now, as all the blue dogs will be shouting "1994!" -- failing to note that the lack of accomplishment, the retreat to do-nothing-ness of that year did the Dems far more harm than taking on health care. Letting this health care bill die will, I believe, create the impression that Dems have no interest in actually governing, and big losses in November would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't believe the Obama team believes this, and it remains to be seen how many in the Senate they can persuade to go their way. That, and of course whether the economy improves at least a bit by November, will determine the outcome of the vote this Fall.
Let me just say, I think the idea that Dems should just use majority rule, as if Harry Reid had that option and simply chose tio give himself the handicap of getting 60 votes, is blind to reality. Yes, Bush got things through under that system -- because enough Democrats believe the government has to continue to run. Even Ted Kennedy (who's rolling in his grave this morning) worked in good faith with Bush on No Child Left Behind, before being betrayed. This Republican Congress has been operating in a nihilistic fashion unprecedented in American history -- Arlen Specter has confirmed, that they decided on day one they'd simply negate Obama's agenda and presume he'd be blamed for all failures. Sadly, this first serious test vote suggests their vile strategy works for enough voters. How that can give anyone a satisfied feeling is beyond me.
Oh, the silver lining, if you look hard enough: unless Brown utterly disappoints his tea-party supporters and behaves like a sensible Senator, his chances of re-election in '12 are sub-zero.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
My problem with the Democrats right now is that they are trying to placate the entire voting bloc instead of using what they have. Budget reconciliation could have fixed this health care thing months ago and then perhaps they wouldn't have lost this race.
Unfortunately, we have a bunch of scared people and I'm actually hoping Reid loses in November. The next two senior members of the Senate are hard-line Dems who aren't going to roll over and take a beating. Reid has been ineffective with this congress and needs to be released.
If Pelosi had an effective counterpart in the Senate, I bet she could turn bitch on wheels and start pushing through legislation, but she also needs to not let people push her around.
Unfortunately, we have a bunch of scared people and I'm actually hoping Reid loses in November. The next two senior members of the Senate are hard-line Dems who aren't going to roll over and take a beating. Reid has been ineffective with this congress and needs to be released.
If Pelosi had an effective counterpart in the Senate, I bet she could turn bitch on wheels and start pushing through legislation, but she also needs to not let people push her around.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
There aren't enough words to describe how immensely satisfied I feel at this inevitable outcome. Sometimes you need to take your own, and throw a cold glass of water in their faces. Anything to wake them up. The Coakley campaign mirrors the Democratic party as it stands now. They had it all: Coakley had the seat all but wrapped in a bow for her; The Democrats hold the executive branch and large majorites in the House and Senate. Coakley's blasé arrogance cost her the race and the Democrats the seat, and if the Dems don't get their shit together this will be the prelude to more-of-the-same.
The fact is, Coakley was the very definition of a political hack, and Brown - besides being very good-looking - is very engaging and very dynamic. Even so, there was no reason why a candidate who won 48% of the vote in a four-way primary should lose an election in a Democratic stronghold, unless she gave the state a reason. She had the advantage, and she squandered it. As did the Massachusetts Democratic party. And as did the DNC, until the last weekend. Brown said "This is not a Kennedy seat. This is not a Democratic seat. It is the people's seat." And did he ever get that one right. The Democrats should have listened.
But before everyone starts crying and whining... it's really not the worst thing in the world! I mean, it's only one seat. The most important seat? Gosh, you wouldn't know it, would you? Getting 60 senate seats was the worst thing that could have happened to the Democrats, given the Democrats proclivities to not step on any toes. Now we see where that's brought us. Well, they still have a year to get some things done. Instead of concentrating on filibuster-proof majorities, just concentrate on simple majorities! If the Republicans are going to filibuster everything - which they've threatened to do anyway - let them! They want to be the obstructionist party, don't they? Just take them on. It'll do them more harm than good. If you want to pass that dismayingly mediocre health care bill with a simple majority, do it! It'll make you look like shits to both the right (for "ramming" it through) and the left (for not insisting on a simple majority from the start), but feel free. Maybe now, with only 59 seats, you'll focus better and behave like you have a mandate for a change. (The Republicans were good at that, remember?) But somehow, with this Pelosi-Reid Democratic congress, I doubt a Nov. 2010 rout will teach them anything, let alone a loss of a Kennedy seat.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1263961074
The fact is, Coakley was the very definition of a political hack, and Brown - besides being very good-looking - is very engaging and very dynamic. Even so, there was no reason why a candidate who won 48% of the vote in a four-way primary should lose an election in a Democratic stronghold, unless she gave the state a reason. She had the advantage, and she squandered it. As did the Massachusetts Democratic party. And as did the DNC, until the last weekend. Brown said "This is not a Kennedy seat. This is not a Democratic seat. It is the people's seat." And did he ever get that one right. The Democrats should have listened.
But before everyone starts crying and whining... it's really not the worst thing in the world! I mean, it's only one seat. The most important seat? Gosh, you wouldn't know it, would you? Getting 60 senate seats was the worst thing that could have happened to the Democrats, given the Democrats proclivities to not step on any toes. Now we see where that's brought us. Well, they still have a year to get some things done. Instead of concentrating on filibuster-proof majorities, just concentrate on simple majorities! If the Republicans are going to filibuster everything - which they've threatened to do anyway - let them! They want to be the obstructionist party, don't they? Just take them on. It'll do them more harm than good. If you want to pass that dismayingly mediocre health care bill with a simple majority, do it! It'll make you look like shits to both the right (for "ramming" it through) and the left (for not insisting on a simple majority from the start), but feel free. Maybe now, with only 59 seats, you'll focus better and behave like you have a mandate for a change. (The Republicans were good at that, remember?) But somehow, with this Pelosi-Reid Democratic congress, I doubt a Nov. 2010 rout will teach them anything, let alone a loss of a Kennedy seat.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1263961074
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
This pretty much sums up my thoughts:
http://www.hulu.com/watch....1-sr-i1
http://www.hulu.com/watch....1-sr-i1
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Counting The Days: Will Kennedy's Quick Seating In 1962 Repeat Itself?
Brian Beutler and Eric Kleefeld | January 19, 2010, 2:56PM
Talkingpointsmemo.com
In preparation for what they expect to be Republican Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate special election tonight, conservatives and Republicans have unearthed a novel and ironic precedent, which they're using to argue that, if he wins, Brown should be seated right away as the 41st vote against health care reform.
Senate rules require that all newly-elected Senators be certified as winners by their home states before they can be sworn in. But on November 6, 1962, none other than Ted Kennedy himself won a special election to fill his own brother's Senate seat in Massachusetts, and was sworn in the very next day--two full weeks before his victory was certified, and three weeks before that certification arrived in Washington.
1962 is a long way back, and according to Senate historian Don Ritchie, the relevant rule has been in place since well before then.
"Senators have always had to be certified to be sworn in," he says.
So why the exception for Kennedy? The short answer is the Senate disregarded its own rules and seated him despite lacking certification (the state certificate arrived a few weeks later). The longer answer is that there are some important differences between Kennedy's election 47 years ago and this year's race in Massachusetts.
Most crucially, according to Ritchie, the Senate was not in session in November, 1962, which means nobody was around to object to seating him immediately--the rules were waived and Kennedy was sworn in without certification. "Kennedy was sworn in the next day," Ritchie emails. "He won by a commanding majority, and the Senate was not in session, so there was no challenge, even though the paperwork for his certification came later."
In other words, if Republicans want to seat Brown (should he win) a la Kennedy the Senate would have to waive the rule, and swear in the 41st vote against health care. That won't be easy: Rules are suspended by unanimous consent, which means any one member can say "no way."
Senate leadership has been very clear: they're waiting for official documentation. "When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers, and the Vice President is available, the successor to Senators Kennedy and Kirk will be sworn in," says Jim Manley, spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
That means, among other things, military and absentee ballots will have to be counted, in accordance with Massachusetts law, before a winner can be certified--a requirement that was not in effect back in 1962.
And, Democrats say, the precedent is not on Republicans' side. Just this Congress, two Democrats--Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)--have had to grapple with the certification question. Burris had to go to the state Supreme Court to get a declaration that his appointment by soon-to-be-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich constituted a fully valid certification, even though the Illinois Secretary of State refused to co-sign the document. In Franken's case, Republicans refused to allow him to be seated until months and months of GOP-led court challenges to his very narrow win were resolved. (Minnesota law didn't allow for a certificate to be issued until the state court challenges were resolved.)
One can go back further still. In 1994, Republican Fred Thompson won a special election and took over the seat Harlan Matthews had been appointed to, and in 2002, Republican Jim Talent won a special election and took over the seat Jean Carnahan had been appointed to. In both cases, the appointed Senators continued to serve and vote until the winners had been certified and sworn in.
That's where part two of the conservative case for a swift seating comes into play. They point to the 2007 House special election in Massachusetts of Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), who was seated before officially certified. When Tsongas won, the clerk of the House requested, and the Massachusetts Secretary of the State provided, a special letter which stood as a temporary stand in for official certification.
"The Secretary sent a letter to the Clerk of the House at the Clerk's request, which said, on the basis of unofficial returns, it appears...Niki Tsonagas has been elected, there has been no contest -- in other words, no recount -- and [she was] sworn into the House," said Brian McNiff, spokesman for spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. "The Senate doesn't do that."
"The Secretary has said if the Senate requests a similar letter and the circumstances are similar, it's obvious who won the election, he would send a similar letter to the Senate," McNiff added. "At this point it would be a waste of time to send a letter to them, since under their rules they're not acting on unofficial returns."
There are more wrinkles, too. The House and Senate are different bodies, governed by different rules, and it isn't clear whether the Secretary of the Senate would honor an unofficial certification. (We're working on an answer to that question.) And in Tsongas' case, the seat she filled was actually vacant--awaiting certification would have meant delaying representation for Tsongas' district. By contrast, the Senate seat in Massachusetts will be filled by Sen. Paul Kirk (D-MA) until a new member is sworn in.
All of which is to say: it's not quite as simple as those demanding a quick turnover would like.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1263950187
Brian Beutler and Eric Kleefeld | January 19, 2010, 2:56PM
Talkingpointsmemo.com
In preparation for what they expect to be Republican Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts Senate special election tonight, conservatives and Republicans have unearthed a novel and ironic precedent, which they're using to argue that, if he wins, Brown should be seated right away as the 41st vote against health care reform.
Senate rules require that all newly-elected Senators be certified as winners by their home states before they can be sworn in. But on November 6, 1962, none other than Ted Kennedy himself won a special election to fill his own brother's Senate seat in Massachusetts, and was sworn in the very next day--two full weeks before his victory was certified, and three weeks before that certification arrived in Washington.
1962 is a long way back, and according to Senate historian Don Ritchie, the relevant rule has been in place since well before then.
"Senators have always had to be certified to be sworn in," he says.
So why the exception for Kennedy? The short answer is the Senate disregarded its own rules and seated him despite lacking certification (the state certificate arrived a few weeks later). The longer answer is that there are some important differences between Kennedy's election 47 years ago and this year's race in Massachusetts.
Most crucially, according to Ritchie, the Senate was not in session in November, 1962, which means nobody was around to object to seating him immediately--the rules were waived and Kennedy was sworn in without certification. "Kennedy was sworn in the next day," Ritchie emails. "He won by a commanding majority, and the Senate was not in session, so there was no challenge, even though the paperwork for his certification came later."
In other words, if Republicans want to seat Brown (should he win) a la Kennedy the Senate would have to waive the rule, and swear in the 41st vote against health care. That won't be easy: Rules are suspended by unanimous consent, which means any one member can say "no way."
Senate leadership has been very clear: they're waiting for official documentation. "When there is a certified winner in Massachusetts, the Senate has received appropriate papers, and the Vice President is available, the successor to Senators Kennedy and Kirk will be sworn in," says Jim Manley, spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
That means, among other things, military and absentee ballots will have to be counted, in accordance with Massachusetts law, before a winner can be certified--a requirement that was not in effect back in 1962.
And, Democrats say, the precedent is not on Republicans' side. Just this Congress, two Democrats--Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)--have had to grapple with the certification question. Burris had to go to the state Supreme Court to get a declaration that his appointment by soon-to-be-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich constituted a fully valid certification, even though the Illinois Secretary of State refused to co-sign the document. In Franken's case, Republicans refused to allow him to be seated until months and months of GOP-led court challenges to his very narrow win were resolved. (Minnesota law didn't allow for a certificate to be issued until the state court challenges were resolved.)
One can go back further still. In 1994, Republican Fred Thompson won a special election and took over the seat Harlan Matthews had been appointed to, and in 2002, Republican Jim Talent won a special election and took over the seat Jean Carnahan had been appointed to. In both cases, the appointed Senators continued to serve and vote until the winners had been certified and sworn in.
That's where part two of the conservative case for a swift seating comes into play. They point to the 2007 House special election in Massachusetts of Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), who was seated before officially certified. When Tsongas won, the clerk of the House requested, and the Massachusetts Secretary of the State provided, a special letter which stood as a temporary stand in for official certification.
"The Secretary sent a letter to the Clerk of the House at the Clerk's request, which said, on the basis of unofficial returns, it appears...Niki Tsonagas has been elected, there has been no contest -- in other words, no recount -- and [she was] sworn into the House," said Brian McNiff, spokesman for spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. "The Senate doesn't do that."
"The Secretary has said if the Senate requests a similar letter and the circumstances are similar, it's obvious who won the election, he would send a similar letter to the Senate," McNiff added. "At this point it would be a waste of time to send a letter to them, since under their rules they're not acting on unofficial returns."
There are more wrinkles, too. The House and Senate are different bodies, governed by different rules, and it isn't clear whether the Secretary of the Senate would honor an unofficial certification. (We're working on an answer to that question.) And in Tsongas' case, the seat she filled was actually vacant--awaiting certification would have meant delaying representation for Tsongas' district. By contrast, the Senate seat in Massachusetts will be filled by Sen. Paul Kirk (D-MA) until a new member is sworn in.
All of which is to say: it's not quite as simple as those demanding a quick turnover would like.
Edited By Sonic Youth on 1263950187
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
I remember that some time ago I asked if the present health care reform resembled the one which Mitt Romney helped pass in Massachusetts some years ago. Here is Timothy Egan's take on the subject:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010....or-hero
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010....or-hero
Scientists turn stem cells into pork
By MARIA CHENG
LONDON – Call it pork in a petri dish — a technique to turn pig stem cells into strips of meat that scientists say could one day offer a green alternative to raising livestock, help alleviate world hunger, and save some pigs their bacon.
Dutch scientists have been growing pork in the laboratory since 2006, and while they admit they haven't gotten the texture quite right or even tasted the engineered meat, they say the technology promises to have widespread implications for our food supply.
"If we took the stem cells from one pig and multiplied it by a factor of a million, we would need one million fewer pigs to get the same amount of meat," said Mark Post, a biologist at Maastricht University involved in the In-vitro Meat Consortium, a network of publicly funded Dutch research institutions that is carrying out the experiments.
Post describes the texture of the meat as sort of like scallop, firm but a little squishy and moist. That's because the lab meat has less protein content than conventional meat.
Several other groups in the U.S., Scandinavia and Japan are also researching ways to make meat in the laboratory, but the Dutch project is the most advanced, said Jason Matheny, who has studied alternatives to conventional meat at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and is not involved in the Dutch research.
In the U.S., similar research was funded by NASA, which hoped astronauts would be able to grow their own meat in space. But after growing disappointingly thin sheets of tissue, NASA gave up and decided it would be better for its astronauts to simply eat vegetarian.
To make pork in the lab, Post and colleagues isolate stem cells from pigs' muscle cells. They then put those cells into a nutrient-based soup that helps the cells replicate to the desired number.
So far the scientists have only succeeded in creating strips of meat about 1 centimeter (a half inch) long; to make a small pork chop, Post estimates it would take about 30 days of cell replication in the lab.
There are tantalizing health possibilities in the technology.
Fish stem cells could be used to produce healthy omega 3 fatty acids, which could be mixed with the lab-produced pork instead of the usual artery-clogging fats found in livestock meat.
"You could possibly design a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them," Matheny said.
Post said the strips they've made so far could be used as processed meat in sausages or hamburgers. Their main problem is reproducing the protein content in regular meat: In livestock meat, protein makes up about 99 percent of the product; the lab meat is only about 80 percent protein. The rest is mostly water and nucleic acids.
None of the researchers have actually eaten the lab-made meat yet, but Post said the lower protein content means it probably wouldn't taste anything like pork.
The Dutch researchers started working with pork stem cells because they had the most experience with pigs, but said the technology should be transferable to other meats, like chicken, beef and lamb.
Some experts warn lab-made meats might have potential dangers for human health.
"With any new technology, there could be subtle impacts that need to be monitored," said Emma Hockridge, policy manager at Soil Association, Britain's leading organic organization.
As with genetically modified foods, Hockridge said it might take some time to prove the new technology doesn't harm humans. She also said organic farming relies on crop and livestock rotation, and that taking animals out of the equation could damage the ecosystem.
Some experts doubted lab-produced meat could ever match the taste of real meat.
"What meat tastes like depends not just on the genetics, but what you feed the animals at particular times," said Peter Ellis, a biochemistry expert at King's College London. "Part of our enjoyment of eating meat depends on the very complicated muscle and fat structure...whether that can be replicated is still a question."
If it proves possible, experts say growing meat in laboratories instead of raising animals on farmland would do wonders for the environment.
Hanna Tuomisto, who studies the environmental impact of food production at Oxford University said that switching to lab-produced meat could theoretically lower greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95 percent. Both land and water use would also drop by about 95 percent, she said.
"In theory, if all the meat was replaced by cultured meat, it would be huge for the environment," she said. "One animal could produce many thousands of kilograms of meat." In addition, lab meat can be nurtured with relatively few nutrients like amino acids, fats and natural sugars, whereas livestock must be fed huge amounts of traditional crops.
Tuomisto said the technology could potentially increase the world's meat supply and help fight global hunger, but that would depend on how many factories there are producing the lab-made meat.
Post and colleagues haven't worked out how much the meat would cost to produce commercially, but because there would be much less land, water and energy required, he guessed that once production reached an industrial level, the cost would be equivalent to or lower than that of conventionally produced meat.
One of the biggest obstacles will be scaling up laboratory meat production to satisfy skyrocketing global demand. By 2050, the Food and Agriculture Organization predicts meat consumption will double from current levels as growing middle classes in developing nations eat more meat.
"To produce meat at an industrial scale, we will need very large bioreactors, like those used to make vaccines or pasteurized milk," said Matheny. He thought lab-produced meat might be on the market within the next few years, while Post said it could take about a decade.
For the moment, the only types of meat they are proposing to make this way are processed meats like minced meat, hamburgers or hot dogs.
"As long as it's cheap enough and has been proven to be scientifically valid, I can't see any reason people wouldn't eat it," said Stig Omholt, a genetics expert at the University of Life Sciences in Norway. "If you look at the sausages and other things people are willing to eat these days, this should not be a big problem."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....ovation
By MARIA CHENG
LONDON – Call it pork in a petri dish — a technique to turn pig stem cells into strips of meat that scientists say could one day offer a green alternative to raising livestock, help alleviate world hunger, and save some pigs their bacon.
Dutch scientists have been growing pork in the laboratory since 2006, and while they admit they haven't gotten the texture quite right or even tasted the engineered meat, they say the technology promises to have widespread implications for our food supply.
"If we took the stem cells from one pig and multiplied it by a factor of a million, we would need one million fewer pigs to get the same amount of meat," said Mark Post, a biologist at Maastricht University involved in the In-vitro Meat Consortium, a network of publicly funded Dutch research institutions that is carrying out the experiments.
Post describes the texture of the meat as sort of like scallop, firm but a little squishy and moist. That's because the lab meat has less protein content than conventional meat.
Several other groups in the U.S., Scandinavia and Japan are also researching ways to make meat in the laboratory, but the Dutch project is the most advanced, said Jason Matheny, who has studied alternatives to conventional meat at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and is not involved in the Dutch research.
In the U.S., similar research was funded by NASA, which hoped astronauts would be able to grow their own meat in space. But after growing disappointingly thin sheets of tissue, NASA gave up and decided it would be better for its astronauts to simply eat vegetarian.
To make pork in the lab, Post and colleagues isolate stem cells from pigs' muscle cells. They then put those cells into a nutrient-based soup that helps the cells replicate to the desired number.
So far the scientists have only succeeded in creating strips of meat about 1 centimeter (a half inch) long; to make a small pork chop, Post estimates it would take about 30 days of cell replication in the lab.
There are tantalizing health possibilities in the technology.
Fish stem cells could be used to produce healthy omega 3 fatty acids, which could be mixed with the lab-produced pork instead of the usual artery-clogging fats found in livestock meat.
"You could possibly design a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them," Matheny said.
Post said the strips they've made so far could be used as processed meat in sausages or hamburgers. Their main problem is reproducing the protein content in regular meat: In livestock meat, protein makes up about 99 percent of the product; the lab meat is only about 80 percent protein. The rest is mostly water and nucleic acids.
None of the researchers have actually eaten the lab-made meat yet, but Post said the lower protein content means it probably wouldn't taste anything like pork.
The Dutch researchers started working with pork stem cells because they had the most experience with pigs, but said the technology should be transferable to other meats, like chicken, beef and lamb.
Some experts warn lab-made meats might have potential dangers for human health.
"With any new technology, there could be subtle impacts that need to be monitored," said Emma Hockridge, policy manager at Soil Association, Britain's leading organic organization.
As with genetically modified foods, Hockridge said it might take some time to prove the new technology doesn't harm humans. She also said organic farming relies on crop and livestock rotation, and that taking animals out of the equation could damage the ecosystem.
Some experts doubted lab-produced meat could ever match the taste of real meat.
"What meat tastes like depends not just on the genetics, but what you feed the animals at particular times," said Peter Ellis, a biochemistry expert at King's College London. "Part of our enjoyment of eating meat depends on the very complicated muscle and fat structure...whether that can be replicated is still a question."
If it proves possible, experts say growing meat in laboratories instead of raising animals on farmland would do wonders for the environment.
Hanna Tuomisto, who studies the environmental impact of food production at Oxford University said that switching to lab-produced meat could theoretically lower greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95 percent. Both land and water use would also drop by about 95 percent, she said.
"In theory, if all the meat was replaced by cultured meat, it would be huge for the environment," she said. "One animal could produce many thousands of kilograms of meat." In addition, lab meat can be nurtured with relatively few nutrients like amino acids, fats and natural sugars, whereas livestock must be fed huge amounts of traditional crops.
Tuomisto said the technology could potentially increase the world's meat supply and help fight global hunger, but that would depend on how many factories there are producing the lab-made meat.
Post and colleagues haven't worked out how much the meat would cost to produce commercially, but because there would be much less land, water and energy required, he guessed that once production reached an industrial level, the cost would be equivalent to or lower than that of conventionally produced meat.
One of the biggest obstacles will be scaling up laboratory meat production to satisfy skyrocketing global demand. By 2050, the Food and Agriculture Organization predicts meat consumption will double from current levels as growing middle classes in developing nations eat more meat.
"To produce meat at an industrial scale, we will need very large bioreactors, like those used to make vaccines or pasteurized milk," said Matheny. He thought lab-produced meat might be on the market within the next few years, while Post said it could take about a decade.
For the moment, the only types of meat they are proposing to make this way are processed meats like minced meat, hamburgers or hot dogs.
"As long as it's cheap enough and has been proven to be scientifically valid, I can't see any reason people wouldn't eat it," said Stig Omholt, a genetics expert at the University of Life Sciences in Norway. "If you look at the sausages and other things people are willing to eat these days, this should not be a big problem."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....ovation