Has a Shakeup Started in Washington?
Wednesday 24 February 2010
by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: CRASH:candy, ArtByChrysti)
All of a sudden, things are getting weird in Washington, DC. We've all gotten used to nothing coming out of government but a whole lot of obstructionism and big talk, because that's basically all we've gotten for the better part of a year. Health care reform: fail. Real banking reform: fail. The Democrats' ability to use their 60-vote majority in the Senate to pass important pieces of legislation: epic fail.
Nobody was really happy about it, according to every poll on the planet, but it started to feel like yelling at a rainstorm. Curse the clouds all you want, but you're getting wet regardless, right? We have all been steeping like tea bags in frustration and inaction, and only a few days ago it seemed pretty clear that we were in for more of the same to come. All that suddenly went sideways this week, however, when an outburst of forward motion from some very odd quarters threatens to shake up the ossified processes of this government.
Press play to listen to author William Rivers Pitt read his column, "Has a Shakeup Started in Washington?":
Press play to listen to author William Rivers Pitt read his column, "Has a Shakeup Started in Washington?":
First came word of an unlikely champion stepping forward to lead the effort to repeal the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars LGBT citizens from serving openly in the military: Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Surprisingly enough, Lieberman has a fairly good voting record on gay rights, earning an 88 out of 100 rating by the Human Rights Campaign. He has co-sponsored bills like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.
However, Joe being Joe means he also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and voted in favor of the very same "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy he now takes issue with, but that's par for the course with him. If Joe Lieberman called a press conference to announce that water is wet, millions of Americans would immediately leap into their showers to make sure he wasn't lying again. Lieberman has proven himself to be astonishingly less than trustworthy, especially lately, but if he actually follows through on this and helps eliminate nearly two decades of discrimination, he will deserve whatever praise he is given.
At about the same time, another Northeastern senator was blowing up the status quo from the other side of the aisle. Scott Brown, the newly minted GOP senator from Massachusetts, who became the darling of the Right by defeating Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race to replace the late Ted Kennedy, broke ranks with his party and sided with the Democrats on President Obama's $15 billion jobs bill. In doing so, Brown kicked open what passes these days for the floodgates; after his announcement that he would be voting in favor of cloture on the bill, four other Republican senators joined him, ensuring the bill would not be submarined by the inevitable GOP filibuster. According to a report in Tuesday's Boston Globe:
In one of his first actions in the chamber, the freshman Bay State Republican joined four of his GOP colleagues in deciding to end debate on the $15 billion bill, allowing the Senate to avoid a filibuster and move ahead to a final vote, which requires a simple majority. The tally was 62 to 30.
The support by Brown and other GOP lawmakers could represent a critical psychological break for the Senate, which has been mired in bitter partisan fights over everything from the massive health care package to uncontroversial presidential nominations.
"I think he and I are going to do a lot of music together,'' said Sen. George V. Voinovich, a moderate Ohio Republican who also voted to advance the jobs package.
"I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families,'' Brown said in a statement explaining his vote. "All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have to work together to get our economy back on track. I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington.''
Brown said the bill, which would give a break on Social Security taxes to employers who hire the jobless, is "not perfect.'' But "I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work,'' he said.
Brown's dash across the aisle should come as no surprise, given his political position. He may have won himself the love and adoration of Tea Partiers - the whole Republican Party, really - by humiliating the Democrats with his victory earlier this year, but the fact remains that he is not at all secure in his seat. He has to run again in 2012, and while Massachusetts voters may have embraced him in the face of Coakley's pathetic campaign, they are still Massachusetts voters, and will send him packing if he plays too much Ken to Palin's Barbie.
For the next two years, anyway, the Democrats may have themselves a reliable Republican vote on issues that resonate with those Massachusetts voters, and a jobs bill certainly makes the list. Odds are good this won't be the last time we see Brown reach out to the majority. His already-underway re-election effort will depend on it.
And, P.S., boy o boy, are the right-wingers and Tea Baggers ever mad at him. The "@ScottBrownMA" page on Twitter detonated with furious comments after the announcement that Brown would vote for cloture on the jobs bill. "Why in the Name of God did you further enslave my children & yours yesterday by TRUSTING a Dem Jobs Bill? What were u thinking?" wrote one woman. "You cannot have 'bipartisanship' with progressives who are destroying our republic," wrote another. Still another leveled the strongest online punishment available by stating, "Just unfollowed and blocked @ScottBrownMA like I would a common troll."
Hee.
As this twin-bill feature was unfolding, a voice was heard from the Land Of The Lost that sounded suspiciously like the return of Obama's health care reform push. This time, however, the president and his advisers appeared to be coming with a baseball bat instead of the oft-proffered, never-accepted hand of bipartisanship. According to the Globe:
President Obama launched a final drive for a sweeping health care overhaul yesterday, offering a proposal that the White House hopes will help unite squabbling Democrats and, if necessary, could be used to bypass Republicans altogether.
Representing the first full-fledged health care plan offered by the president, the proposal was part of a two-track White House strategy: demonstrate a willingness to compromise across the aisle at a health care summit set for Thursday, but, at the same time, have a plan ready that might pass the Senate over GOP objections.
The president's plan retains most of the major elements of a bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, including an expansion of insurance to cover 30 million Americans who lack insurance, government subsidies to help them afford it, and a combination of new taxes and spending reductions to cover the $950 billion price tag.
White House officials said yesterday that the president's proposal was crafted to allow it to pass without any Republican votes, if necessary, using a process called "reconciliation,'' which lets the Senate bypass a filibuster and adopt legislation by a simple majority of 51 votes, as long as each provision affects federal revenue.
For many on the Left, "The president's plan retains most of the major elements of a bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve" is code for "Pretty much the same crappy half-a-loaf bill that got stomped to death earlier this winter." That assumption, however, may be upended from another unlikely quarter. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, whose name could be changed to "Harry The Inert" after his anemic leadership of the majority to date, appears poised to use the same reconciliation process the White House is preparing to deploy as a means of passing an actual public option in the health care reform process.
"Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) announced on Friday afternoon that he would work with other Democrats and the White House to pass a public option through reconciliation if that's the legislative path the party chooses," reported the Huffington Post. "This represents a major breakthrough for those Senators and activists who are pushing to get a public option considered via an up or down vote." Passing any sort of actual health care reform, with or without the inclusion of a public option, is still far from certain. It is refreshing, though, to see actual movement on this front, not to mention on the jobs bill and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
And perhaps, just perhaps, this could just be the beginning. According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives has passed some 290 pieces of legislation that have stalled out in the Senate, much to the exasperation of House Democrats. According to a report by The Hill, "The list of stalled bills includes both major and minor legislation: health care reform; climate change; food safety; financial aid for the US Postal Service; a job security act for wounded veterans; a Civil War battlefield preservation act; vision care for children; the naming of a federal courthouse in Iowa after former Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa); a National Historic Park named for President Jimmy Carter; a bill to improve absentee ballot voting; a bill to improve cybersecurity; and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act."
Don't hold your breath, but still, it's interesting. This could be the beginning of something long, long overdue.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
I, for one, will believe it
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 16:01 — Anonymous (not verified)I, for one, will believe it when I see it. However, it is refreshing to see some things, even small things, being done. And this is perhaps the course that the president should have steered to begin with. He tried to be the usher of massive, groundshaking changes all in one year of taking office. And, gas, shock, Americans felt like it was too much too fast. Tackling things little by little is probably a much better bet. PS, why did the author not point out also the sudden move to repeal the ban on women serving on submarines, and the slow but steady progress of the highly touted "Afghan offensive?"
I applaud Scott Brown, but
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 17:11 — Blue Collar (not verified)I applaud Scott Brown, but indeed, don't hold your breath. The gop will make him grovel or I'll happily eat my hat. The Senate, Inc. is like a band of naughty, rich children who smile affectionately when they are bad and then turn around and pick up right where they left off. The club must be broken up.
The only solution is to change the rules and be informed. The current status quo -- test votes, outcome investigations, having it scripted their way -- is simply not feasible. These guys should learn to sink or swim modestly, without outside pressure from influence peddlers. We must take special interest money out of politics. It could be done. There are too many excuses coming out of our broken Congress.
Left = Right wrt real reform
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 17:39 — NIH Epidemiologist's Son (not verified)Left = Right wrt real reform - we have a one party system masquerading as two parties. Neither party will go after the banks or against the war machine - it takes real independents - like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul - these are real statesman. Pitt's use of "Tea Baggers" which ignores the profound difference between the warmongering Sarah Palin/ Glenn Beck group vs the Ron Paul - who has proposed to **close down most of the 700 US military bases worldwide** is one example of his Pitt's one dimensional analysis of politics. Similarly, by framing the health care debate as solely 'for or against' completely ignores the very legitimate concerns of Federal mandates vs state mandates, as well as the fact that none of the plans so loved by Pitt even begin to address the profound conflict of interests that riddle the FDA and corrupt the very science upon which the available (sanctioned) treatment options are based. We have miserably bad health care in this country for the most part, despite it's incredible expense, and passing any of the proposals on the table will give the pharmaceuticals a monopoly - even if they scream and yell as it is being passed - crocodile tears. Pitt needs to do some more homework and open his mind. He should look up Peter Duesberg and discover the incredible corruption surrounding the entire AIDS phenomenon - it is a rich and detailed story that is instructive as to why Federally mandated health care would be catstrophic. If that is not enough, study the swine flu vaccine scandal, now unfolding in Europe (fraud investigations) - but not here in the US - rotten to the core.
Democrats ... Republicans
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 17:55 — torroid (not verified)Democrats ... Republicans ... "across the aisle" ... you and your essays are as much to blame as anything else for the divisiveness in Congress. They are both bad at legislating. The majority of voters will never vote for a Democrat, or never vote for a Republican, no matter. That is a sickness. By always casting things along party lines you just are an enabler. I challenge you to write an article and names names, their positions, and their actions based on the issues with no mention of affiliation.
I share previous comments,
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 17:55 — Anonymous (not verified)I share previous comments, but looks like, finally, thanks God, an intelligent man landed in the mad house of the Republican leadership. Brown may be subjected to heavy duty pressure and blackmail but he should be credited for being very courageous, even as a freshman, to put the needs of the people Massachusetts ahead of low level politics. If this package works he may have a good harvest of votes. By then, the Tea party will be irrelevant to his chances to be reelected. The man seems to have all the vision which his party lacks. The man has cojones.
Please, you call that a
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 18:02 — Anonymous (not verified)Please, you call that a shake-up? How pathetic!!!
When this constitutes a shake-up, one can see clearly how much trouble we are really in.
Ralph Nadar, Ron Paul and
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 18:11 — Anonymous (not verified)Ralph Nadar, Ron Paul and others are right. We live under a one party system, the War Party.
This so-called jobs bill
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 18:22 — Run Fast and Win (not verified)This so-called jobs bill will not create any jobs. Employers hire because they need help meeting demand, not because they get a screwy tax break. Actually I take it back, it may create some jobs for tax lawyers charged with figuring out whether or not it makes sense to try and take advantage of the tax breaks in the bill by some convoluted financial chicanery.
Thanks Mr. Pitt for another
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 18:28 — Josh W (not verified)Thanks Mr. Pitt for another great article. I really want to tank you for adding a audio of you reading it. GREAT feature. A lot of the time I use text to speech applications so I can listen while I do other things but your voice is much better then something computer generated :)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman vote
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 18:45 — GM (not verified)Sen. Joseph Lieberman vote progressive all he likes but he'd be well advised to join the GOP before 2012 unless he is planning on retiring.
Can someone please explain
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 18:48 — Anonymous (not verified)Can someone please explain to me how the senate qualifies as a democratic institution?
It is good that Brown is
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 19:00 — farmertx (not verified)It is good that Brown is aware that he represents the people of MA. And not some special interest group.
And no doubt the R's will try and get him 'back in the fold'.
As far as torroid goes, he has a point, a tad mis-guided, but a point. But reality says that when folks are identified as D or R, it helps to keep things straight by referring to them that way.
Otherwise, it'd be like Nascar saying, one car passed another car. Although in this age of DINO and RINO, it is sorta applicable.
"NO PUBLIC OPTION PUSHED BY
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 19:18 — Anonymous (not verified)"NO PUBLIC OPTION PUSHED BY THE WHITE HOUSE", enough said.
Will, you might be getting
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 19:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Will, you might be getting worked up all for nothing. Of course, I've studied the gigantic beast called neoliberal economics, which has abducted the whole planet, so excuse me for not biting for the "hope" bait again.
Anon. 23:48, someone would
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 21:52 — Curt (not verified)Anon. 23:48, someone would have to lie in order to do that.
As for Brown, is it impossible to imagine a Senator from a fairly well educated "liberal", "progressive" (or whatever label you prefer) state knowing what's going on and not being "bought"? We have Vermont electing Bernie Sanders and he's a reasonably sensible guy, and Mass. will dump him like a hot potato if he plays the standard Republican game. We got 'D' folks that are further right than many 'R's (Lieberman, anyone?)... let's see what happens, and look at the words and deeds instead of the letters next to their name. If you'd done that with Obama you wouldn't all be so disappointed now.
Jeeze talk about killing the
Wed, 02/24/2010 - 22:56 — Anonymous (not verified)Jeeze talk about killing the messenger! The truth is it's not a one party system, it's a system that has been bought and paid for by the billionaires on Wall Street and the MIC which in reality are both one and the same. That is why nothing but bad gets done in the house, senate and White House. And the SCOTUS made that even easier for them(as if they needed more help!)and it is in the courts where the real problems are. Most of the justices on the state level and up have been coerced by the same corporations, the ones who created so many cancer alleys across the country, busted unions and invested in wars. Until corporate lobbying and corporate campaign finance is forever banned, I don't care who we get into office. They will be greeted by the same lobbyists in the tens of thousands who have coerced the rest. I would love to see a Dennis Kucinich in there. But without many other progressives in office he wouldn't stand a chance. Same goes for Ron Paul or Ralph Nader.
And today there was ANTHONY
Thu, 02/25/2010 - 00:28 — marcywrite (not verified)And today there was ANTHONY WEINER!
He said it all. And may he be just the first of many Democrats in both the House and Senate to call out the lying, conniving, machinating, two-bit phony nattering nabobs of just-say-no-ism that are the members of the Republican Party in Congress!
We need more of our "representatives" to stand up as Cong. Weiner did and REPRESENT OUR ANGER!
What "Shakeup"? You
Thu, 02/25/2010 - 02:51 — Duke (not verified)What "Shakeup"? You kidding? You mean a "moderate" Repug who votes for a watered-down Jobs Bill (went from $100 billion to a puny $15 billion, less than the current Wall Street bonus pool or equal to 7 days of MIC spending). I started reading the article thinking that maybe Rahm Emanuel had been forced out after cursing out the liberals who went to talk to him. (Maybe replaced by someone who had not sold out, Bernie Sanders, Kucinich, Howard Dean, Katrina V., Michael Moore). There are 36,000 lobbyists in the pit
of the Capital (yes, that is the spelling intended) ready to reward the corporatists and destroy any opposition. After a year of deception/disappointment, think a challenger for Obama in the primary, start now.
Wow, only 51 votes needed.
Thu, 02/25/2010 - 04:39 — ER (not verified)Wow, only 51 votes needed. Isn't that called democracy? Pitiful republic.
I suppose we'll take hope
Thu, 02/25/2010 - 05:37 — Saje Williams (not verified)I suppose we'll take hope and change where we can get it. Good intentions don't mean a lot when they're carried with a message of bipartisanship that only applies to Democrats when they're in power. Some folks may think this is a convenient excuse for them getting nothing done, but I know that some of them actually WANT to accomplish some progressive things while they have the chance.
The system is rigged against us, and it doesn't help that the most influential (or at least visible) populist group in America right now can't find its ass (or the path to decent government) with a map and a GPS device, but regardless, their populist rhetoric has not gone unnoticed. We can talk about how fractured the right is, but let's not forget that it was allegedly one of our own who referred to progressives as "f-ing retards." We're not doing much better, despite supposedly being in charge.
pffft... fits and starts,
Thu, 02/25/2010 - 18:23 — PK (not verified)pffft... fits and starts, fits and starts. It's just more of the usual theatrics. Lots of promises, lots of "look at me I'm bucking the system!" It'll all end with either 1) stalemate 2)garbage legislation that manages to do the opposite of what it promised. Who cares anymore? We've seen every ploy dozens of times over. This is the system we built, this is the system we maintain and this is the product this system puts out. People who think the system will change probably also think a bus would make a great airplane and then blame the bus when it doesn't fly. And the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As for Lieberman, of course he's all for gays in the military *now* their running out of straight guys to turn into cannon fodder. If anybody in the LGBT community really thinks Lieberman is looking out for them, they're in for some mighty big disappointment.
Idiots. Every single one of
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 10:49 — Anonymous (not verified)Idiots. Every single one of them. Republicans, Democrats. Most of them haven't worked at a real job for decades so they know absolutely nothing about creating them. These guys suffer from the same delusions as our intelligence agencies, which seem to confuse the next great con job with "intelligence operations". A con does not equal intelligence, or jobs, or healthcare reform.